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

Kumioko and AWB access

I have temporarily removed AWB access from Kumioko (talk · contribs) for persistent violations of the AWB rules of use, specifically rules 3 and 4. Kumioko has been on a campaign of making trivial edits to article talk pages, under the guise of "cleaning" them. I am involved in this in an administrative capacity.

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_banner_tagging about whether there is a requirement to avoid redirects for talk page banners. The first few comments in the thread show several responses that there is no such requirement. Someone even pointed out that when this was proposed as a requriement, it failed to reach consensus (Wikipedia:Banner standardisation). Kumioko recently posted a note in the discussion there that effectively says, "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway".[1]

Because that completely ignores the actual discussion in the thread, I intervened in an administrative capacity, pointing out on that page that there is no consensus for a bot to do that, and reminding Kumioko on his/her talk page to follow the AWB rules. Since then, Kumioko has continued to make the same sorts of edits wile giving various "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" explanation. For example, [2]. I specifically warned Kumioko today that I would disable his/her AWB access if the same edits continued. Unfortunately, Kumioko has refused to stop and find consensus, which is an abuse of AWB.

This sort of editing has previously gone before ArbCom in the Date Delinking RFARB. ArbCom made this finding [3]:

"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."

Note that this is not about AWB in general. The problem is only Kumioko using AWB to make large-scale sequences of edits to enforce his/her personal opinion as a fait accompli while knowing there is not a general consensus behind it. Removing AWB access is a very mild, targeted remedy to pause the edits to allow discussion to take place. The best resolution here would be for Kumioko to agree to follow the AWB rules, at which point his/her AWB access should be restored promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several items identified above so I will attempt to answer each in turn.

• I want to state that I do not believe what I was doing was in violation of 3 or 4 and I believe CBM's actions of removing my AWB access is an abuse of his admin powers. Additionally his writeup above is totally POV and comepletely misrepresents what was actually said.
  • Rule 3 states "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding". There is noting controversial about removing deprecated or unused parameters. The projects themselves say they shouldnt be there if not being used. They are only there because some editor added them needlessly.
  • Rule 4 states "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." Nothing in this covers the edits I was doing. Therefore no violation.
• I asked CBM repeatedly to tell me where I cannot use AWB to delete deprecated parameters and unneeded, unused and unwanted parameters from banners when the templates and the projects both state that if they are not used they should not be there. Removing these makes the banner parameters that are being used easier to read and identify, it reduces the page size (frequently more than 1000 bytes), it speeds rendering times, etc.
• I didn't tell CBM to "Sod off". After leaving threats on my talk page I said was 1 editor did not warrant a lack of consensus and if he had a problem with my edits he should open up a discussion at the village pump. I even told him that if the consensus was that removing these parameters was a minor edit that I would stop and we could update the AWB rules accordingly. I did tell him that I wasn't going to stop because one editor told me too.
• The ongoing discussions related to the standardization of Wikiproject banners and only loosely relates here. I only "standardize" the talk page banners when doing other things of more significance.
• CBM did not intervene in a an admin capacity in fact his comments were very POV relating to his personal feelings that these were minor edits.
• This action and the Date delinking action are completely unrelated and there is zero correlation to them.
• Large scale is defined as about ten today, only a few over the past week and in fact it has taken me more than a month to clean up about 1800 a few at a time. I am now down to 347.

I recommend restoring my AWB rights immediately and instructing CBM to next time open up a discussion if he disagrees with an editor over a personal feeling of what constitutes a minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an open discussion at the WikiProject Council, which you have decided to ignore by continuing to do the edits. The comment that can be summarized as "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway"[4]was in that thread, not to me. 1800 edits certainly seems like a large number to me; in this edit [5] you said is was 2200 edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No the discussion is completely unrelated and as a seasoned editor you should be able to see that. Just because I did 4500 edits this month doesn't mean I have done anything wrong. In fact it means I have been doing something right. Contributing to WP. Honestly though I think you acted completely out of line but well see what everyone else thinks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what the downside to bypassing the redirects is. I could understand there being no requirement that we bypass redirects in talk page headers, but what's the downside if someone wants to spend their time/energy doing it? "We are not required to do X" is not the same as "doing X is not permitted". --B (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the practical value of this work, for the reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of making these edits was proposed at Wikipedia:Banner standardisation and failed to become a guideline. Several people in the thread at the WikiProject Council again objected to the idea, but Kumioko seems to have decided to just ignore them and do it anyway. Using AWB to force your opinion onto articles is a violation of the AWB rules; it bypasses the consensus-building process. Also, the AWB rules generally prohibit making trivial edits, such as edits that have no effect on the rendered page. These edits are perceived as clogging watchlists with edits that don't actually change the pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me understand. Kumioko's current work consists of 3 parts:

• Assessing in WPUS
• Bypassing redirects
• Cleaning parameters

First part is uncontroversial. The third seems to have some benefits as noted above. The discussion on Wikipedia Council is about the second part and not the third. Many bots do the second and third part while doing tasks similar to the first one. What is exactly the problem?

• The second part in general?
• That the second part is done without the first part? (This is my concern)

And a small comment: If we do more than 300 posts on this one then it's not worth. Kumioko was about to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the second. It is a controversial change, evidenced by the opposition to Banner standardization from becoming a guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we OK, if he keeps doing 1 and 3 till we end to some consensus with 2? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If "cleaning parameters" means removing unused parameters that have no effect on the rendered output, that's not permitted by AWB rule #4, since it's a trivial edit. In particular, there's no need to clean out "nested=yes" with AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Human editors using AWB are expected to manually review every edit and avoid saving the ones that only do (2). I reminded Kumioko about that yesterday, and he/she claimed at first that they were errors. But today it's the same pattern of trivial edits, which makes it clear that they are being intentionally saved. AWB is not a tool for imposing decisions on the community; it's useful for implementing things that do have consensus. The thing that made me think that some admin action is needed is the combination of the pattern of edits is combined with the posts to the WikiProject council where Kumioko essentially tells everyone he/she will ignore them and just keep making the edits. That sort of bad behavior is what led to the date delinking RFARB; the lesson from that is the people need to stop sooner, rather than later, when others object to large-scale edit patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not always correct. In Infobox character we made a tracking category to detect pages with many unused parameters because they slow down page rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of deja vu. There was some guy some weeks back who was making a bunch of edits that did nothing except take some spaces out of infoboxes. No benefit to anyone. How much would it be slowed down, assuming you're not on 2400 baud dialup or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

@M: You should really get a bot approval to do that sort of thing, because they otherwise that sort of trivial edit isn't permitted for AWB. The existence of AWB doesn't eliminate the need for many tasks to go through the bot approvals group, particularly when the tasks are meant to be large-scale and not require actual human discretion.

If there is actually a slow-down with unused parameters, it should be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed in Mediawiki. Many WikiProjects intentionally pre-include blank parameters to fill in later, and AWB users shouldn't go around removing those unless the specific WikiProject asks for it, since they were intentionally included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We have to ask WikiProject Aviation what exactly they want to be done with the unused parameters. I can only talk about WikiProject Biography on that matter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if they want to get rid of them they they should get a bot or AWB op to do it, nobody can complain too much about that. The other change that Kukiomo seemed to be making was to remove the nested=yes parameter. But if it has no effect any more, there's no need to go through and remove it (since it already has no effect). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the nested too. I wonder how many are left. I can't perform a database scan for talk pages. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for a little while. Like I indicated originally, I have no objections to Kukiomo's AWB access being restored once the issue at hand is resolved, or even sooner if he/she agrees to stop these "cleanup" edits. I'll check on back this thread here in a few hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply To B - Most of the opposition stems from 1) they don't think its necessary, 2) they believe it to be a waste of time or 3) they just prefer the other naming convention and dont really care if its harder for non-experienced editors and don't care that from a programming perspective it requires over 1000 lines of code to account for all the variations of wikiprojects (without the WikiProject X convention) rather than just one with all the banners saying WikiProject X.

• Reply To Baseball Bugs - From the readers point of view that question frankly depends on the edit. I have a list of about 2000 edits give or take a few plus whats in the Find and replace fields on my AWB. Basically though it falls into one of the following; It simplifies what the reader sees, it reduces the page size by eliminating uneeded items, I rearrange the order of things according to talk page layout rules, I fix broken parameter values such as - instead of =, clas instead of class, add equals between certain parameters and their value if its missing, etc. In my opinion the problem that CBM has is with standardizing the talk page banners and removing deprecated and uneeded parameters from talk page templates. He does not feel that removing 1000 characters of empty parameters constitutes a significant enough edit to use AWB. I think that is basically it but I don't want to speak for him and he clarified his comments above. Just to clarify another thing. I am not eliminating all empty parameters, just certain ones. [6] is one example of the type of edit he is opposed too and shows what this is all about. Feel free to stroll through my contributions for more though.

• Reply to Magioloditis - I cannot do many of the edits from 1 and 3 because they assume that the naming convention is WikiProject X. Others rely on those so whats left may not work correctly.

• Reply to CBM - Yes you identified a couple of errors and I admitted I was not perfect and that I do occasionally make mistakes. My mistakes equate to trivial edits so no harm no foul. I am not harming the articles if I do 1 or 2 out of 4000 edits that are trivial. And I still maintain that most of the edits you mention are not trivial. Trivial are things like standardizing redirects, not deleting parameters. There was and is no need for admin action. I still maintain that it was inappropriate and you should have opened a discussion to see if there was more than 1 (you) editor who had a problem with it. I also want to clarify you comment about a large scale edit pattern. You make this sound as though I was doing massive numbers of inappropriate edits but you still IMO have not shown that deleting parameters is trivial other than vaguely written rules of AWB use. I DID NOT do anything that was mentioned as a violation of AWB.

• Regarding to the cleaning of parameters - {{MILHIST}} and {{WikiProject Aviation}} both state "To avoid needlessly cluttering up talk pages, it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template." on the template documentation so IMO there is no need to "Get consensus" because consensus is implied by the statement from the projects. Additionally there is no need to have unneeded and deprecated parameters on the talk pages for the reasons already discussed above. Aside from claims that these edits are not allowed I disagree that these are minor edits (with the exception of standardizing the talk page banners). There is no need to force me to do these changes manually when I have a tool like AWB available to use. And as for these parameters not changing anything on the rendering of the page. Of course not they are garbage. Just like if I added a parameter to the template for | it would not display.

• regarding the bot comment - I tried that avenue but after about 6 weeks I withdrew it in frustration. In six weeks I was never even asked to run a test.

• AWB access - at this point I am not really concerned with AWB access. I may take a brake from WP for a while or I may continue editing. I haven't really decided. It seems lately that too many editors just want to debate every change rather than accept that people are trying to make WP better. I can't even make an edit without someone complaining about my edit summery, debating on whether its minor, drowning me in disucssions about why I would try and restart WikiProject United States and how dare I. All the drama is burning me out from wanting to contribute at all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight. You were wise enough to know you needed BOT approval, you submitted a request, it was never even approved for testing, so you said "fukkit, I'm doing it anyway?" Can I get a "WTF"?(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's solve first the "remove empty parameters" part where I think Kumioko is right. WPMILHIST, WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Biography state explicitly that the values should be yes or not exist (exception is the |living= in WPBiography). Just in case I left a note in Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Unused.2Fempty_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the milhist template, removing empty B-Class assessment parameters can be inconvenient for editors that come along later to assess the article. Our project how-to guide on using the template recommends including them as placeholders when articles are tagged for the project, and there are some additional commented instructions on how to assess included in the template that would be unhelpfully removed along with the blank parameters. I see no problem with removing other empty parameters though. EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bwilkins - To clarify your comment I never thought I needed a bot and if you read my comments on the bot approval page you can see that in more detail. I submitted it only as a convenience and as a courtesy so I could use the bot flag due to the large scale of tagging and a passing comment (not really even a complaint) by another editor. That tagging is largely done now though because the bot group never stated I had to stop I kept on rolling and finished the run. The bot as requested was to allow me to do some WikiProject tagging and would have allowed the edits mentioned above to be done at the same time. I would have had to request an additional allowance to do these edits exclusively.

Reply to EyeSerene - The B class parameters are not included in the removal. Only empty or = no taskforce parameters or parameters like Portal, peer review, A class review and the like if = blank or no. Never living, importance, class, bclass checklists or other parameters where having no is meaningful. Every parameter I delete is specifically identified individually. The full list is [User:Kumioko/Talkpage|here] but here is 1 example

ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"\|[ ]*peer\-review[ ]*=\s*\r*([\|}{<\n])", "$1", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);. This removes the peer review parameter if = blank.

Since the B Class issue was mentioned though I personally feel that the B class checklist should only be on Start and B class articles. If an Articles is a stub then the B-Class checklist info is self explanatory and the article usually contains no's across the board filling up the checklist categories and distracting from the meaningful ones. If the article is GA or above the status itself indicates a B-Class yes so again its implied and IMO unneeded. but that's a different conversation and I wasn't removing any of those with the logic.

The provided list on my subpage also gives an idea of how much coding is involved if you want to account for every project (I am missing a few and add them as they are found) and their redirects rather than being able to program simply WikiProject foo. Adding that much code makes the program bigger, it makes it run slower and process slower because it has a lot more logic to look through and its way harder to program and maintain. --Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First result of the discussion as I understand it. Kumioko:

• Assessing in WPUS is a plausible task. While doing this you can:
  • Clean empty parameters as you do
  • Bypass redirects unless the wikiproject disagrees. Bots have been approved to do that as secondary task.
• If you are planning to mass clean empty parameters you better first fill a BRFA. It's very likely you 'll get approval since many projects recommend deletion of empty parameters. (|nested= must have less than 100 transclusions left). I will support it since it's in the manuals.
• Bypassing redirects as a sole task won't have the same fate.

I hope Carl agrees with my conclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's pretty much what I have been doing since I usually did not solely fix redirects (I made a couple accidental saves but nothing consistent) but could you clarify what "mass clean" means for the sake of the BRFA? Also in regards to the cleaning of the empty parameters whats the point of getting a bot for less than 1000 entries? If its just so the edits won't appear on watchlists then I already have them set to minor so they won't show up anyway on the few people who are actually watching these talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just came back to write the same thing. If we are talking about some hundreds and with your edit rate then I would say just go and do them. The task of removing empty parameters from these specific templaates+WPBS is uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which specific templates are we talking about? EyeSerene asked for the parameters in MILHIST to be kept. Edits like [7] [8] look like trivial edits to me - do they change the rendered article in any way? "Cleaning up" is not on its own a justification for a bot job. This is the problem I posted about originally here. It's one thing for a project to tell its own members that they can remove the "n" parameters; it's another thing to do it with a bot, and yet another thing to do it with AWB.

For the WPUS assessments, if the actual assessment is changed, that's should be fine. If not, then that isn't a justification to save the edit. It was actually very difficult for me to tell what the justifications was, with an edit summary like "Cleanup talk page templates, set importance, formatting template/section order &general fixes". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the comments a little closer CBM. Eye Serene asked for the B class checklist parameters to stay which I have never touched. Lets clarify that just because CBM deems them trivial does not make it so. I personally do not think that removing garbage parameters to be trivial and against the AWB rules simply because it doesn't render any difference on the page. Also CBM that is not what you posted about. You posted about removing my access from AWB after you refused to open a discussion as I requested. As for the assessments I am pretty much done doing the mass assessment for WPUS which others had a problem with. So it seems no matter what I do it upsets someone which is why I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion. This is Wikipedia there are always some editor who takes exception to every change and if we stop editing every time well never be able to accomplish anything. Your whole argument CBM is just smoke and is a complete waste of everyones time. But you did accomplish one thing which was to divert enough of my time into discussions that I can't actually edit any articles and has given me just one more reason why I shouldn't edit. Knowone wants an editor who does thousands of edits a day. They want a quite editor who edits once or twice and day, who doesn't make too many articles appear on watch lists, who doesn't disturb the delicate balance of editors to articles. Its really a shame that the editors who do the most edits are the ones who get spit on the most. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was already ongoing at the WikiProject Council. Comments such as "I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion." are exactly the problem, and one reason why I thought it was important to discontinue your AWB access temporarily. In this case, more than one editor has objected. I quoted above from an Arbcom resolution that editors who make widespread edits are expected to stop and get consensus when disagreements arise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, as a bot operator, the onus is on you to show that your edits have consensus, or to resolve issues with someone who raises an objection to your edits. So far, you've done neither (and as this discussion indicates, there is no consensus on banner standardization, regardless of your protestations that there should be one), and your attitude that you will continue to ignore complaints because they must be wrong is what gets people under ArbCom restrictions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CBM - Thats only partially true about the discussion CBM. The discussion at the WikiProject Council deals soley with the cleanup of WikiProject banners, specifically when done as a standalone edit which I agree should be avoided. The issue here is whether removing 1000 characters of unneeded garbage is a trivial edit as you suggest and that I told you needed to be discussed for agreement with others because I do not agree with that assessment or if it constitutes a significant enough edit to do as its own edit and at the same time do the WikiProject banner fixes. The 2 discussions are only loosely connected and its really confusing the issue at hand. You removing my AWB access before discussing them was really only a poor way of stopping an editor from doing something that YOU personally did not agree with. It didn't violate a policy and it wasn't part of an ongoing discussion. You just didn't like it and thats why I believe it was an abuse of admin powers.

Reply to Titoxd - Your comments about my attitude are really out of place here tito. First lets clarify that I do not, nor have I ever ran a bot. I use AWB which is an application that can be used by a bot but I do not have the bot flag so its semiautomatic meaning I have to manually hit enter every time I save. I use AWB because it allows me to do a large number of changes to an article at one time rather than having to manually go through the whole thing. I can essentially built the calculation once and AWB will change it as it finds it. If you really intend for all the users of AWB to be required to get a BRFA in order to use the application (which is a really stupid idea I do not advocate) then I suggest you right it up and try and get consensus on that.

The primary issue of consensus is that I have not, nor has anyone proved that I have, violated policy in deleting garbage fields other than to give a vague statement of the AWB rules 3 and 4 that DO NOT state that these edits are not allowed. In regards to the banner standardization there was consensus, all of the projects templates except for t3 or 4 were changed to the standard (with no complaints except for those that are not changed). So the consensus is there. Just because 1 or 2 editors of one project didn't like the change didn't mean that it didn't get consensus from the project. WikiProject United States has about 200 members and if 150 voted for it and 4 voted against it your comment implies there is no consensus when there actually was. As I stated at the WikiCouncil discussion. If an editor does not like the naming convention they should bring it up for discussion on the talk page of the project affected. Also explaining that they would not be supported by logic in certain apps like AWB if they decided to change back. The right is with the project in what they name the banner though and I have always supported that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone made a decision on this yet? I would like to know if anyone has decided on whether the decision to remove my access was acceptable or not since I never broke any rules except for the perception presented by CBM. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

About "unusued" parameters: I think it's important to keep |class= |importance= present even when empty, because it encourages people to fill in the blanks. And I would very much prefer that nobody bypassed the widely used {{WPMED}} in favor of any of the other available options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my frustation buyt I have already stated this several times. But Again, I did not, nor do I intend to delete class or importance. I did have some of the priorities and work groups from WP Biography if they were Equal to no. I also did not delete living from Biography or any other parameter where no actually means something. Just task forces or fields such as portal links, peer review or A-class Review. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are you still changing the spacing around headers? [9] I thought you were going to stop doing this. –xeno^talk 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Wikipedia serves store any version so it doesn't save disc space. In fact in increases it since the diff is bigger. The same happens to rendering time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to Xeno I thought that only applied to the bot not to my edits in general. In reply to Magioladitis it only increases it for that save. In every subsequent save of the article the size is reduced because those extra spaces aren't there progressively reducing the amount of space needed for the historical copies of the article. In the example given by Xeno thats 58 characters less for each time the talk page is saved. Times that by a modest 5 historical saves and times that by 3, 500, 000 articles. Yes not all talk pages are that long but if you include the main space articles in that then thats a lot of space saved over time. Plus it makes it easier to read without a bunch of extra spaces around everything. Although I admit that last part might be arguable for some. If that little edit is all thats holding this completely frivolous action back then Ill stop doing those.

Honestly I am reconsidering doing many edits anymore so its likely I won't need AWB anymore anyway. All I am trying to do is make things better and easier but all I get is sucked into frivolous discussions like this because one respected editor disagreed with an edit and rather than DO THE RIGHT THING and open a discussion he revokes my AWB rights. Thats is the real issue here. This whole issue should have been dismissed upon suubmission and seen as the sham it is with my AWB access restored but instead its drawing out for days in lengthy discussion and every edit of mine is being scrutinized. Of course if you dig enough your going to find things. Im not perfect and never claimned to be but I dare say that 99% of my 220, 000+ edits have made the pedia better including the removal of garbage charcacters that do abolutely nothing for a banner but take up space on the talk page and make it confusing to see whats actually going on. CBM does a lot of high end things but he does not do very many edits. 10 - 20 a day at most. Whereas I usually do upwards of 1000 varying from talkpages, regular pages, categories, templates, stuff for deletion or promotion, WikiProject US and others, etc. CBM might be an admin and a respected editor but he is not above reproach and I beleive I have earned just as much respect as he has. This whole submission and revokation of my AWB rights has really pissed me off and again is causing me to reconsider whether I wnt to continue to participate in this nonsense.

Ill keep watching the page but I think at this point I have answered all the questions and comments and there is no further need to continue to respond to these allegations that I violated a nonexistent policy. You guys let me know what you decide. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, editor is forum shopping expressed concerns at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Inappropriate_ANI_against_me,I've suggested the discussion remain here. Gerardw (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just more evidence of Kumioko's unfamiliarity with our usual practices and policies; I don't think it was an attempt to do anything wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I've rephrased my comment.Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No actually I understand them perfectly well I just think that mixing in a complaint about your your innapropriate etiquette in dealing with the problem is a different matter from what you submitted me to ANI for and felt that was the better venue for such a complaint. That you beleive that this venue is a better place for complaints about the way you handled the situation is frankly surprising. Especially given the length this thread has become. You could have handled this situation much differently. All you had to do was open a discussion to see if there was agreement that was what the AWB rules of use said since they say absolutely nothing about the rendering of a page. Maybe I am wrong on my interpretation of the rules but if I am its only because the rules are vague and poorly written and left open to interpretation. I also find it rather amusing that you say that I don't understand the rules seeing a how I have 220, 000 edits and have been around for several years I find that a rather poor argument. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting further comment about what is a minor edit

Although I completely disagree with this ANI against me and in CBM's removal of my AWB rights I want to ask for further comment on the actions I am Accused of. CBM believes that edits like this one where I removed over 1000 characters of garbage is constitutes a minor and trivial edit which I disagree with. From a fundamental standpoint, whether it changes the rendering of the page or not adding or removing this much data cannot constitute a minor edit. I am requesting additional comment from others on whether this constitutes a minor edit or not. Based on the determination I will then suggest to update the AWB rules of use as appropriate so others won't fall into the same gray area trap as I did and have their AWB access revoked when some editor decides on their own volition that an edit was against a policy when it doesn't state so clearly. Especially when other places state that the data should not be there. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One rule of thumb is that any edit that has no effect at all on the rendered page is a trivial edit. Other edits may or may not be trivial, but this is a "bright-line" rule of thumb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok my first point to that is: Where is that stated except in your thoughts? Second, A rule of thumb is a guideline not a law from which there is no debate. Normally that statement is perhaps true but in this case it benefits the articles to remove all this garbage. Now I know what your feelings are I would like to hear from others. If the result is that doing this sort of edit is against the rules then we can update the AWB rules of use so that others will not fall into the same gray area trap I did and have some administrator that decides to revoke their access rather than do the right thing and bring it up for discussion first when 2 editors disagree. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue was not that there was a grey area. Rich Farmbrough received an edit restriction for making such edits; the principle is pretty clear. If you had simply stopped editing to find out, someone else (besides me) could have explained it to you. The fundamental problem with your editing, which you still have not acknowledged, was that you were insisting on doing whatever you wanted regardless whether other people objected, as they did on the WikiProject Council page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong to call a non-trivial edit trivial. It's not a problem to call a trivial edit non-trivial. So err on the side of calling it non-trivial, and under no circumstances should anyone be dinged for failing to click the "trivial" check box - even it it's habitual. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you list me on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely was not forum shopping. This ANI was started by CBM against me and the comment below here is addressing clarification of how CBM determined it to be a minor edit. The Wikiqutte alert was submitted by me on my perception that CBM acted innappropriately in his actions towards me. Now if knowone cares about how CBM acted then fine close it and I'll just chock ut up as one admin protecting another. But if you want to take a serious matter seriously then look into it and make your own judgements. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rklawton: the question is not about "minor" edits as in that checkbox when you edit. In the context of AWB, there is a specific concept of a "trivial edit", which users are not supposed to make with AWB. Edits that don't actually change the rendered page are one type of trivial edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The point that needs to be clarified and that you still fail to produce is where is that stated? Its not, not in the AWB rules of use, not in the MOS, knowhere and thus your removal of my AWB rights was a breach of policy. Other than a gray passage that says minor edits. I still contend that I have done nothing wrong and just the virtue of not rendering a change to the article does not make it a minor edit. Maybe that was agreed to in secret before but now its out in the clear and it needs to be discussed and fixed and we clarify what a minor edit means because regardless of its rendering removing 1000 characters from and article is not minor. 10 maybe but not 1000. Maybe the group determines that it is a minor edit but since the can of worms is opened now we need to spill them all out and get everyone in the clear and when its clear what a minor edit is then we can update AWB so that the thousands of daily edits currently being done to fix all these problems will stop and and we can make everyone do the manually. Because that certainly will be better for WP than using an automated or Semiautomated tool like AWB to fix these problems. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you felt that the AWB rules weren't clear, the right thing would have been to stop to ask about it (e.g you could have asked Magioladis). The right thing was not to continue doing the same thing after being reminded about the rules. The reason I removed your AWB access was a combination of several factors. You were not only making trivial edits, you were simultaneously changing WikiProject banner redirects, and at the very same time you were engaged in a discussion at the WikiProject Council in which there was clearly not a consensus that what you were doing was appropriate. AWB access is restricted for a reason: editors using AWB are expected to adhere to higher standards than editors working completely by hand. That includes not fixing "problems" with AWB if you know that there is no consensus that they are actually a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation is completely wrong and misrepresents the issue here. First you revoked my access because I told you that I wan't going to stop editing because 1 editor didn't like it and you didn't want to take the time to start a discussion about it. Instead you used your admin powers to revoke my access and open this here at ANI, which is destroying my reputation in WP with this outragous allegation that I violated an editing policy. I just wish that someone would actually take the time to address that. In contrary to your statement about my understanding of the AWB rules I believe that are perfectly clear. I disagree with your definition of a minor edit and mean to clarify it before you revoke some other editors rights like you did to me. There are lots of editors doing good edits like this and they should be allowed to continue to contribute. I could have done over 1000 edits by now but instead I have to deal with this stupidity. The redirects are minor edits, but I only do them when I do something more significant like removing the garbage. The issue at WPCouncil is regarding the standardizaton of the wikiproject banners that only a couple of editors had a problem with and as I stated there if a project decides they don't like it fine. But 1 editor does not have the right to decide for that project. As I told them they need to take it to the project for discussion because all the projects except for 3 have been ok with this for months. There is a consensus to do these edits even if you don't like it. If you don't understand the AWB rules or do not think there is a consensus for the changes then I say again you need to bring them up for discussion. Not revoke my AWB access because you personally don't understand the AWB rules of use or don't like an edit that I have made. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an informal principle called WP:BOLD that says if you think some edit is a good idea, then go ahead and make it, since it can easily be undone if it turns out to be a mistake. That's reasonable in the context of normal, manual editing that affects a single page and can be undone with one click. It does NOT apply to bot edits, AWB edits, or large mass-editing campaigns across dozens or 100's of pages (even if done manually). The only thing that can really undo an ill-advised AWB or bot operation is often a custom-written bot, which burns the time and energy of skilled developers, so the "easy to undo" justification is destroyed. Or if the issue is diff noise from trivial edits, it can't be undone at all. So, automated editing operations on any scale should only be done if they solve a problem that has already been recognized by other users. Anyway, I think Kumioko is overreacting a bit in general, regardless of who is "right". 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB rules of use

Users of AWB should be aware of, understand, and respect, AWB rules of use. They are:

1. Check every edit before you save it. Make sure you understand the text and have NOT changed the meaning.
2. Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
3. Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding.
4. Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.
5. Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices.

Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled.

Rule 3 combined with Rule 4 seems to indicate fairly clearly that the onus is on an editor to demonstrate that the edits they wish to make have community support, and are worth doing on a large scale using AWB. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So removing parameters when the manual says so isn't controversial, has community support and it's a non-trivial task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that it has no effect on the rendered page, just removing empty parameters (or non-empty parameters that have the value "N") is a trivial edit. As a side point, people need to be very hesitant to use template documentation as a justification for doing something; template docs can be very wrong.

However, the issue of removing parameters was just one of several factors that led to me temporarily removing Kumioko's AWB access. Kumioko was using these trivial edits as a justification to make other trivial edits to bypass WikiProject banner redirects. But at the same time Kumioko was engaged in a discussion on the WikiProject Council page where people were complaining about the redirects being bypassed. And, simultaneously, Kumioko was telling these people that he/she would continue doing what he/she wanted, regardless what consensus was. That combination of factors was the issue here, and I was looking at all of them rather than just one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK since the AWB rules of use are right above. Show me where it says anywhere in there the statement "has no effect on the rendered page" or that "non-empty parameters that have the value "N" is a trivial edit". I think I missed them! Oh right, you can't because there not there.

You are right that template documentation can be wrong. Since I have been here for several years with literally hundreds of thousands of edits under my belt I can say without hesitation this is not one of those times and that argument in this case is without merit and I think even you know you are reaching by even bringing it up now to support your bogus allegations.

I did these NON TRIVIAL edits because they needed doing and at the same time yes I did the redirect cleanup because they do have concensus. Do you really expect an editor to stop making an edit because one or 2 editors don't like it. Do you really want us to stop making every edit that has consensus whenever there is a discussion about it. The discussion on the WikiProjec Council page doesn't even begin to ask or address that the WikiProject redirect changes should stop and if it did that page is not the right venue anyway. It should occur on the WikiProject talk page of the project that an editor has a problem with or something like the village pump where its in the open and many editors watch. One editor Does not speak for the entire project. Not the WikiProject Council page that few even know exists. It is a discussion about the merits of doing it because those that have a problem with itCOULD NOT get a consensus or support anywhere else on their views that the change s bad. Its basically forumshopping.

I told you if YOU had a problem with my edits that you should start a discussion about it but no you revoked my access and drowned me in discussions because you didn't agree throwing out there that you were an admin. You sir are out of line.

Now because of you I have this ANI on my record ruining my reputation on WP because you didn't want to do the right thing and follow the rules. But so far knowone cares about that. All they think is that I violated some rule and got this ANI for it when in fact this ANI was opened erroneously by you because you didn't agree with an edit I was doing citing a policy that doesn't even mention the argument that is your reason for the access removal.

It may be a minor edit but at least I am doing edits, a lot of them that even if they turn out to be trivial make the article and its talk page a little better each time. As the old addage says "if you watch the penny's the dollars will mind themselves". The same goes for articles. Even small edits if done progressively over time improves and has a longterm effect on the improvement of the article. After doing a little research I found that I have done as many edits this month alone as you have done Since May 2010 to Current combined. In December alone I did almost as many as you have done since you started in 2006 so maybe you are just upset that I am making you look bad because I have done more edits. I don't know and I really don't care but this needs to stop because the articles are suffering because of this petty baseless action. I freely admit I have made mistakes. I have made edits in the past that were wrong and when I did I fixed them (if someone didn't beat me to it) but this is not one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rule #4 includes edits that have no effect on the rendered page; this led to an editing restriction for Rich Farmbrough, and would lead to one for you if you were to continue that type of edit. If no one editor can speak for a project, that includes you. AWB is only intended for non-controversial tasks; if people disagree with some AWB edits the AWB user needs to stop and resolve the issue with discussion. It's not up to other people to convince the AWB user that they have to stop. See the quote from ArbCom in the orignal post at the top of this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the intent of rule #4 then it should say that. Which it does not and the reason it does not is because there has never been any open discussion I know of that determined it. It may have been a gentlmens agreement between you and others I don't know but what I do know is that the definition you are touting is not what the rules say.

Also that is NOT why Rich got an editing restriction. That restriction was much more than I have the time to get into and which I believe had some merits but has since turned into one or 2 users Wikistalking him around checking every edit until they find something.

As for the non-controversial edits statement. There is an editor on WP that will debate and disagree with just about anything. Some don't like the typo fixes, some don't like the persondata logic, some just flat out don't like AWB or any bots, etc. Would you really hold the point that know matter what the merits of the disagreement that the AWB operator must instantly stop and dive into a long discussion. I hope not because if that's the case then nothing will ever get done and we may as well turn of the lights, Shut off the servers and call the project a failure. Its not a matter of convincing the AWB user its a matter of what consensus is. I could start a debate about the merits of using server resources for bots like the ones you run that do not render any changes to the articles. Since we are building an encyclopedia it could be argued that such bots really only serve the purpose of satisfying curiousity and don't really contribute anything. I don't agree with that but it could be argued. Wouldn't that put them into the trivial and minor edit category as you have described them? Would that mean that you would then have to immediately stop what you are doing until our debate concluded? No, because there would be no merit to the argument just as there is no merit to your argument that removing garbage from an article is a minor edit regardless of the number bytes simply because it doesn't render anything to the page. How about this. Although I largely agree with rule 4 it clearly needs to be clarified so it doesn't continue to be used as a bludgeon. I agree that individually the minor edits should be avoided but I think our servers are powerful enough at this point that we can relax them slightly were multiple minor edits are being done at one time. How about we change rule 4 slightly to clarify what a minor edit is by adding a sentence of clarification. Here is the wording I propose to add to the end of rule 4. It has been mentioned to me that my grammer is not the best so feel free to reword it if you like. I highlighted the addition in bold:

• Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as individual changes that only add or remove some white space, move a stub tag, convert some HTML to Unicode, remove underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. However, if the edit changes the article size by more than 25 bytes (increase or decrease) or if the change contains more than three edits perceived to be minor at one time (not including removing white space or removing underlines), then it can be considered to be more than a minor edit. (i.e., if the edit moves a stub tag, fixes some HTML coding or removes deprecated, unused or unneeded template fields).'

I admit it makes the rule longer but it retains the same effect while removing much of the gray area and allows for us to fix some of the "minor" problems that have persisted for so long because of the argument that were going to clog a watchlist (the servers are really not an issue. They can handle millions of changes an hour). I agree that individually these changes should not be done but if there are multiple minor things on the article then it could have a substantial impact on how the article is perceived by the reader. For example look at this version and then look at this version. It has a huge section of blank space, underlines, an out of place stub and if you view it you'll see the garbage I added to the template as an example. Individually they don't amount to much but together they significantly change the article and all are minor edits and are currently not allowed by the current rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: it may or may not be helpful to revise policy or AWB rules, but this is not the place to discuss it. The only real issue for ANI seems to be the question of what is required for Kumioko's AWB access to be restored. CBM might be best placed to state clearly (as a proposal for Kumioko and/or the community) what AWB use commitments Kumioko should make. Further discussion can then take place elsewhere about policy/rules and specific content issues in relation to what Kumioko would like to do. Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually what should happen is for my access to be restored because CBM should not have removed it in the first place because the rules he is citing that I violated do not exist!. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232: I think that the main point is that Kumioko needs to stop editing when people disagree with his edits. That goes a long way, because other people can always point out if he is violating the AWB rules. Kumioko also needs to cease from making trivial edits - every non-bot edit made with AWB is already required to be manually inspected, so it's easy to just not save them.

If any other admin is satisfied from Kumioko's statements that he will follow the AWB rules going forward, don't wait for me, you can restore his access right away. I have said from the beginning it was only intended to be a temporary removal. However, at the moment, Kumioko seems to be ignoring the conversation here, and denying that his edits violate the usual standards for AWB. So I am not yet comfortable restoring the access myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The main point is still and has always been that I Never violated any rules. The rule does not say what you say it does. Anyone can clearly see that. Now drop this stupidity and restore my access. In fact, At this point I really don't care if you restore my AWB rights because this ANI has shown me that my help isn't particularly wanted. If I am the only one that can see that CBM acted improperly then clearly knowone has read the rules and simply views me as any other nuisance editor out running amok. Who really cares about the thousands of edits that I would do to help the encyclopedia so I may as well invest my time elsewhere. Between the nightmare I went through trying to get WPUS started again and now this, Wikipedia just isn't fun anymore. I don't care to participate in discussions and drama unlike some. I want to build an Encyclopedia and make information available to all. Its a lost cause at this point I fear so keep the access and I'll just practice my french and get something useful out of my time. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You know buddy, You might want to take a few days off. A wikibraek so to speak. No reason to get so bent out of shape over what should be a fun hobby. Just a bit of friendly advice.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your right. In fact I think I am pretty much done for good. Its just not fun anymore so you hit the nail on the head there. I was going to draft a bigger response but it just doesn't matter. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for even long-term contributors to run into problems getting their way, when they think they're obviously right; and they can end up feeling unrespected and unvalued. I've been there myself, and had several very long wikibreaks as a result. If necessary, take a break and get some perspective. I think even if you don't eventually recognise that you were in the wrong here, you will be able to put it down to experience as a disagreement of the sort that happens occasionally on a project like this; you have to take the rough with the smooth, even if sometimes it seems very rough. Anyway, the specific issues here which led to the revocation of your AWB access and a lack of clamour for it to be reinstated (that nobody has yet yelled "admin abuse" in this thread ought to tell you something) absolutely do not mean that your past and hopefully future contributions are not valued and respected. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a week off one time as a self imposed block. I didn't even go to wikipedia to look anything up and took the link to wikipedia off my toolbar on my computer to keep me honest. It was refreshing.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@RD232. I don't know why I am even taking the time to reply because its obvious knowone agrees or knowone really cares either way enough is enough. I'm tired of all the drama for just trying to improve articles. The problem with your statement is I don't believe I am in the wrong because I didn't do anything wrong. The edits aren't minor. Period. CBM didn't like the edits I was doing and refused to start a discussion to see if there was consensus for his view. So he revoked my access to AWB and threw a couple of general policy's and left. The policy he said I broke doesn't exist and the violation isn't listed in the policy he stated I violated. To be honest it doesn't surprise me that you support CBM because you have been pretty vocal that you don't care much for AWB but it surprises me that few others have said anything. Honestly that tells me that most probably think this is stupid as well and it isn't worth their time to respond. This ANI certainly isn't worth the length it has become.

@Jojhutton. I'm sorry to hear that but its pretty typical for this place to run people off. That's why I am considering scrambling my password so even if I wanted to come back I couldn't. I almost left last month and it was only because several editors talked me out of it but editing just isn't fun anymore. Too many editors spending too much time nitpicking edits and wanting to debate and argue every edit. There has been a dramatic decrease in editors in WP and I believe its largely because of these types of reasons. Too busy worrying about the policies instead of the content. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is a disappointing response. I'd suggested to you that in the long term you might be able to see this situation differently, or at least put it behind you in a "shit happens" sort of way, and your response is to reiterate your current view and to attack me. (For the record, I have used AWB quite a bit at times; my view is simply that it is a powerful tool and its power has to be used cautiously.) It looks more and more like you really could use a break, for the idea that people aren't chipping in at an ANI thread because they think the issue is stupid is well, novel. Rd232 ^talk 08:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be disappointing. We should be encouraging editors to participate in building an encyclopedia not beat them down with vague policies that a re poorly written and left so open to interpretation that any editor can challenge any edit made by implying that a rule means something it clearly does not state. Maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of the AWB policy but since I just looked through the edits of over 100 of the AWB users and they are all performing and least some of the edits that my rights were revoked for I doubt it. Knowhere in any of the AWB rules state anything about the rendering of the page which is why he wanted me to stop. This ANI isn't about my ability or lack of it in policies its in CBM flexing his muscle as an admin to set an example to others. That's it and one of the reasons I lost the desire long ago to be an admin. Too many of them don't actually care about doing what they have the power to do. They just hang out in the discussion boards and debate. Personally I think this ANI is just retaliation from CBM because I hurt his feelings when I told him I didn't agree with his interpretation of the policy and wasn't going to drop everything just because 1 editor had a problem. Your right though that AWB is a powerful tool. That's why I use it so much and a small part of the reason why there is little point editing without it. I also am very surprised that everyone has been so supportive of CBM in this. I haven't seen one person say you know what maybe he acted rashly. Maybe he should have opened up a discussion first before he blocked this contributors rights. After all he is a senior editor who has been around for a while with a very high edit count, not some new novice editor. Nothing. No assumptions of good faith on my part. Just assumptions of well he's here so there must be a good reason. I shouldn't half to take a shit happens sort of attitude because another editor acted rashly. Of course I'm pissed off and want to go down fighting that CBM is destroying my credibility with the baseless accusation that I don't know what I am doing. The AWB rules are even posted in this thread and'clearly anyone can see they don't say what he says they do. But no because hes a bot operator and an admin he is above reproach and therefore I must be in the wrong. The sad thing is that although this has chipped awy at my desire to participate the thing being hurt the worst by my absence is the articles. CBM and his max 20 edits a day aren't going to replace the hundreds of edits I do a day fixing problems, doing reviews, discussion policy changes, helping other users, etc. At a modest 5000 edits a month (I have done over 10000 a month for the last 6 months or so) that's about 60, 000 edits that won't get done. But the minor edit policy is all anyone wants to talk about. We should be concentrating our efforts on the articles not this. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A way out of this

Kumioko, I 'll give you back your AWB right if you agree to do the following:

• Assess pages for WikiProject USA as your primary task
  • Remove the parameters you were removing (nested, etc.) as secondary task
  • Bypass redirects only if something else is happening and not do it for the cases the WikiProject disagrees
• Stop fixing whitespace until you convince the community this is a useful thing to do.

I am OK if a small proportion of your edits is the removal of the parameters, but this shouldn't not become a main task. You are dedicated editor but you have to realise that some tasks can be done in combination with other to save edits and some other stuff can't be done when the community disagrees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Im fine with the last bullet and I appreciate that but the problem with that proposition is that I submitted and stopped doing the assessments because some other editors opposed them. I had to stop tagging articles with the Wikiproject US banner because some editors disapproved and I submitted and stopped doing that as well. This time an editor (CBM) complained about deleting the parameters quoting a BS complaint about fields not rendering the page was in a rule (which it clearly isn't) and I got fed up and told him that I wasn't going to stop for 1 editor this time and my AWB access was removed. So you see my quandry. It doesn't really matter much if you restore it at this point because there is no edit that can be made on WP that isn't or can't be contested so as long as the AWB rules are open ended and forcing any AWB user to immediately stop or face the consequences I'm just wasting my time. Wikipedia is clearly more of a social network now more interested in enforcing policies and participating in discussion over the symantics of what constitutes a minor edit than writing an online Encyclopedia and that's not what I'm interested in participating in. Its also obvious that having a 1000 characters of garbage on the banners is preferred so here is no need in removing them which also pretty much wipes out the list of suggestions you presented and why I deleted all the coding I wrote to fix it. Of course in that was a lot of code to fix other problems like broken parameters, template order, missing fields for banners and the like but those really aren't important either I guess. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add that since multiple editors have commented that I did something wrong. Whether I agree or not is an indication what needs to be done. With that I am going to go back and start reverting my recent changes as being without consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing unused parameters in the cases you did it, has consensus (not cleaning all empty parameters) but if you are seeking to do this massively you have to get approval. The reason is that this will upset a lot of watchlists and it is better if this is done in additional to something better and more valuable.

Removing spaces in headers has no consensus and causes bigger diffs which make control of your edits more difficult. This is the controversial part of your edits by the rules of use of awb.

Bypassing redirects has consensus in many cases but not in all. Moreover, it should not be the sole reason to edit a page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Although there is logic to what you say I must admit that really don't think we should worry if watchlists are filling up. The parameter cleanup obviously doesn't have consensus because Carl has been touting all along that because it does not render the page it is a minor edit and against the rules of use for AWB. Same with bypassing redirects. Another part of Carl's argument for this ANI is that those are not allowed because of the ongoing discussion at the WikiProject Council. The third is partially true but only in the sense that it was one of the changes I was doing. Your statement that the first 2 are not against consensus is in contrast to what Carl has been saying all along with my edits and what I have been screaming about all along. I said long ago I would stop removing the useless and unneeded spaces but Carl doesn't want me to do the others either stating these are against the AWB rules. Now I am not trying to put you on the spot here but which is it are they allowed or aren't they? --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, why you don't assess page doing your cleanup as I described it at the same time? If you want to do mass cleanup address too BRFA. I don't understand where is the drama. You gave the impression that you want to skip the discussion in the WikiProject Council. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I contrary to Carl I believe that a BRFA for cleaning parameters would be successful. I support you on this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Its alright regardless of the outcome once this ANI is over im out. It been fun and I learned a lot but Im not interested in the drama and games anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have not realized that 'not breaking rules' is not the same as having 'consensus'. jmcw (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again those who value process over people triumph. Let us hope that triumph is short lived. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Review of my administrator actions: block of WikiManOne

Resolved portion

Note: WikiManOne is being discussed above for another issue, independent of this.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I recently put down a block on WikiManOne (talk · contribs) after reading the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours). This was a difficult block to make, because I have expressed a very strong opinion on just this very subject, and it is diametrically opposed to {{user|WikiManOne's. Worse, after I made the block, I was already going to bring it to ANI, but I now actually notice that WikiManOne was the very same editor to whom I expressed this opinion! The result is that I've made a block that was out of the scope of what was appropriate for me. I don't want to completely undo it and as such give the editor a free pass if the block was justified (which I still believe it was, based simply on the structure of the edits, regardless of content). Can I have the community to take a review of it please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I'd say you're in the green. This is a textbook violation of 3RR - given that you're a great administrator, I won't hesitate to say that I trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses and not previous experience. m.o.p 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) It looks fine to me, good for you for bringing it up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You are an admin, and thus your action is wrong. However, I am also an admin which makes my comment wrong. Any admin either agreeing with me or disagreeing me is also wrong (although it is wrong of me to say that). Are you sure you are an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Resp to Magog, below. I am supporting your action; although you may be somewhat involved (and thus are "wrong") you did the right thing - per my agentBaseball Bugs, every admin action or comment is "wrong" (including my own attempt at humour, apparently) so... don't fret. It's fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me LHvU. I don't get it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is not unlike Jayron's recent self-directed comment that "everything he says is wrong". I expect LHvU is saying that any admin's actions are under review and in some sence "everything they do is wrong", at least in the eyes of some editors. Hope that helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly, I would hate to see either 1) the editor's block log unnecssarily plugged up with another block or 2) the editor not be blocked for behavior which the community agrees on. I would be glad to unblock otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC) - Two days is cheap enough for this report the user was only blocked a couple of days ago and has raced back in seemingly without listening to any advice - Magog's realized he was a bit involved and so brought it here, for opinions, and I support his actions completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Some, though not all, of WikiMan's verbal attacks on other editors are unfair and unjustified. He needs to cool his jets a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks and edit warring. Not a good combination. No matter how well-meaning he may be, he's building up to a permanent place in the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Good block I was considering it myself, and I tend to lean a bit more on WM1's side of the argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've taken ownership of the block, so he can't complain about Magog not being impartial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The mistake was certainly understandable - when a user's name doesn't match their signature, it's possible to accidentally not realize the two are one in the same. Sure, it would have been better if someone else had done it, but it's not the end of the world. --B (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm, good point B. There may be a bit of climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This is getting to be a bit ridiculous; the talk page is being used to soapbox, not to request unblock. I request another admin give him a final warning before locking his page for the remainder of the time. I have nothing against WikiManOne (or at least I didn't until a few minutes ago), but right now the discussion is counterproductive and taking away from other areas where we could be working. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) IMHO it would not be appropriate as long as people are engaging him in conversation. First step would be to request the unblocked editors to stop engaging in the back and forth. Give him the chance to settle down for his block without resorting to more button use.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Good call. TBH the request probably shouldn't have come from me either, seeing as the editor now thinks I'm Satan incarnate, or right-wing religious man incarnate, or something along those likes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (ec) I'm not a huge fan of removing talk page access for this. It's not disruption if everyone just ignores him. Let him rant, he'll tire himself out. And perhaps sometime in the next two days a friend of his will come along and talk some sense into him. I'd only suggest revoking his talk page if he starts posting serial unblock requests. Lest I come off as too much of a softy, though: I see his name associated with turmoil and conflict all the time; is he worth it? I'm too lazy to look into his contributions in more detail to see, but my first impression is that this is someone here for the thrill of the battle, and it might be best to show him the door if he doesn't change his attitude fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've had some interaction with him and I'm not involved in the content area. From what I've seen, I believe he's a good faith editor. But one who's editing controversial articles that he's passionate about. I don't believe that he's here just to battle, but rather his intense belief, including the belief that he's right in his edits have led to what we see. I wouldn't label him a irredeemable troublemaker. That said he does need to learn from this.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC) OK Cube, I will defer to the judgment of someone who has actually looked into this for more than the 90 seconds I gave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This edit by WikiManOne to his own talk page should be noted, though he has removed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, it was removed for him, he restored it, and was reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Topic Block I just became aware of this, so I am arriving late to this party...hell, damned thing is over...but WMO has a mentor (my previous in fact) User:Kubigula, who has been trying to work with WMO. WMO isn't responding to anything that Kubigula is saying, obviously. I have put this by Kubigula, but it being 7am here (as of this writing) he isn't up or responded, but I feel a topic block (NOT ban) is needed to get WMO back on the right track. If we get him out of the constant battleground that is the abortion articles, we might have a chance of keeping this user, a good one as said by Cube above, from an indef block. I would recommend a 6 month block from any abortion related article, including creating them or even posting to their talk pages. He needs to be taken completely out of that arena and moved on to something else. First screw up, a one week block. I was going to go with a final stern warning here, but he has had those to no avail. Second screw up, one month block. Strike three, he's out. Indef block. I know it is harsh, but if he sees the writing is on the wall, maybe he will chill out and move on to something different. He can't keep battling on at the abortion articles or he will wind up in indef-land anyway. What say you? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I think what you're asking for is a six month topic ban. Or, if that's not the case, can you clarify what you mean by "topic block"? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 2 or 3 months, anything abortion related might be helpful to the user as he is only struggling with the intensity in that area, talk page involvement allowed. Or a few weeks, 5 or 6, one revert condition and have someone clearly explain what a revert is might be helpful to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not too sure what a topic block is, either. I also think that these are drastic measures. m.o.p 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Topic ban just seems permanent, so I went with "topic block". If you wish to use "ban", that's cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply to User:Master of Puppets - Some might say to allow the user to return to the same editing style without some assistance is certain to result in an indefinite restriction, so I don't see a minor restriction now as drastic, I see it as a benefit and helping the contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have to say, I have been very taken aback by the user's whole response. He's exhibited some textbook-case MPOV problems (asserting the necessity to more than 3 reversions in a day, accusations of a cabal, assumptions of bad faith, referring to his version as the consensus version when he was the only consenter, etc.). I honestly can't understand how someone can go from being so reasonable (as he was on my talk page the other day), to so out in left-field (no pun intended... he claims to be opposite right-wing). He literally is claiming that I blocked him because I oppose his point of view (I blocked him only because I patrol WP:AN3), and that other editors with even the tiniest history of disagreeing with him are in an alliance to support me. I figure this can only be attributed to either 1) a lavishly paranoid personality, 2) youthful naivety, 3) naivety due to getting all his information from lavishly paranoid bloggers and talk show hosts or 4) a case of "takes one to know one", meaning this is what he would do in that situation (ever notice how sockpuppeteers are the most likely to throw around multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry?). IMHO it is much more likely than anything that this is a case of #2 or #3, which means that he is reformable, if open. I think a several week topic ban would be best for him; whether enforced by the community, or self-enforced on his own part. If it comes from the community (and I am not necessarily supporting that option), then the dictum and enforcement should only come from someone who is completely on his side. Lastly, I think we should torture him by mechanically prying his eyes open and making him watch some right-wing propaganda (just kidding). Or alternatively, maybe just politely suggest that he join a debate club so he can learn to argue for the other side and assume good faith. I don't want to pile-on, but I want WMO to understand exactly what he's up against, and the reasons the community considers his actions disruptive. When you read this WMO, please understand: there is no cabal. Even people on your side have taken exception to your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly - I believe WMO's heart is in the right place and a topic ban from abortion related articles would probably be the best thing for him. However, it is a drastic measure and I don't think it's fair to go there unless we imposed similar measures on the other POV and edit warriors who frequent those pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Kubigula raises a very good point there. There are plenty of people who are pushing their own POV and should be under the same conditions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) There are plenty of other editors whose conduct has not been as abrasive or disruptive. I would rather topic ban an editor and channel him into an area of the encyclopedia where he can actually contribute real content, vs. POV-warring, as it appears WMO has been doing for the past few weeks. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative to Topic block of User:WikiManOne.... General Sanctions on Abortion articles

Unresolved

 – do not archive till 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC) or until thread closed

Since there is clear consensus that WikiManOne editing is concerning and troubling but other editors have been equalling as troubling I suggest:

General Sanctions be imposed on all abortion articles broadly construed with

1. 1 Revert Rule: 1 revert per 24 hours per user per page (except for obvious vandalism).
2. Sanctions: the ability for any uninvolved admin to impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
3. Sanctions for any WP:BLP violations in the topic area

Uninvolved administrators can independently impose sanctions, including escalating blocks or topic bans of up to three months, provided the individual has been notified of the terms of this scheme and possible sanctions (The template {{subst:Uw-probation|Article|Probation terms page}} can be used for ease)

Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or (3) Arbitration Committee intervention

Indefinite Topic Bans can be proposed at WP:AN imposed by community consensus or at ANI as the result of discussion of specific incident.

Requests by the sanctioned user for his/her sanctions to be lifted: such requests may be made after three months at WP:AN. The request can only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction and has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions. If the the request fails to gain consenus the three month clock is reset

All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs

Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support -- I'm somewhat surprised there is not already something like this imposed. I would say it is undoubtedly needed, as even commenting in abortion related article talk pages seems to provoke incivility(at least) that lead to 'flame wars'. And I believe it is correct that if WM1 were to be topic banned, you might as well throw in at least 6 or 7 other editors. From both sides. Dave Dial (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too, I looked last week when this flared up and was shocked not to find such sanctions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: This works better than mine and it is a step toward mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support --- An article probation is less draconian than sanctioning individual editors. It is almost the mildest step that can be taken. Due to the 1RR restriction it may produce quicker intervention when disputes occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we just import WP:DSN instead of trying to reinvent the wheel? Also, edits by IPs and (perhaps) new users should be exempt from the 1RR. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:DSN only works after an Arbcom case has authorized such sanctions. This proposal is nearly a carbon copy of existing General Sanctions/Article probation listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Also The requrired notfication prevents people ignorant of the Probation to be notified before things anything can be imposed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely arbcom does not have a monopoly on sanctions? the community can certainly impose a sanction that is identical in form to a tried-and-true method. That's what "import" means. My point is that we can require a warning, but we should not require the use of a specific warning template.T. Canens (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the community does and that is what being proposed its called General Sanctions (also called article probation). We have existing ones for several other areas. As for the template, I dont see it as a necessity but we have the template for it why not use it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the track record of the community version is not as good as arbcom's? The most recent time it's used, it was superseded by arbcom discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBCC). T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm quite surprised you can't see how requiring admins to use a particular template will lead to pointless wikilawyering of the "I wasn't warned properly - they didn't use that particular template!" sort. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE deals with the same thing all the time and some how manages not to implode remember its says right in the WP:The Five Pillars The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. People get that when dealing with this stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And none of those decisions AE enforces required the use of a particular template. That the spirit trumps the letter is no excuse for not getting the letter right in the first place when you can. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

fixed it, The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Distant second choice. Per my proposed alternative below. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - as per EdJohnson's comments. Also support TCanans simplification by importing a similar working condition from another topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Reply to Tcanen The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that is not an option, your model is also fine, I support the basic idea the fine details are for someone experienced in setting such conditions out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That why I modeled it almost exactly after Existing ones, No reinvenetion of the wheel only putting it on a new vehicle The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - if we have general sanctions on climate control, then I think this is a definite. People get much more emotional/involved in this than weather.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Emotional? I ain't emotional! Who you callin' emotional?! I demand Balloonman be blocked, banned, drawn and quartered! Call me emotional, will ya?! Why I oughta! :) LOL! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Suport This is a contentious topic and good behavior is necessary from those on all sides of the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support so long as "broadly construed" is broadly construed to include editing related to abortion-access groups like Planned Parenthood and pro-life "crisis pregnancy" groups as well; a great deal of the disruption in this topic area is a proxy war related to pregnancy counseling and current events in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we specified "broadly construed" for a reason ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. For the most part my comment is meant as a record of the fact that the discussion considered this point. I confess to anticipating that the user who sparked this report will attempt to wikilawyer the scope as applied to himself. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose in specific. This request does not specify if it's 1 revert per day, or one revert per week. That's a big oversight. And neither does it specify an expiration, or what sort of conduct/action, specifically applied, can lead to the sanction removal. WmO isn't the type that likes to be put under boundaries; he will chafe.
  Personally, I think a one day revert version is fine, or even better, no reversions violating the WP:BRD cycle (in addition to and/or in lieu of the above). And I think a hard time limit, like 2-3 months without any blocks or questionable behavior, from the time of the sanction's start, could lead to its automatic removal and/or letting up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good points, I beleive they are fixed now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Changed to strong oppose - screaming halt stop. I thought we were putting sanctions on one editor. No, the whole subject should not have this, at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, though I am concerned that this discussion has managed to get below the radar a bit, and I think we need wider community involvement to implement.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Let's put links to this on the Village Pump, AN, and possibly a site notice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I put one AN after placing this one here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, cool. Think the Village Pump needs one? Perhaps a site notice, since this is wide reaching in that area of editing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Template:Centralized discussion would seem a start but yes Village pump would probably a good idea too. I'm pretty sure site notice needs some one bigger than an Admin... I think Crat or Steward can do it but I think that might be over kill between ANI, AN, VP, Centralized discusison I think we would be good The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Okie Dokie...I will link to this discussion at CD and VP and we can leave the site notice for if it gets insane big. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Added to both CD and VP/P. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have a few concerns (which can be resolved I think).
• Re: "Sanctions can be Appealed after three months at WP:AN", admins have gotten it wrong at times. In fact, last year, even an arbitrator managed to get it so wrong to the point that the Community needed to reverse it after 24 hours because he wouldn't. For this reason, we may need to change it to something like "After the first appeal, sanctions can only be appealed every six months at WP:AN" - I think that addresses the issue the original line was trying to address.
• The "has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions" bit is a real issue because it does seem to make the sanctions from this scheme punitive; I'd recommend removing it. On the part where it says "appeal will only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction", this will obviously not be applicable in instances where a sanction should not have been imposed in the first place or was not imposed properly in the first place (like those I'm alluding to in my second bullet point - otherwise adversaries argue that there have been violations of a sanction when there haven't been).
• Do you want the 1RR to be per day per user per page?
• As admins are already authorized to impose blocks for BLP vios in any areas (as far as I understand), is there a reason for not explicitly authorizing topic bans for this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I clarified the problems, Needed to clarify the differences between an appeal and request for sanctions to be lifted after good behavior. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Good. I've also made a slight copyedit; I think that's about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks good but your copy edit with "his/her" excludes people of who identify as Third gender  :-P The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Admins can impose blocks/bans for up to three months...which can only be appealed after three months...what? T. Canens (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess "Indefinite Topic Bans can be proposed at WP:AN imposed by community consensus or at ANI as the result of discussion of specific incident." Got lost in an edit conflict some where or accidently deleted somewhere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And why only blocks and topic bans? Why can't there be page bans? 0RR or 1RR/week restrictions? Something else (e.g., a requirement to discuss any reverts made)? And why can't there be bans longer than 3 months but shorter than indef? T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think this proposal is meant to be quite so complicated or drastic as other sanction schemes at this point. The proposal seems to want admins to know that this area is under probation, but also, that admins should try a topic ban instead of blocking outright. I'd even add a suggestion: that for users who abide by a topic ban but upon its expiration, find themselves needing to be sanctioned again, the topic ban duration should escalate from the following pattern: 72 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and finally 3 months. If after a 3 month topic ban the problem persists, we would need to discuss what special restrictions need to be imposed on the individual. However, in the event that users violate their topic ban while it is in place, their topic ban duration can be escalated by one step each time (eg; from 72 hours to 1 week) and/or, depending on how severe (and recent) the violation was, may be blocked per usual. Due to the nature of this probation, administrators can certainly consider if an user has been editing productively on certain page(s) in the topic and note the specific exception(s) to the topic ban (particularly in light of the fact that the restriction can be appealed to them and they can add such exceptions where warranted).
      • Several types of revert restrictions would complicate matters. That said, there is good reason to add an additional type of provision for the 1RR line: "when an user violates the spirit or letter of this 1RR, they will (upon being directed by an uninvolved administrator) be subject to an indefinite requirement to discuss any reversions they make on pages in the topic - such discussion should occur on the talk page of the page (eg; discussion should occur on Talk: Abortion for a reversion that was made on the Abortion page). Should the editor then breach the 1RR or fail to discuss a reversion as required, they may be sanctioned." Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support either wording. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • • • • • I have looked over it and agree, with the point you have made but those are admin discretion issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, hot-button issue that needs to be able to be cooled off quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, too much mischief goes on at these articles with not enough oversight, and more can only be an improvement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Whoa, whoa, whoa, I understand we have a recent flare up here because of a particular editor, some very important legislation under consideration in the United States and a series of highly viewed, highly controversial videos but lets not get carried away here. Abortion has always been controversial but think of all the years we have gotten by here on Wikipedia. This current flare up will die down and I don't think it calls for General Sanctions. If Sanctions are to be imposed, I strongly urge that they be re-considered after 3 months once all of this has died down. - Haymaker (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as below - the sanctions aren't related to the problem. --B (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The recent flare-up was due to the disruptive editing of one editor, who should be given a short (1 month?) topic ban. Why penalize everyone else? Agree with 1RR, though, to keep things calm. Proposal item #2 is an open invitation to what I call "drive-by admin actions", which were part of the problem here. No opinion on item #3 BLP. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support This needs to be done now or else it will head to arbitration after more wasted ours at ANI over the next few weeks. With respect, most of the opposers here appear to be editors who edit on these pages from one of the two major POVs, and therefore will be effected by the restrictions. Some of these editors, are IMO, from what I've seen here, contributing to the problem and therefore may be aided by the restrictions.Griswaldo (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm just a passerby, but allowing this one case to create general sanctions seems like it gives a whole lot of power to anyone willing to behave badly. I think it should count as a pleasant surprise that Wikipedia editors from either side can usually work together on this issue without vandalism. I think people are projecting a real-world preconception onto Wikipedia, forgetting that just as people in the real world don't have mass protests about the nationality of Copernicus, people on Wikipedia may not get into edit wars when both sides agree on underlying facts. The first 500 edits on abortion get you all the way back to April 2010 with 29 uses of the word "undid" - which doesn't sound like a chronic edit war. But above all, I think that the "all abortion articles broadly construed" is a mistake. The whole point of general sanctions is lost when editors don't know why or even when an article is subject to them, and it sounds like this will end up affecting things like spontaneous abortion, fetus, maybe even infant - and for what? At bare minimum, have the decency to enumerate a finite list of articles affected and tag each one properly from the beginning. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see evidence that this is needed. The articles could use improvement yes. They should more be based on review articles yes. So lets get to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As long as the "uninvolved" admin is strictly enforced. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative sanction wording

Proposed wording:

Area of conflict

For the purpose of these sanctions, the area of conflict is the set of articles related to abortion, broadly construed.

1RR

All editors are limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any article within the area of conflict, with the exception of reverts of obvious vandalism and anonymous IP editors.

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked for a suitable period of time by any uninvolved administrator, up to one year in the event of repeated violations; in lieu of or in addition to blocking, the administrator may also impose a discretionary sanction, as described below.

General sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process; this includes, but is not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, and violations of the biography of living people policy.

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the section of Wikipedia:General sanctions documenting these sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN), or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. In particular, they may not reverse or overturn (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of these sanctions, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce these sanctions, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI).

Involved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under these sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Logging

All blocks, sanctions and warnings made under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs.

First choice. As proposer. T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Most of the wording here is taken from WP:DSN; the involvement part is taken from WP:ARBCC. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its not consistent with Existing Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Its length also would take up substantial amount of the Wikipedia:General sanctions page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then move it to a subpage. You already have a subpage for the logs anyway. I also don't care that much about maintaining consistency with a failed article probation scheme. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No failure there. The point is to limit escalation of disputes, That doesn't mean such disputes wont esculate. Your model ties the hands becuase instruction creep that ties the hands of Admins who are watching or have commented in the dispute. We'd be in the same place if every time there was a violation an Admin had to run here to get a perfectly uninvolved admin to impose something... We'd be back where we started with tons of ANI threads and Drama. Every admin knows what involved is. The whole purpose of CS is to take care of problems with out excessive bureaucracy to get stuff done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. You have a probation scheme that did not define "involved", and you have massive fights over whether certain administrators are "involved" which became one of the three arbcom case requests that led to WP:ARBCC. Your proposed solution to that is...leave "involved" undefined. Right. Because the meaning of "involved" is so obvious that no reasonable people will fight over it... T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikilinked the WP:INVOLVED from the Admin policy where it was infered for defintion of WP:INVOLVED Admins. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets just go with Tim,s version as its a working probation, support for that. Also support for WP:INVOLVED as a good guide towards that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the problems he pointed out above. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since I am not an admin I can't vote and I almost never comment in the ANI section but I want to get this straight. One editors violates 3rr a couple times and a couple others come close, and the same editors keep bringing each other to this board and that requires a community-wide 1rr policy. I think this is going way overboard. How about just putting anyone that gets a 3rr violation in that section into 1rr or something like that? Yes the abortion articles get heated, but so does religion, politics, etc. Do we make every area 1rr? Yes I am someone that WMO has had heated discussions with but I stay within the rules and so do many of the other people that have been editing in that region. I personally think putting indivdual editors (not just WMO) into 1rr and maybe even disengage warnings would be better then a community-wide 1rr on abortion related topics.Marauder40 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No people who cant agree to our NPOV policy typically have restrictions imposed on them. Areas where there are flamewars typically have restrictions imposed in the area. We do this over and over Wikipedia has not imploded. The princpal is to stop edit warring and encouage discussion since edit warring start when people change back and forth with out talk discussion we merely make them hurry up and talk. We haved this place have the issue long before any of ya'll showed up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I just honestly don't think it has come that far yet. MOST of the editors on the page are staying within rules. Most of the editors are discussing things. I just think a small number of editors on both "sides" need to be reigned in. I honestly think imposing a community-wide topic 1rr is taking the "easy" way out. Especially at this point. I have seen religion articles get much more heated then this discussion has gotten and they didn't go down that path. Usually a couple temporary restrictions of various types on editors bring things in line. But I don't hold a mop so I will not make any more comments on this on ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • YOu seem to think this is recent problem, this type of flare heats up a couple times a year. We reign a few editors more fill the void it happens over and over and this gives us the tool to prevent further disruption The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support The explosion of ANI incidents related to abortion was not terribly surprising given the real life passions. When future high profile abortion incidents occur we can expect the same. I like T. Caens version better as the wording on "involved administrators" is helpful for mitigating distracting (and usually baseless) arguments about administrator abuse rather than on how to fairly deal with the topic at hand in article space. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The original needs a bit more work, but this alternative is not okay.
• On the point about involvement, the fact that the other Community probations are working does speak volumes. As was repeatedly noted in the CC case, the drafter of the CC probation failed to account for too many things and that's what happens when mad attempts are made to put off an ArbCom case without thinking things through thoroughly (it will only delay and prolong the inevitable as opposed to settling it in the longer term). If things were thought thoroughly, then a 100% identical wording from the Obama probation would not have been imported in the CC proposal (that was the first sign of an understanding which was too simplistic - instead, it would have become clear why that probation would not work in the CC topic area). It had no chance of working in the long term with the users involved. I don't see any reason to believe this issue is going to crop up here (as no evidence has been presented to that effect to date); unnecessary (or even unjustified) red tape is not our priority and standard policy on involvement ought to work just fine.
• In particular, I oppose having to write special rules for administrators indiscriminately every single time as a handful of them may refuse to take appropriate steps if their involvement is called into question (that is, the individual user remedies in the CC case resolution direct administrators about what they can do if they find themselves in such a situation).
• Should it ever come to the point where a Community general sanctions scheme is not working and AE-type discussions are regularly needed, then that is when ArbCom and its more drastic measures are needed (not sooner or later than that point); no amount of special rule writing is going to change the inevitable. It's the participants who are in a position to deescalate. Also, I have yet to see anyone being "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" under any DSN scheme...despite the fact it is written in DSN each and every time. And finally, the Community specifically did not want CSN (the relevant AE-type board) which was why it shut it down. Should ArbCom want to impose DSN specifically, they will not have opposition because whenever something goes wrong, it will be at AE which is under their management (and the sanctions are thereby their responsibility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm open to using the WP:INVOLVED definition if that's the preference. CSN doesn't look like AE at all to me (it was "votes for banning", IIRC, that led it to be shut down; Unlike normal bans, I don't think these sanctions are intended to require consensus before imposition). What else do you find problematic? T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose this because I think it's solving the wrong problem. There has been stunningly little revert warring on these articles relative to the current angst about them and over the last few days, the discussion has been downright tame. I think a better proposal is to deal with the actual problems. By my thinking, there are two of them. (1) The first is attempting to carry pro-life vs anti-abortion naming fight across multiple articles. (2) The second is rudeness to the opposing side on the abortion-related abortion-related talk pages themselves. Those two problems are solvable without recreating the system used for Israel articles or having the insulting arbitrary sanctions. Regarding other problems with the current proposal: (1) it doesn't have BLP removals as an exception to 1RR and (2) I, of course, also oppose the logging aspect, but I assume that will be taken out anyway. --B (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be fair to this proposal (and the other one), logging exists so that users are aware of the sanctions that are imposed and if there is an issue with the sanction (usually because it is unjustified or too harsh), someone else can bring attention to it. The other purpose is for administrators to know what sanctions have already been tried and to what extent they have had the desired preventative effect. More oversight is better than less if and when such schemes are in place. As to whether

actual problems" are being dealt with (or whether they ever will be dealt with), perhaps a proposal is needed. Whether topic bans are more insulting than blocks is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see evidence that this is needed. The articles could use improvement yes. They should more be based on review articles yes. So lets get to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass link moving from Brain to Human brain by User:Nono64

Please see: User talk:Nono64#Regarding changes from brain to human brain.

Nono64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a huge number of edits, changing internal links from Brain to Human brain. In many cases, these edits have introduced factual inaccuracies that are extremely obvious. As one representative example, this edit: [10] made the link go to "human brain" in a sentence that actually says, explicitly, "all mammals". There are many, many, other such edits, most of which have been reverted by a variety of other editors.

After a large number of such edits on 17 February, several editors asked Nono64, in the user talk section linked above, to stop and be more careful. Nono64 replied with a "who cares?" [11], and resumed making numerous further such edits today, in a manner that suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I hope that something can be done to reign in these indiscriminate and disruptive edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

User notified: [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In my comment in that section (approximately the third or fourth different editor to dispute the edit pattern), which had continued after previous editors' complaints there, I included a note about potentially getting block for disruptive edits. There have been no more edits in the past short while since then. I was hesitant to blanket revert the changes since some look viable and others I don't have expertise to evaluate, but on the whole the pattern of apparently blindly/indiscriminantly changing brain->human brain and blowing off numerous others' complaints about it is a problem. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Even fictional brains. Perhaps Nono64 would like to go through and check all the edits himself as it doesn't appear he checked them when he made them. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I too feel that this really needs to be stopped. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In the time since I left a notification on the user's talk about this ANI thread, Nono64 has made approximately 200 more edits (apparently automated). None of them seems to involve brain, but there has been no response of any sort here, nor at his user talk, nor any self-reversion of the disputed edits. In my opinion, this is not adequate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He has a note on his page that he is "one of the 400 most active Wikipedians" and that he has "made over 75,000 contributions to Wikipedia" which demonstrates the harm done with a blind obsession to making as many edits as possible, as fast as possible, without looking closely at whether the edits are useful. He neglects the time wasted by other editors following around and cleaning up his inappropriate edits. Edison (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By now, it's pretty unambiguous what the consensus is amongst those editors who have commented here. Is it time to take some sort of action? Should an administrator issue a block until Nono64 acknowledges the problem and demonstrates an intention to remedy it? Should an RfC/U be started? Should we start discussing a community ban? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. He stopped with the brain edits, not for the asking, but after he was very firmly warned. But he did stop. Has he done this kind of thing before? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a reoccurring trend for Nono64. I had made a comment on his talk page (see User talk:Nono64#Repetitive linking of Human Eye) nearly ten days before the first comment about the brain edits. At that point, the current problem was the linking of 'human eye' in lieu of 'eye'. My comment received no response and was prompted by his repeating the linkage after my revert (see: diff). From a quick glance through his contribs, it appears that these are not isolated events and Nono64 seems reluctant to change his behavior. Vindicata (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point I think it's worth looking into whether these are assisted edits or an unauthorized bot. --King Öomie 09:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

About Fainites' point about not-punitive, I do understand that, really. However, it seems to me to be inadequate for Nono64 to simply move on to another area without any real indication of understanding the problem. It's as if that's a way to game the system. I'd be satisfied with a simple statement of acknowledging the concerns of other editors and of intent to be more careful in the future, but we don't have that—indeed more like the opposite. Vindicata is right, and Nono's user talk is full of these kinds of concerns, including an unanswered complaint from an IP after the human brain thread. As Kingoomieiii says, maybe this is a matter of shutting down Nono's use of some sort of bot until the issue can be cleared up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction when I checked his contribs and when the reverted linkage was redone. Given that there is no indication in the edits summaries nor his user page that he uses a bot/script, I had come to the conclusion that he is not using either. However, now that I am double checking his contribs, I notice that, for example, in early February (see: here) he made continuous edits at a rate of 1-2 per minute with identical edit summaries and almost identical types of edits for long periods of time. This is a behavior is seen repeatedly, though with different types of edits. I have trouble believing that a user could make all of these edits on so many different pages with such speed without some use of a script or bot. If there is no use of assistance, the editing is almost obsessive to the point of ignoring the concerns of other editors. Either way, I believe this falls under the case of WP:MEATBOT. Vindicata (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on how long it took me to revert, I cannot imagine how anyone could do these kinds of edits so fast entirely manually. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A few lines above, I asked whether we should consider any of three possible courses of action. Personally, my opinion is that a block by an administrator, just until Nono64 acknowledges the situation and makes a commitment to be more careful in the future, would have been the most efficient use of everyone's time and effort. But I think the silence from administrators is actually a pretty clear reply to my question, and I can accept that. I'm going to keep an eye on this user, and if these kinds of edits re-emerge, I will start an RfC/U. I just want to say now, before this thread gets archived, that I hope that other editors who have commented here will consider participating in that RfC/U, when and if it happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I noted the possibility of a block when I commented on his talk-page about the brain edits. So if he does it again in this or another genre, he could be blocked to prevent the obvious likely disruption of doing it again after that, as it would be evidence that he is prone to doing this repeatedly, against WP:CONSENSUS and despite warnings to stop. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let me ask what you think about Vindicata's point about the "eye" linking having already been another genre. Do we see repetition already, then? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do see a pattern, and as I've said, it's a terrible one. My key is that this is the first occurance where anyone has said he's been warned about a future block for it. I'm not up for instablocking without warning. But if it happens again, I would be up for block because he (now) knows that it's not just "they'll whine on my talkpage and then I'll ignore it" and also for blanket revert of it (appears we've been undoing them piecemeal in most recent event). I'd be happy to revise my position if someone else finds where someone has mentioned the blockability to him before...I didn't look into his talk-page history. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I slogged back through Nono64's talk archives to double check block warnings. He has been warned 3 times total, 13 Aug 2008 and 21 Sept 2009 (both for non-consensus moves of articles after being told repeatedly not to) and 18 Feb 2011 (by DMacks). He was blocked twice, first on 21 Sept 2009 for 24 hours, then two days later (23 Sept 2009) the block was accidentally extended for a week then reverted. What concerns me is that, for example, in 2009 he had over 90 RfD's on articles he had created while also have numerous requests for him to not move articles without consensus. Early on (ie, 2008), he seems to generally respond to the messages on his talk page about these actions but as things progressed (2009-) there is less and less acknowledgement by Nono64. My impression is that, despite warnings and attempts by other editors to inform him of policy, he has ramped up his number of edits in flagrant disregard of policy. I think it is very telling that there has been no response to several messages about his mass linking (mine included) and in User talk:Nono64#Regarding changes from brain to human brain, he responded twice, once to semi-justify himself and the other to say "Who really cares of animal reelin?". He has also not made a single response to this ANI report and continues his level of edits. I am curious what percentage of his edits are ultimately reverted due to his ignoring consensus. Vindicata (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(Yeah, there's a lot of "slogging" to be done here, alas.) I see what DMacks means now, and that makes very good sense now that I understand it. So from Vindicata's search, it sounds like the previous warnings were leading to the previous blocks, and DMacks' recent warning is the first since then. I share Vindicata's assessment of the inadequacy of Nono64's responses. Is that, then, where we now stand? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NickCTs additions at Talk:Rubygate

This user added a claim that is unsupported that a living person is a prostitute, He added - "Frankly, when one of the people involved is a prostitute", diff I asked him to cite it or remove it, he didn't and replaced it, diff as it was stating as if fact that a living person was a prostitute I struck it and asked him not to replace it,I warned him on his talkpage but he unstruck the comment again diff - WP:BLP applies on talkpages too, even the British daily mail only asserts she is a dancer. When a user repeatedly adds such BLP violations an edit restriction is required. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well.... This is slightly disappointing. I'll let a reviewing admin look over the talk page to determine whether my comments were harmful. Additionally, the reviewing admin should probably look at messages off2 left on my talkpage User_talk:NickCT#Ruby.

Furthermore, Off2 has been following me through WP talk pages, seemingly for the purpose of launching this kind of arbitration against me (see a 3rr filing he posted against me for reverts on a page he'd never edited before). This behavior started after we had a similar disagreement at Talk:Pamela_Geller. I wouldn't mind getting an interaction ban at this point. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick, did you call a BLP a hooker? If so you ought not to have done. BLP is a serious issue here, it is abused far to often, and editors with a little experience ought to know better. Would you please remove the offending comments? And lets be a little more careful in future, Tentontunic (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And upon looking again (at the diffs) The woman in question is a "Lady of the night" I am unsure why OTRR is concerned about this, plus actually striking comments does nto in fact remove any violation? Tentontunic (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

NickCT, you should use the terms provided in reliable sources. If they say dancer, then say "dancer". If you re-factor your comments or provide a reliable source for your description, I would suggest this thread be closed without action. TFD (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is she? If so, you should be able to find a reliable source that says so. If you can't, you shouldn't be saying it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going on what was said on the news, If I am wrong the lady has of course my full and sincere apologies. Tentontunic (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on the telly so I can call this living person whatever I want is unsupported by wiki policy and guidelines - this comment was uncited and presented by the user as if fact and as such a BLP vio and an attack on a living person - it was objected to and removed and user NickCT replaced it repeatedly. Its not ok to add this sort of claim when disputed and to repeatedly replace it. Its a BLP violation repeatedly inserted.Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nick -- This seems like a hopeless one to bicker over. While I've had differences myself w/Off2 at times, and agreed with him (fewer) times, his suggestion that it is not appropriate to call someone a prostitute without RS support would seem like an incredibly simple proposition to understand and agree with. And I agree with Off2 here -- I would suggest you simply apologize and move on. Believe me Nick, you will dig a deeper hole for yourself if you continue to fight for your right to brand a BLP a prostitute, without RS support. NB: The conversation at Geller that Off2 alludes to is one where I agreed with Off2; parallel to here, our concern was with Nick inappropriately branding someone.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The good faith thing to do when something you publish on a talkpage is challenged and a citation requested for that assertion is to provide one or remove it, this user NickCT repeatedly replaced it, each time in violation of WP:BLP, showing a lack of respect for wikipedia policies and guidelines. The assertion still remains on the talkpage in violation of policy regarding living people and it should be removed. frankly - users are not requested to publish their frank opinions about living people anywhere on wikipedia, talkpage or not. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew I had seen this lady called a prostitute on Sky. tried for allegedly using an underage prostitute. They have accused the 74-year-old of paying for sex with Moroccan belly dancer Karima El Mahroug - stage name Ruby Rubacuori - when she was just 17 and also in the Guardian. Berlusconi faces call to trial over claims of underage sex with prostitute This is the same scandal right? Have I gotten them mixed up some were along the line? Tentontunic (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are the allegations The living subject should not be asserted as if fact as being a prostitute as NickCT has done repeatedly. You'll see from sky - They have accused the 74-year-old of paying for sex with Moroccan belly dancer Karima El Mahroug - that comment does not allow NickCT or anyone at wikipedia to state as if a fact that she is a prostitute, as far as WP:BLP is concerned, she is a dancer that has been accused of taking money for sexual contact with the the Italian PM. Both her and the PM deny that completely. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reputable journalists carefully specify when an allegation has not been proven in court, but not all are entirely reputable, for example, [13], [14], which use the phrase "prostitute Ruby Rubacuori". Others may have said so much without putting the words together so that I could Google them. I don't think that ANI should hold Wikipedia editors to journalistic standards when they make a passing comment about an issue on a talk page. It is overly demanding, and acutely counterproductive. NickCT's original comment did not even specify the dancer's stage name, and might alternatively been interpreted to mean the "prostitute" with whom she was alleged to have been seen leaving in earlier versions of the article.[15] Off2riorob's editing of the comment and complaints about it and this ANI proceeding do far more to associate this person with such allegations than NickCT's little sentence; in turn, all these discussions on Wikipedia are but a speck in the much larger media storm of publicity surrounding her and Berlesconi. It would be best simply to dismiss this proceeding and recognize that this involves a simple difference in perspectives depending on whom each editor believes (the prosecution or the defense). It is sufficient in this case, where all the disputed facts have been plainly aired in the press, for an editor merely to point out that the facts are under dispute in normal conversation, without any further redaction or penalty. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The good faith position was to remove it and not replace it, we are not the Sun, a titillation tabloid, it was and is the users repeated replacement of the statement that compounded the issue, we should keep BLP standards up on the talkpage just as much as in articles. If the user shows a pattern of such statements about living people in the future administrative action will be required, falling to the lowest standard acceptable is not the way forward. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that talk pages are meant to consider and debate improvements to articles, and so by their nature they contain statements of lower quality and reliability than those in articles. This was not a wanton abuse, like if someone opened up an article about a random dancer and wrote this in the talk page for fun --- there's at least one Italian prosecutor willing to charge the prime minister of his country with a sexual relationship that would not be illegal unless the woman were a prostitute^[16] The only thing that you can reasonably push for here is to say that NickCT should have put an "allegedly" in his comment somewhere. And maybe he should have, but it shouldn't be a hanging offense. It should be sufficient for you to point out that nothing has been proved in court yet (if that qualifies as proof...) and move on. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is not that he made the statement, people may make mistakes we understand that. But having made the statement he appears to have refused to remove it when requested despite the fact it's undefendable per WP:BLP. There's no reason why NickCT's opinion that the person in question is a prostitute is in any way relevant to the thread, and without any source that's all it is, an opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that a passing mention of an allegation on a talk page has much less impact on a living person than its coverage in the article, even if "allegedly" is left out. Off2riorob need merely have said "that allegation isn't proven", and the net effect would be the same as if "allegedly" had been used. I think it is important for us to shake our moral compass and make sure it is free to point to true north here. On one hand, we have our concern that someone's comment on a talk page is going to humiliate a woman who is headline news throughout the world because she is accused of having sex with the prime minister of her country. On the other hand, we have the freedom of Wikipedia editors to hold a wide-ranging conversation about the event and to consider, without hesitation, that she may be a prostitute and what that means. I hold the second to be most valuable, because Wikipedia should be digging here and getting at the things left unsaid, or rarely said, by the media. We know that all too often prostitutes are under the control of pimps - that the $7000 and necklaces she supposedly received, if they existed, and if the allegation is true, likely never touched her bank account but went straight to some scum of the earth mafioso who makes his living terrifying little girls. We need everyone involved in writing the article to be free to think in such a broad-ranging way, because if word ever gets out, it probably will be understated. I mean, here in Pennsylvania, the Cosa Nostra judge who sold thousands of little kids into private prison for a couple of million in bribes may eventually have gotten a 12-year sentence, but you can scarcely find a news article that dares to mention that those private prisons are still open for business, still offering their "services" to the state for double what it should cost. It will probably be the same in Italy, with headline prosecutions and footnotes about continuing prostitution of children. Wikipedia probably has a social mission to perform here, looking for a chance to tell men that Berlesconi's alleged actions aren't a mere "romp" but an act of perversion and enslavement, but we'll never get there unless we have the opportunity to speak freely amongst ourselves. (Note: I recognize that this example is hypothetical, and I am not suggesting people should edit the article as POV warriors, and it is just one of many things that could appear in the telescope if people are free to start pointing it around). Wnt (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

AN3 review requested

Could an admin with a few minutes to spare please look at this AN3 thread. It was closed as "no violation" by an admin with the comment TLDR (too long, didn't read).

The editor reverted the same porn image back into an article four times, each time against talk page consensus (8:1 against him in the end), while claiming consensus in the edit summary. --JN466 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't close it "with the comment TLDR", he said "No violation.. Also TLDR." In other words, he looked at the diffs, concluded there was no violation, and didn't read the rest of the novel. --B (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the novel. The chap who four times put the image back in against solid talk page consensus by eight editors, edit-warring against two of them in the process, did. Is that all an editor has to do, write a novel and say "I am now going camping for three days?" --JN466 04:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't want to put words into someone else's mouth, but I'm assuming he looked at your initial complaint, saw that the diffs were not within a 24-hour period, and decided not to block. That's a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. But in any event, my point wasn't whether or not I agreed with the decision - it was that it was factually incorrect to say that he closed it "with the comment TLDR". I also note that you haven't contacted the admin himself on his talk page to notify him of your thread here. As for "I am now going camping for three days", a statement of willingness to not edit the page in question is often considered - blocks are preventative and not for punishment and if there is no disruption to prevent, there's no block to make. --B (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The admin's closing comments got the basic facts wrong. There was no RfC running. There was a talk page discussion, started by myself, in which 7 editors said the second bukkake image was redundant, and should go. Each time the image was deleted, in line with talk page consensus, the editor reverted it back in. After the third time, with 7:1 talk page consensus against him, he started an RfC. After that, he added it back again for a fourth time, claiming consensus in the edit summary. By that time 8 editors had said the second image should go. I am not asking for the editor's head on a plate, but I would like someone to tell him that he was being disruptive because – by any reasonable standard, he was. --JN466 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, don't try to misrepresent my position. The image you removed is not the one I agreed to being removed, and in fact you've presented yourself hypocritically over these debates by claiming on one article that the most appropriate (and common scenario) image should be used to illustrate the subject on one article and then on the second article removing that type of image in favor of another. I, in fact, do not support the change you made to the article as it stands. So frankly i find his edits to be more in line with consensus than your since you proposed one thing and did another.--Crossmr (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

[17] That was the image I removed at the time. I replace the lead image with the other image later on, because a woman editor complained that it implied to her that the woman being ejaculated upon had her hands tied. That seemed reasonable to me. I was honestly not aware that you had disagreed with that decision. How you can say his actions reflected consensus, when 8 editors said the article should only have one drawing of a woman being ejaculated upon, and he kept adding a second one, mystifies me. --JN466 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the consensus was to remove the second image, not the first. As for the woman complaining, there was no consensus that that the image portrayed that and there is nothing in the image to clearly indicate that is the case. Everyone who puts their arms behind their back isn't being restrained. Also not censored would apply here as the image clearly shows the most common scenario as you yourself have indicated is most desirable and appropriate to be used. If we changed the encyclopedia every time a single person objected, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia at all.--Crossmr (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the second image showing just two men is the one that he reverted back into the article here and here and here. Three times. That is the image you do NOT want to be in the article, is it not? --JN466 05:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC) I added a third diff to this post. --JN466 15:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not a single person objecting. It was overwhelming talk page consensus:

• Kaldari: "Agree with JN. 2nd image is redundant" diff
• Enric Naval: "Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them." diff
• Genevieve2: "the Illustration depicting the act of bukkake seems to me inappropriate for a site serious as Wikipedia ... This image must be removed, thanks, merci" diff
• Carolmooredc: "One is enough." diff
• Crossmr: "I agree with the removal of the second image due to article length and a bit of redundancy." diff
• Oda Mari: "I agree with OP, CaroMooreDC and others. I find no reason that the two similar images should be needed in the article. One is enough." diff
• Herostratus: "I would support this per WP:HARDCORE." (expressing preference for not using either of the explicit drawings). diff
• Jayen466: "I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant." diff

Even if I remove your comment from this list, which you now seem to renege on, that leaves seven editors agreeing. Are you saying that seven editors against one opposing voice are not a sufficient basis for changing an article? --JN466 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do not mind using the image showing just two men. The principle is still clearly illustrated, and the reader can imagine other men outside of the picture frame that will take their turn later on. I was more worried by a female editor's impression that the woman's hands looked as though they were tied behind her back. This project and its gender gap are currently prominently in the news. I am not sure that it is in our best interests, at this time in particular, to ride roughshod over female editors' concerns in articles about hardcore pornography, and basically telling female editors that their impressions and feelings are invalid. Especially in the case of a female editor who had previously, by her own statements, felt abused by male editors when she commented in a similar on-wiki situation. --JN466 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If it matters at all, I'm a woman and I do find it rather objectionable as well. Just saying. No problem with the article existing, but there is no need for more than one illustration, if any (I'm sure the imagination can fill in the blanks). Anything more than one simple illustration is smacking of salaciousness..or something.Gingervlad (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, my feelings exactly. If you add a comment in the RfC on the article's talk page, this will ensure that your opinion will be noted there.--JN466 05:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the dispute on the article talk page.

That's correct. The consensus was to remove the image of the one of 2 people, not the group. The act is a group act, and as you've pointed out the image which most clearly illustrates the most common scenario should be used. Are you saying that claim you made was false? One person suggested the first image be removed. Of the rest of the people who commented they either agreed with your assessment (which was indicating that the second be removed) or they clearly stated that the second be removed. stop claiming a false consensus. You had no consensus on the removal of the first image.--Crossmr (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

B has it right. I reviewed the diffs and the edit summaries. I observed no violation, but rather someone wanting to maintain a version for an RFC, with reverts more than 24 hours apart. As I was closing the an3 case, I encountered an edit conflict, wherein the accused dumped a huge amount of text justifying his actions. As I had made my decision, the details of the dispute weren't relevant, so I closed it as "no violation" and did not read the "novel". And yes, blocks are not meant to be punitive. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic, there was no RfC. Atomaton reverted three times, and when he found that talk page consensus was solidly against him, he started an RfC. And then reverted again. As Kaldari said (although he redacted it later), this was a pure attrition tactic to keep two almost identical pictures of a woman being ejaculated upon in the article. --JN466 05:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let me say this: we have a few editors with sheer endless determination to keep multiple images depicting women in degrading positions, beyond anything that could reasonably be justified by encyclopedic relevance, in articles like this (2 images, one is enough) and this (5 images at the time) and this (completely redundant image) and this (one image that does not match the text, as this is primarily a gay male or heterosexual, but not lesbian practice). Is this who we want to be? --JN466 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment- Why is it that some admins block first then ask for a review later? Hardly ever happens the other way around.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Umm, the admin in this case - Amatulic - opted NOT to block the user reported at AN3. The user who filed the report - Jayen466 - is the one requesting review. --B (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Without getting into the subject of the original AN3 complaint, "No violation.. Also TLDR" literally spelled out as "No violation.. Also [it's] too long [and I] didn't read [it]." does literally state that the editor had not read it and thus implies the decision must therefore have been an uninformed one, even if the truth is that the editor had actually read it. Regardless, TLDR is UNCIVIL (TLDRIU, if you like). Alternatively, "No violation.. Also, the original complaint could have been more succinct" would have implied the editor read the complaint and offered a CIVIL comment about the length. However, it wasn't all that long and Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia and Wikipedia presumes editors are capable of reading long pages (even simple.wikipedia does). Incidentally, Amatulić's userpage doesn't appear to indicate an admin status? Was it a non-admin closure, or did someone else close it? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Amatulic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin (you can see blocks/deletes/etc in his logs). I disagree that TLDR is uncivil and in this case, the part that he is saying he didn't read was the reported user's defense because he had already decided not to block the user. If you're reviewing a report and just from the diffs provided and looking at the article history, you have enough information to determine you're not going to block the user, why does it matter what the user said in their own defense? --B (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so, B, you seem to know my thoughts.

I had already made my decision not to block, so anything the accused would write in defense wasn't relevant. My "TLDR" comment was not meant to be incivil, just a shortcut way of informing the user that the long essay wasn't necessary as I had already made my decision. I apologize for the way it came across to others.

This whole ANI thread resulted because one editor seems intent on imposing a punitive block, when it was clear that even an escalated 48-, 55-, or 72-hour block would not have been noticed by the editor, and Atomaton stated that he's willing to abide by consensus. My understanding of blocking is that they should be levied to prevent further disruption rather than to punish. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Atomaton stated that he's willing to abide by consensus I saw little sign of that while he was editing. Let's hope it proves so when he returns. --JN466 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1

I'd like the community to call User:Mclay1 to order.

He is trying to WP:OWN certain templates and categories. Specifically, Template:R to template and Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In general, he has been opposed to almost any proposal I have made to simplify a few related templates and categories, as can been seen in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_18#Category:Redirects_to_template_from_non-template_namespace, but has had to bow to community consensus.

When he tried to speedy Category:Redirects from other templates, that was denied because the category was still populated by over 200 templates at that time. He seems to be unaware of the rules for speedy deletion. Then he renominated it for speedying, in flagrant disregard of the fact that he was denied, and was denied a second time. Since then I emptied the category and the templates was deleted. But any admin can dig up the history and see for himself that Mclay1 has no knowledge of, nor regard for, Wikipedia procedures.

Template:R to template was deleted as being not in use and per the spirit of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template. Mclay1 recreated it, only to put it on Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. This is a category which he is trying to develop though a few related templates, like Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox using a template Template:Redirect category which he has adopted, so to say. There is no reason to do so, since Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox are not in use at all cross-namespace! He is edit warring with be about this on Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox in disregard of WP:BRD.

After Mclay1 recreated Template:R to template, I asked for it to be speedied, and Mclay1 removed the speedy template, in violation of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion which say specifically in bolds that The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. I warned Mclay1 about this in this edit. His rather angry reply was that he refuses to bow to this rule, as he stated in so may words in this edit. After the template was deleted Mclay1 recreated it again.

I'd like the community to point out to Mclay1 that he has to abide by community decisions. He can not recreated deleted templates every time. He should not try to create a category structure, which does not have community consensus, and he should not remove tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. In general, I'd like Mclay1 to understand that he does not own Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You, Debresser, have done some good things for me and for WP in past years. And here recently, McLerristarr (Mclay1) has also done some good things, both for me and with me. So I certainly don't want to be in the middle of all this. Just let me say that I sincerely hope that you both can resolve these issues between you in a timely manner that is satisfactory to all.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps the seriousness of the fact that I posted here, and the in my opinion serious accusations I have made, are in themselves enough to help Mclay1 see reason. We have cooperated in some things, even in this very same area I have posted about. If worse comes to worse, I am sure another editor will be found who can judge this case. Let's await his response here, first of all. Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that Template:R to template was not part of the TFD for Template:R from other template. It was a redirect to that template, so when that template was deleted, so where all the redirects. I created a new template under the name of the redirect. That is recreating something which was deleted after a discussion. Every redirect category should have a corresponding template which populates it. Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace had no template so I created Template:R to template for it. I also added a cross-namespace recognition function to the other redirect templates for template namespace. The fact that the templates are not being used for cross-namespace redirects at the present time is irrelevant – most redirects have not been tagged yet. If anyone is out of line, it is Debresser – you are the one reverting perfectly legitimate edits. As for nominating Category:Redirects from other templates for speedy deleting: the category was meant to be populated by Template:R from other template, which was deleted. The template was deleted because the consensus was that the category was not needed. There is no rule which states that categories that aren't empty cannot be deleted. There is no serious issue here and I find that fact that this discussion exists ridiculous. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 continues to 1. recreate the template that was deleted three times by now. 2. add a completely unneeded category detection to the two templates mentioned above in disregard of the deletion discussion of a now deleted template that populated that category.

He call his edits "legitimate and useful" but since they go against a deletion discussion and repeated deletions they are not legitimate, and since the category detection is not in use on either of the templates they are not useful either. In any case, their usefulness is clearly being questioned, and Mclay1 should seek consensus first.

I now call upon the community to call Mclay1 to order for repeated edits in violation community decisions, explicitly stated disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, ignoring WP:BRD and especially WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How is my wanting the function different to you not wanting it? Neither of us are trying to own anything. And for the last bloody time, the TFD had nothing to do with cross-namespace redirects, which is ALL my edits are for. Template:R from other template was deleted because the consensus was that redirects from template namespace pages to templates were unnecessary. That is irrelevant to what I'm doing. The category was not populated by any template until I added the functionality just before it was deleted. It was meant to be populated by all the redirect templates for template namespace but somehow it never got done until I did it. There is no policy which states I must ask someone before making an edit. You are the only one who seems to be opposed to cross-namespace recognition and for no apparent reason. Reverting edits for no apparent reason is against policy. Unless you can actually give me a reason why this functionality is not needed, I will continue to improve the encyclopaedia. And the fact that no cross-namespace redirects have been tagged yet is not a good reason to delete things – it's a good reason for them to be tagged. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is basically: I think that what I am doing is The Right Thing To Do, and therefore I will ignore the fact that I am the one trying to make the changes (WP:BRD), I will ignore your opposition (WP:CONSENSUS), I will ignore the fact that one deletion discussion showed clearly that people do not agree with me (here) and that the other one shows that no one supports me (here), I stay with my explicit refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines about what I am supposed and not supposed to do [18], and I will do as I please (WP:OWN). Will somebody please call Mclay1 to order. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am really getting sick of having to repeat myself. The TFD was entirely, completely unrelated to what I'm doing. {{R from other template}} categorised redirects from template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects from other templates. They were deleted after the TFD. {{R to template}} was a redirect to {{R from other template}} so was deleted too; however, I created a new template under the same name to categorise redirects from non-template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In no way was I going against the consensus determined at the TFD. That other TFD you linked is the one where you agreed with me to add the cross-namespace recognition to {{R from other template}}, so I don't see where you get the "no one supports me" idea from. You are not a consensus. The fact the one editor continually refuses to allow me to edit without explaining his/her reasons is definitely a violation of policy. Can we please discuss this properly without a ridiculous attempt to get others to gang up on me, which, as you can see, isn't working. Let's settle this like the sensible human beings we are. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is behavioral. You are trying to make up a completely useless and empty category and populate it with additions to templates. You call this "improving the project", while in fact you are ignoring consensus and trying to enforce your own sense of order with repeated recreations of a deleted template and edit warring. It is a little too late now to play to reasonable guy say "let's talk it over". Try and seek consensus, and come back, even though I have already shown that consensus is against you. But in the mean time, you have to stop with your numerous violations of Wikipedia rules. Which is what I'd like to community to explain to Mclay1 Debresser (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 has done some good work in the area of redirects, as has Debresser, but these allegations of WP:OWNership are serious and worrying. It's clear that both of you are interested in working in the same area and your style's are clashing. Mclay1 needs to temporarily step away from particular areas when it's become clear that his actions, good or bad, are having an adverse effect on another editor. Debresser needs to accept any possible chance of resolving this matter civilly, if Mclay1 extends a token of good faith to discuss this sensibly then by not taking full advantage of that you are propogating this dispute. I call upon one of you, either one, to make a decision to accept the others way of doing things before this escalates into an ugly mess. This shouldn't require any blocking, you are both valuable editors, and we don't want either of you blocked. And you're both mature enough to not need any scolding from the community. -- œ^™ 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross-name-space redirects are generally a sign of something that has gone wrong, therefore I am not wholly opposed to any means of gathering information about them - even about those that are not a problem. I would suggest that the template in question is taken to TfD, or discussed at the Redirect forum (I forget exactly where that is). It would be great if soemthing useful could come out of this. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

user:97.90.124.232

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• This request was completely ignored for 36 hours before being archived by a bot. Restored. 63.134.128.4 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-notified, for fairness. Also, 63.134.128.4, are you Simon Dodd? GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I just forgot to sign in. It happens. I wouldn't have thought that renotification was necessary since this isn't a new issue?. It's a little disappointing that a dig through the archives (and this conversation) became necessary, truth be told. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of socking or whatever, I just wanted clarification - it happens with me as well! I re-notified because the IP may well have seen your notification, come here, and found nothing (the discussion already having been archived) - now they know that 2 days later, it's back up, and the issue still isn't resolved. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• T+62 hours. Would this be better served by taking it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe, what's the COI? Maybe have a try at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and solve the dispute? GiantSnowman 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, as I mentioned above, the user is an SPA; that, plus the tone and content of their edits and talk page comments tell me that there's a COI problem. The article edits are too numerous to detail here (check the history), but the talk page comments in particular are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," user:97.90.124.232 objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was trying to do, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." And as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.

Having opened this case here at AN/I, I don't feel that I open a case anywhere else without leave from an admin (I'll be accused of forum shopping). I opened the case here because at the time, my immediate concern was the user's actions in blanking my user page in retaliation for proposing a merge and the attempted removal of the merge templates. Well, that was two days ago (certainly demonstrating the kind of prompt admin response that encourages people to use process rather than dealing with problems themselves), and those problems haven't yet recurred. At this point, the COI is the larger problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You could easily defend yourself from any accusations of forum shopping by pointing them here - you've posted twice over a period of days, and received no reply or help from admins. Now you've explained it a bit more, maybe the COI noticeboard is the place to go. GiantSnowman 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Case opened at COI; I'll notify the user. I'd still like an admin to do something about the user page blanking, so I'm leaving the request here open.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and legal threats at Edward E. Kramer

Could some experienced admins look at the article Edward E. Kramer and see what can be done? An editor has been using sockpuppets to continually remove referenced information which he disagrees with. It appears this removal had been going on for years and not only involves numerous sockpuppets but also legal threats.

For example, in 2006 the editor Israel Legal removed the disputed section per this edit. Using this sockpuppet this user claimed to be an attorney who was protesting the insertion of this information (see this edit for more).

A few weeks ago I edited the article to reinsert this information. This editor reappeared as Dante19 and began removing the information yet again. When two other admins became involved in the editing dispute (Orange Mike and SarekOfVulcan), Dante 19 "gave up" and was immediately replaced by the sockpuppet User:NYlegal1 who claimed that the information in the article is a "fabrication and libelous" even though the article quotes directly from newspapers like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. NYLegal1 was warned by an admin about using legal threats (see the user's talk page).

Because I am involved in this editorial dispute, it would not be appropriate for me to warn or block this user for sockpuppetry and legal threats. Thanks for any assistance. If I'd known the back history of this article and how much irritation all this would cause I probably would not have ever edited it. Ah well.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this issue as I can see why it is so contentious. I read the article once and I must say I think its an extremely poor editorial decision to include the criminal allegations in the article, especially before he trial is concluded - This is material that can have extremely damaging impact on the persons life - I would not want the responsibility for the potetntial suffering that including this information might cause the subject on my shoulders, especially if he turns out to be innocent. I think this is a complete failure of editors to take the possible real life consequences of their wikipedia editing into account. Just because something is verifiable that doesn't mean we have to include it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• For a charge of this nature which has not been brought to trial after ten years nor attracted really widespread comment . I think BLP needs to be considered, and this should be moved to the BLP noticeboard. I would be inclined to call it disproportionate negative coverage. unrelated to notability. I recognize the possible counter-argument that the coverage at this point does him no harm, and excluding it might possibly do him harm, but I'd need to see a discussion showing that very clearly to go along with that. Otherwise, my suggestion would be to remove, revision-delete, and protect if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I think the sockpuppeteering and legal threats might be an indicator that it is hurting someone.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a subject which has gained a ton of news coverage over the years and, it should be noted, the trial is still going on. The article could have included many more very in-depth news articles if we desired; it appears previous editors felt using all of the news articles as references were overkill. The editors have also bent over backward to include the defendant's side of the story and to keep the article NPOV. BLP does not mean that anything negative on a person must never be included because it may hurt someone's feelings. Wikipedia is about providing correct, reliable information. But if people want to take this to the BLP discussion board I'd be happy to go along with that. But the main problem is that this one editor simply wants this information removed and is using sockpuppets and legal threats to accomplish that instead of discussing the issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I'm done with any further edit attempts on this article. I've reverted it to NYlegal1's previous version and if he wants to delete all this information that's an issue for others to deal with. As it reads now the article is definitely not NPOV since it's all from the defendent's POV, but I have no desire to keep going back and forth on this issue. And if people truly feel that it goes against BLP to have this information in the article, then I support removing it.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I just unarchived this thread, because the dispute is ongoing. NYlegal1 requested "create protection" on the article. I declined, but SlimVirgin protected it, and then reverted to the last version before NYlegal1's latest revert, calling it the "consensus version" and pointing the disputants to the talkpage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That does sound reasonable, although I would have thought semi-protection would have done the job. Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Trying to understand another user's block

Hallo, I'm trying to understand the block of Otto4711 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely on 25 September 2010 by user:Vanished 6551232. So far I found the page

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive,

which however does not explain the reason for the block of Otto4711. Also, around the time of this block I found the threat

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#PROD_nominations_by_Are_You_The_Cow_Of_Pain.3F.2C_sock_of_indef-blocked_user,

and from there to the Diff [19].

First I first thought Vanished 6551232 would be some kind of name, however it turns out that this is the former account "Rlevse", which entirely has been deleted as an account by another administrator. Why has Rlevse been deleted, and is the person Rlevse still an administrator in this project?

I understand that according to a Difflink provided by Rlevse, Otto4711 has changed a signature of Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) in an AFD on 26 July 2010: [20].

Also both accounts, Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711, have been Checkusered, again by this (former?) administrator Rlevse/Vanished 6551232. And Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711 have edited on a large number of the same pages. However, I don't know of a discusion, where both accounts would have edited stimultaniously without revealing their possible identity, or how one of them would have used the other as a Sockpuppet in any other abusive way.

So, from what I know so far, I don't understand how Are You The Cow Of Pain? or Otto4711 (or the person behind them if he is the same) would have abused the project, and what the excact reason for their blocks is,

--Schwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Otto, but I do know that Rlevse left the project not too long ago because of certain incidents and asked for his account to be deleted under the right to vanish. That's why his username is like that. Silverseren^C 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder why people dig into these things, but the SPI report is quite clear: Otto4711 created an account named "Eddie's Teddy" in order to evade a block.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the Wikistalk result comparing Schwalker (the OP) and Otto4711. There's not a great deal of article overlap between them, but what there is cannot be explained by simple commonality of interest: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, List of persons considered father or mother of a field, Godwin's law. I bring this up not because of a lack of AGF, but because there doesn't appear to be any particular reason for Schwalker to care about Otto4711, and he or she is being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject of Otto4711's block. Naturally, that brings up concerns about motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask Schwalker how they missed this on the block log: ‎(Abusing multiple accounts: do not unblock without contacting arbcom first), which would have indicated that the place to go to inquire about this block was ArbCom. Why have you not contacted ArbCom, instead choosing to post on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 and here? Why not go to the source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the archive, confirmed socks of Otto4711:

• User:Eddie's Teddy
• User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• User:Jetblack500
• User:Greatsouthbay
• User:A Radish for Boris
• User:Cosmo Donovan
• User:Sousa Blaine
• User:Sapphire Steel
• User:Seventh Thief
• User:Archibald Noaccount
• User:Screaminsista
• User:A-List Arrangement
• User:Derek Tenley
• User:Eddie Tenley
• User:Pranking Member
• User:Orrin Knox
• User:I Want My GayTV

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your responds. I don't have the impression that all of my I questions have been answered so far, but since some questions have been posed to me, I will try to answer them.

Thanks Silver seren for the information about Rlevse. I've now learned that he has left the project, so he probably formally ist no administrator anylonger. I don't know of the "certain incidents" for which Rlevse left the project, and if he did something wrong as an administrator, but am not yet convinced it was all correct what he did in the case of the Otto4711 account.

Kww, you probably misread the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive. Otto 4711 had been acused in October 2009 of having evaded a block by using the account Eddie's Teddy. Back then, Eddie's Teddy was blocked, and Otto4711 was warned, but not blocked for using a sockpuppet. But this old incident is no sufficient explanation for blocking Otto4711 now in September 2010.

As already stated on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711, I don't know Otto4711, but have read very reasonable contributions in many discussions about categories, so I'm completely surprized by the block of this user.

I must also admit to feel a bit surprized by tone and content of Beyond my Kens's answer. Actually, when I posted this request here yesterday, I did not expect that the first thing an administrator would have in mind would be to start a statitistical analysis of my own edits, and compare them with the edits of blocked users.

How Beyond my Ken can easily see, I had made exactly two edits so far yesterday concerning the case of Otto4711 (here on the admin noticeboard and on the sockpuppets inverstigations talk), so I don't know how he comes to his assessment of me "being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject". Further, how "being fairly persistent" would even be a matter of "concerns about motivation" is beyond me.

I did not miss the block log entry. I am no administrator in this project, so I can't unblock users, and even have no very concrete idea what an "Arbcom" is or does. Since the "source" of this block is user:Vanished 6551232, to my understanding Vanished 6551232 would be the first place to inquire about the block, who however as explained above has left this project.

Of course my concern is that a mistake of law should be avoided. That is to avoid a situation, where first an able author (who probably has a number of opponents in this project) is blocked infinitely for unclear or even unjustified reasons, and then other sockpuppets are again and again attributed to this user, so that eventually it is almost impossible for him to return to the project.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the reasonable suspicion, Schwalker does not match Otto4711's recent socks on a technical basis, and I personally don't find the behaviour compelling evidence. To answer Schwalker's basic question: whether Otto4711 originally should have been blocked is really no longer the question. His account is blocked, and he has been using alternate accounts to get around it. He's been doing that so persistently that now the only way to get his account restored is by contacting the arbitration committee and making his case.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: User:Beyond My Ken is not now, nor has ever been, an admin. Also, despite the negative CU check (which did net a couple of new Otto4711 socks) Schwalker's interest in Otto4711's block remains inexplicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yep: inexplicable. Just not compelling in my view. There are a lot of things people do that I can't explain. Heymid has gotten very interested in a few sockpuppeteers that I deal with, for example, but there's substantial evidence that he isn't any of them. He just found my treatment of them objectionable.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally taken an interest in blocks I'm not involved in, mostly if I am trying to learn more about the finer points of policy or if the reason for the block wasn't entirely transparent. In this case the block log is pretty clear, but I can see how a block log with a final entry from "Vanished 6551232" would look odd to someone who isn't familiar with the right to vanish. I'm not comfortable with the way the spotlight was quickly turned on Schwalker (even though I'm aware that boomeranging is always a concern). It's not like they could inquire with the blocking admin, after all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but they could have contacted ArbCom, which would have been the logical thing to do, given the notation in the block log. And Kww, I'm not disputing your decision not to block, with the negative CU that was entirely reasonable. The behaviorial evidence was, in my opinion, sufficient to run a CU, but not enough to block on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good evening.

A basic question is not answered by simply claiming that the question "is no longer the question". So far, the only two sockpuppets of Otto4711 which were confirmed through checkuser were "Eddie's Teddy" in 2009 and "Are You The Cow Of Pain?", according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#21_October_2010 and the answers by Rlevse on his user talk. To my understanding, all later accounts have been attributed to Otto4711 because of their edit behaviour, but not by direct checkuser with "Otto4711", "Eddie's Teddy", or "Are You The Cow Of Pain?". While I would agree that it is likely that they are sockpuppets of Otto4711, the only "abuse" would be to evade the questionable block by Rlevse from September 2010.

Can anyone please explain to me what is going on here? First I have to read that apparently I am under "reasonable suspicion". I've been working for this project over a period of more than four years now, and have collaborated on articles and in discussions with a number of other authors.

Then I have to read something about a "technical basis". I really cannot believe this, but have to ask if this means that you have now checked my private user-information, just because I've asked a simple question here?

Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really aren't seeing what Schwalker did that was so bad here. If he would like to question a block I would say he has every right to do so. Now, would someone please answer his questions? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to answer his questions, but I'll try again. A user doesn't get to create socks to evade a block he believes is questionable. Questionable or not, the initial block has to be undone, or any subsequent account believed to be from the same user will be blocked. It really doesn't matter why Otto4711 was blocked in the first place, his actions subsequent to that block are blockable in and of themselves. And yes, a checkuser was run on the Schwalker account. I provided a link to the investigation above.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Schwalker hasn't done anything "bad." However, there've been a lot of blocked users who come to ANI using a sockpuppet account, trying to argue they should be unblocked, while pretending to be an uninvolved party. Folks here are a bit gunshy when an uninvolved person pops up randomly asking about a blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This inquiry is possibly related to Schwalker's recent retirement from the German Wikipedia, although I haven't read much into that. It would of course be easiest, if Schwalker were more forthcoming in telling the reason for this inquiry, rather than calling it a "simple question".--Atlan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, Schwalker is not letting go of the issue: [21] Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why we have editors failing to assume good faith here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see any good, faith or otherwise, in editors white-knighting for one another. If Otto4711 wishes to be unblocked, then he can make a request to do so on his own. We don't need wiki-public defenders. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it. If an editor wants to call an action into question, let them, and treat them civily and assume good faith, particularly if it is an established editor as Schwalker is. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by demeaning the idea of a "wiki-public defender.".. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between assuming good faith, and not applying due diligence for the sake of it, also known as naivete.--Atlan (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making about "wiki-public defenders" is...don't be one. If a user wishes to be unblocked, the solution is in their own hands. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User IP:99.12.124.133

This IP was blocked two days ago for repeatedly adding unnecessary gun model details to pages. They are now back to the exact same behavior, despite being told that these edits are both unconstructive and constitute WP:OR. Here are a number of diffs that show as much: [22] [23] [24] [25]

New user AfD'ing Transformers articles

This one seems very familiar, but I can't recall from where. Brand new user Underween (talk · contribs) has jumped right in sending Transformers related articles to AfD, including several that only exist in user space [26] [27]. Anyone remember this MO? Dayewalker (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Cow of Pain? Reyk _YO! 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • PS- I have notified Underween of this thread. Reyk _YO! 08:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Last time it was User:Matthewignash (now renamed), who was a sock of Wiki brah. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Is that the same user as Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if so, why is it still editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
        • No, that was another Wiki brah sock, that was blocked for impersonating Mathewignash (note the extra t). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 08:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there several independent sockmasters infesting the Transformers articles, or is it all just one guy? Editor XXV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sockmaster, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I know other information which I know this is Wiki brah (Not going into any detail per WP:BEANS). –MuZemike 08:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Without getting too much into outing or external drama, there is evidence elsewhere on the Internet that Wiki brah and Decepticon Shockwave/XXV are separate individuals cooperating with one another. They are both using sock puppets to attack Transformers articles, but they aren't the same person. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good enough. Don't give the game away. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they've disclosed their plans on-wiki here. –MuZemike 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, what a bunch of losers. If my life was centered around vandalizing Wikipedia (and simply being reverted) to this degree I wouldn't be bragging about it... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive?

Should Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Race and intelligence, which dates from before the ArbCom case, be archived somewhere? It's still live. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No-one has used that page in 8 months, so what exactly is your problem with it? Or is this just another handy reason to make a spot appearance on AN/I? Weakopedia (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's fitting that your ID is "weak"-opedia, as that was a pretty lame comment. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I happen to come across the page rather accidentally, and I thought it might be better to archive an open unused sub-page the subject of which had been settled by ArbCom, rather than leave it live. If I had any idea where it might go to be archived, I would have done it myself, but I don't. if no one thinks it's a problem, that's fine too, I just thought I bring attention to it; I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are actually several ANI sub-pages related to that dispute. I don't think there's any systematic practice of archiving such pages. Given that the conflict isn't active right now, I'd tend to want to leave the pages alone and be vewwy vewwy quiet. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate blanking by User:Me-123567-Me

Me-123567-Me (talk · contribs) has, on two occasions now, tried to delete lists of university alumni because they are not currently sourced, not because they cannot be sourced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni (closed as keep, with no !votes in support of nom), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni (pending, currently no !votes in support of nom). The consensus in both is that the sourcing is completely fixable, the information is not negative or contentious so it's not a BLP concern that would require immediate blanking (particularly since not every entry is living) per WP:BLPDELETE, and per WP:DEADLINE we're not going to delete the lists just because that sourcing has not yet occurred.

Despite that, Me-123567-Me recently blanked List of University of British Columbia alumni, removing all but two entries for which there were citations.[28] I undid this, restoring the removed entry.[29] Me-123567-Me responded by reverting to his blanked version,[30] and by warning me on my talk page that I am edit warring and am in danger of violating WP:3RR,[31] when I only ever made the one edit to the list.

His improper warning made me think that it would be more productive to bring the issue here to a wider forum. While, of course, the list should be improved by adding references and inline citations, it should not be blanked in the meantime. I think the blanking of the list (and both AFD noms, to be honest) is disruptive, WP:POINTY, contrary to the consensus in both AFDs, contrary to WP:BLPDELETE ("Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.") (emphasis added), and contrary to Wikipedia:Deletion#Editing ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."). See also this ongoing Village pump discussion, where the consensus is clear that we don't enforce WP:V by mechanically removing all content that is currently without references, especially where it is clear that it can be sourced. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Me-123567-Me is correct. See WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states that people on stand along lists must have either their own wikipage or a reliable source to establish their notability, as well as a source (the same or another one) showing that the person is a member of that group. Unless those names have such sources or a wikipage, they should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Without sources, you cannot even say that such material is "not a BLP concern", because you don't know who you're saying it about. Blanking such material does not make the history unavailable, so the list can trivially be restored if it's sourceable, but in the meantime the onus is on the person who wants such material included to justify that inclusion. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

L&S - "...must have either their own wikipage..." Based on the list prior to blanking the vast majority are blue links - that is they have a Wikipedia page. If the page lists them as an alumnus of a school, WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. And again, mass removal with out appearing to review that is disruptive and in this case, with the editor doing the blanking having been the one to nom the page for deletion, POINTED. - J Greb (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things I see:

• Me-123567-Me's first near blanking is indiscriminate and not supported based on the edit summary or AfD.
• If the list does involve a number of deceased people - and such lists can and likely will - then attempting to apply the BLP protocols to blank in one go without verifying which entries are for the living and which aren't is disruptive and harmful at the least. At worst it is pointed editing verging on the destructive.
• With regard to BLP - IIUC, the "pull on sight" protocol has been limited to material that is defamatory, contentious, rumor, and/or flat-out unsourcable. Of those 4, the only possible grounds here would be "contentious", and I don't see an argument being made for that.
• Normally, if there is a dispute over removal.addition of material, editors opt for WP:BRD, leaving the article in the initial state and working on the talk page. Given the AfD and the actions show, it looks like there is little chance of that being done.
• The use of a warning template to try and scare another editor. That's a biggie for me. Yes, the low level templates are routinely used at early stages of content and editing disputes. But jumping on the "Do it again and be blocked" - essentially what the 3RR template is used for - immediately is antithetical to the editing methods used on Wikipedia.

The up shot of this is that yes, the list needs work, but that's all. The deleteion looks churlish at the AfD not going through and the templating of Postdlf would be a classic example of trying to bully an editor. The correction here would be to:

1. Restore the list article to what was kept by the AfD;
2. Add a Ref/Improve tag to it;
3. Make sure Me-123567-Me clearly understands that they should not abouse warning templates in this way; and
4. Someone actually work on upgrading the list.

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the onus is on the person making the addition to the list to provide an in-line citation. None was there so I removed the entries that had no citations. They may have an article or not, but proof must be provided on the list for them to remain. No citation means they can be removed. I don't have time to look for citations for all those people, nor am I required to. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a list, first and foremost, second, any information about any individual has got to at least be cited to a reliable source. The list either needs to be a cited article or it needs to be deleted on those grounds.

Me-12356-Me is correct. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I find it hilarious how the commenters in this discussion are in direct antithesis to how the AfDs have gone and are going, which seems to indicate that the commenters here are wrong. As the OP stated, the fact that the lists have blue linked people on them implies clearly that the information can be verified with sources, which is what should be attempted to be done before removing. Indiscriminately blanking the list is counter-productive to the purpose of the list and Wikipedia. We're here to improve Wikipedia and to remove what cannot be verified or improved. A lack of even attempting to verify is clearly a wrong move and a wrong viewpoint. Silverseren^C 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly states that such information is required to be on a list of this type. If the wikipage of the people who were removed states that they went to the school in question, then they should be re-added to the list. If not, they should be taken off. The problem is that, in very many of these cases, the information is likely to be unverifiable. In many cases, we'll have no way of confirming that these people went to this school with a reliable source; in other words, you're essentially placing the burden on those who want to delete to prove a negative--to prove that they didn't go to that school. Think about the logic behind what you (those opposed to the blanking) are saying. By your logic, I can go into that article, and add any person who has a wikipage whose college is not listed on that wikipage. Then, you state that al of those names must stand in the article until we can prove they didn't go to the school. This is why its necessary to keep names off of the list and place the burden on those wanting to add names. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is a compromise. If the alumni status of a biography is sourced in the biography don't remove it from the list. That's just a little ruder than we need to be. But vainly keeping a list where no citation exists on Wikipedia in any form is clearly in violation of WP:V and nobody should get in the way of uncited contested information being removed. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The issue I'm having here is that it's not clear the removed info is actually being contested. Usually per AGF and PRESERVE, we tend not to remove uncited, non-contentious stuff merely because it's uncited--"contesting" implies a reasonable belief or suspicion that the info is actually wrong, at which point the burden of citation goes to the person wanting to keep the info. I do have some concern about whether these lists are IINFO to begin with, but Me-123567-Me is editing somewhat obnoxiously, it seems to me, removing stuff for the pure sake of removing it. I also agree with Schmucky that if the person is bluelinked to a biography with cited info saying s/he went to that school, removing the name from the list is inappropriate. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got a feeling the reason that the review wasn't done is that it would take time to weed out the linked living bios w/o a reference.

Beyond that though, I've got a silly question... what does List of University of British Columbia alumni really provide that Category:University of British Columbia alumni doesn't? If the list is to be limited to actual WP articles that have a sourced mention of being an alumnus of the school, it seems redundant with the category. (Note, this does not excuse the behavior that was originaly brough here for review.)

- J Greb (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A category could only tell you those people went to the school. It would take a list to tell you when they attended, whether they graduated, and what degree they earned. The list doesn't do that at present (it only annotates with their field of notability), but it should (others do). Regardless, WP:CLN also states that mere redundancy is not a good argument for deleting one form of information in favor of another. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify my stance—if the person had a bluelink, then Me-123567-Me should have checked that bio for a source that verifies the person went to the school in question. If xe didn't feel like doing that, then I agree that people shouldn't have been removed. When I prune lists of this type, very often, I do just AGF on blue links, because checking them increases the time to make the edit by tenfold. Plus, I know that at least half of the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE are fulfilled (that is, there is evidence that the person is notable). In the case of school alumni (or TV station alumni--that's another big one for some reason), I more concerned with the addition of a large number of unlinked or red-linked people then with tracking down every single linked person—I still hold that those should be removed on sight, no questions asked. For lists involving nationality, religion, etc., then it behooves us to be extra sure, but not so much with alumni. I guess the question is whether we AGF Me-123567-Me did his/her due diligence before remove bluelinks from the lists. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're to take him at his word, he didn't check anything he blanked, because he thinks he doesn't have to before he removes content.[32] All of the list entries were bluelinks except for two (one redlink and one not linked at all, the removal of which I certainly would not have complained about). Didn't you look at the article and its edit history to check whether bluelinks were blanked, before opining on whether its blanking was correct?

Not to mention the fact that the list already passed an AFD... He nominated a list of almost entirely bluelinks at AFD on the grounds that it wasn't sourced. The AFD was closed as keep, with the consensus that sourcing could eventually be provided so the list wasn't a problem at present. He then blanked the list on the grounds that it wasn't sourced, without even checking whether it could be. That this is a problem seems pretty simple to me. He then slapped an edit warring warning template on my talk page after I undid his blanking once. That this is a problem also seems pretty simple to me. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Previously totally uninvolved editor here. As a test, I looked to see how easy/difficult it would be to source one or more, using only the target articles. I'm no great finder of external references, but even I can follow links. I quickly targeted the three former Prime Ministers listed. All three target articles mentioned their school affiliations, and one included a very decent source right on the article. I've now added that source to the List article. So that's one down. Anyway, the point of the exercise was the AGF question above as to whether any effort was made at sourcing before the blanking. Given my lack of skill at sourcing, and the ease at which even I was able to source one directly from the target article, I really, really doubt any attempt was made at sourcing. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. 50 Squadron RAF

Resolved

New article has replaced copyvio

This article is tagged as a possible copyvio but doesn't appear (as far as I can tell) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems A replacement article has been put together at Talk:No. 50 Squadron RAF/Temp which the principle editor and I think is ready to move to the main article. Can an admin investigate and if in agreement make the move. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is listed - 2nd entry down on 16 February 2011. After seven days (or probably a bit more) an admin will come along and sort it out. Dpmuk (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The old copyvio has now been G6'd and replaced by the newly written article. All sorted now. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, not a clue as to master

Resolved

 – Terminated, with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

His first edit outside of creating userspace was to insult Gamaliel. So yeah, block probably in order until we figure out whose sock it is: [33]. Soxwon (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

With the account blocked, I would recommend taking it to a CU so they can trace the range they are using and see if any other accounts have used that range. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious for those of us who frequent WR, but it is perhaps best to not to give him the attention he wants.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dadeville, Alabama

68.239.242.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems dead-set on putting the name of the dude who allegedly poisoned Auburn's oaks in the article about the man's hometown, Dadeville, Alabama. Now, I know Dadeville, and it's bad enough there that it doesn't need this (the letters they write from there to our local paper are something else). The man is not notable per WP:BLP1E, and so his inclusion as a notable person is completely unwarranted. The IP, by now, is convinced that I am whitewashing the article etc. etc.; you've heard it before. They restored that stuff again; I'm at 3R and I'm tired of it.

Incidentally, I posted a note at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about the underlying issue (mentioning the man in the first place, as a subject), but there are no takers there yet; I don't even think that he should be mentioned in Auburn Tigers or Auburn Tigers football, but I'm going to stay away from it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I may have said a bad word to that IP. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll monitor the articles and the user's contribs. I recommend an admin block the user and put semi-protection on the effected articles just so no one else gets the bright idea to do the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reported them to AN3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia problem

We have a brand new editor, Hyc3f (talk · contribs), making trollish edits. I reverted once and was immediately followed by an undo -- I'm about to retire for the night so won't be able to follow up, so I'm adding a pointer here, even though it is formally too early for ANI action. I have notified the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They have reverted the user aboves reversion of their trolling. I reverted them and left another warning at their talk page, and some pointers to policy pages. Heiro 08:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

After the two reverts already mentioned, Hyc3f has now stopped. They saw sense? Or perhaps it was just a quick bit of trolling before bedtime. I'll keep an eye out for their return. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance required on Shenmue

• Uwright2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 65.255.147.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.118.204.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.188.111.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 24.52.32.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For the past 6 weeks, the above user and IP's have been edit warring on Shenmue. The editor (behavioral evidence suggests all are the same person, a fact they have not tried to hide) apparently has a problem with the term "killer application" and has changed it in "salvation title", "franchise title" and "must have title" respectively. Each were reverted for either not making sense or being a made up term (I for one have never heard salvation title before).

The problem with using killer application is apparently that Shenmue is not an iPhone app. I guess that makes sense when you're 12. Anyway, they will only stop to discuss the issue when blocked, which has happened several times already in the past month. The discussion can be read on User talk:65.255.147.183. The discussion broke down with them calling me or Golbez a douche and the stated intent of continuing to edit war until they get their way. When not edit warring on Shenmue, they vandalize my user page, talk page and articles I've created. So far, only User:Golbez steps in to block them, the article has low traffic, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this. I'd ask for page protection, but it is only one person.--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to semi-protect, but I see Mjroots stepped up already :) -- Luk ^talk 10:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, beaten to it. Semi-protection will keep the IPs away for a week, which just leaves Uwright2 to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm uneasy to have the article locked down for a single edit warrior, but since it has such low traffic, I guess the damage is minimal. I hope this yields more results than him/her simply waiting out the week to continue edit warring. Uwright2 is not autoconfirmed yet, btw.--Atlan (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring + WPavoidYou etc.

From 18:12, February 20, 2011 through 19:42, February 20, 2011 DonaldDuck performed 18 subsequent edits and deletions in the article Ivan Dumbadze. For 16 of them no explanations for the removal were provided while two others were dubious.

On 20:55, 20 February 2011 I warned DonaldDuck, asking him "to explain the reasons for each edit".

In his reply DonaldDuck, in particular blamed me that "Your article " article is "full of Wikipedia:Original research", which is an exact WP:NPA case (WP:AVOIDYOU allows to say "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research").

Instead of properly explaining his actions, on 05:18, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck reverted his unmotivated edits back. His comment "Cherurbino, do not revert dozens of edits without discussion" was stylistically aggressive (again WP:AVOIDYOU), if not to say that initially it was DonaldDuck who boldly deleted and edited large portions of the article.

Only after that, on 05:53, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck posted a set of claims at the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze page. None of them was supported with citations' requests in-line templates in the article itself — DonaldDuck never uses this Wikipedia:Dispute resolution tool, which is also far for being a friendly WP:ETIQ manner.

On 11:05, 21 February 2011 I placed a second warning on User talk:DonaldDuck page. Besides this warning, in a search of consensus, I proposed DonaldDuck, in particular, to «use the talk page to specify exactly: what, in your own opinion, "is not supported by references" I've provided. Requests for sources are also appreciated in a form of templates "citation nedded"».

Anyway, on 15:29, February 21, 2011 I promised DonaldDuck to answer each of claims to an article he published within a reasonable time.

However, instead of waiting for my reply, on 15:36, February 21, 2011 DonaldDuck came with another 21 series of edits. They lasted for more than an hour, up to 16:52. Inter alia, it created the technical obstacles for me, for due to systematic edit conflicts I could not improve the article myself.

Thus I see no will for a dispute on the side of DonaldDuck. His arbitrary edits are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith, since an author is persistent in imposing his own text, sources and in censoring out abstracts which did not suit him, although they do not go beyond what is considered to be appropriate in Wikipedia.

Thus I am forced to revert all these 21 edits of DonaldDuck again. I also kindly ask to give a relevant evaluation of DonaldDuck behaviour within local regulations of Wikipedia. I also ask anybody to provide a required impact upon DonaldDuck meaning to invite him to a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article concerned instead of WP:EDITWARRING. Thank you, Cherurbino (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor you've been interacting with is "DonaldDuck" (with no space), not "Donald Duck" (with a space). I've corrected your links above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correction; sorry for I did not check by clicking back on a {{u|DonaldDuck}} I used. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute. Donald Duck's edits appear not to be "arbitrary", but in large part to be removing unsourced POV statements - the statements may be true, but they need to be sourced. While DD may be trying to "sanitize" the article, Cherubino is exhibiting ownership behavior, understandable because he or she created the article. It would probably be better if both editors took things a little more slowly, and instead of making large changes and large reverts, dealt with the problems in each section one by one by discussion on the article's talk page, and avoiding "warning" each other on user talk, something which usually just gets an editor's hackles up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and unreservedly support your proposal to take things a little more slowly. It was not the WP:OWN case; the reason of my claim was that DonaldDuck did not listen to my appeals for a productive discussion. And was too quick in his deletions; not waiting for my appeals to wait for improvements.
The list of claims' signed by DonaldDuck appeared on Talk:Ivan Dumbadze retrospectively. And even after I expressed readiness to rewiew these claims, one by one, DonaldDuck again ignored this proposal and started re-editing again. I cannot name this approach as "constructive". Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that DonaldDuck posted two comments about the changes they made to the article talk page, and Cherubino chose not to engage in discussion there, but went instead to the user's talk page. Also, the article reads as if if might be translated from another language -- it need a good going-over by a competent copy-editor to bring the writing up to snuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "DonaldDuck posted twog comments" — let me again emphasize the retrospectiveness of this action. Later, due to edit conflicts which lasted for >1.5 hour when DonaldDuck made 21 edits ("technical" WP:OWN?) I physically could not improve anything, for the text I saw was divverent each time. However, by now I've responded to most of the claims of DonaldDuck at the article talk page. Some of items need further clarification by claimer. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "article reads as if if might be translated from another language " — sorry, this is my English language. Sorry if it seems bad to you. Unfortunately I can't exactly guess what "bring the writing up to snuff" means, but I hope that does not assume any suspicions. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no suspicions. "Not up to snuff" is a colloquial expression meaning "Not up to standards". The language of the article is stilted and does not conform to normal English constructions. If you create other articles, I recommend that you run them by other editors first before adding them to article space. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that it's quite a stretch to consider "your article is full of original research" a personal attack, while at the same time considering that "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research" is not. We don't need to tread that lightly around here.--Atlan (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the paragraph of WP:AVOIDYOU was edited today, but the statement I meant remained unchanged. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to the point that personal attacks are not the central problem in this issue. What really matters more, is the whole non-constructive way which the opponent has chosen in pursuance of his WP:GOODFAITH to improve the article. You may see on the Talk:Ivan Dumbadze that I've already started to eliminate defects; that I scrupulously reply at each of claims (even when some of them are repeated twice). Hope that DonaldDuck shall also support this academic manner. Cherurbino (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I am missing something, this user was placed on 1RR restriction [34] (which he now violated), engaged in sockpuppetry and twice blocked indefinitely [35]. Biophys (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

death threat in edit summary

I did not take this edit summary and immediately reverted it, but this user and the IP they sit on should be blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've RevDeleted that edit summary; I fully support the block, though it seems more like middle school recess talk than a genuine threat. –MuZemike 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not serious but that level of stupidity should be blocked without our usual levels of template warnings. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with Repeated insertion of material

I would appreciate some help with Atmapuri's repeated insertion of books written by Swami Maheshwarananda, a yoga teacher. He/She insists they are Hinduism's highest priest but I'm not sure thats true. Further, I don't think this person is such a religious authority that his book should be included on every wiki page that relates to his writing.

[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith, but I can't simply edit war on every single page he/she includes it on, so I would appreciate help in deterring this type of behavior. Thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

80.225.213.191 - Block evasion

80.225.213.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an IP used for block evasion by blocked user Francis E Williams (talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams). I think this is the right place to report it? Thanks [[CharlieEchoTango]] 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 72 hours to match the block on Francis E Williams. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange interaction at Norwegian diaspora and Talk:Norwegian diaspora

I would like some qualified comments on the interaction I am engaged in at Norwegian diaspora and its related talkpage. I recently afd'ed the article because the concept of a notion of a Norwegian diaspora community does not exist in the literature of global diasporas, and the concept seems to be a Neologism, or at best a phrase used in a few works. The AFD was closed as a delete, but the article was recreated within an hour by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) who had commented in favor of keep based on the argument that he thought it was a notable topic. He then produced two sources that each used the term once. I see this as being in conflict with Our policy WP:NEO that states that topics must be supported by sources about the term, not just topics that use the term. I have tried to argue this point and that specifically the population of Iceland and the Faroe Islands cannot be included in the socalled "Norwegian diaspora" because they have none of the traits that usually define a diaspora and because they migrated 800 years before the creation of the modern state of Norway and have since made their own nation. I thought I made a rather well argued and well mannered response but Richard Arthur Norton has rejected my reasoning and appeal to policy by saying that I am simply stating my opinion and that his source (an Australian professor of Poetry - not a sociologist or expert in Norway or Diaspora or migration) firmly establishes that he is right. Mr. Norton and I have both been editwarring about this - I admit that. (I reverted once yesterdayand twice today, he has reverted three times today and weirdly proceeded to issue me a 3rr warning). But I would like some extra eyes on whether or not my interpretations of policy are sound, and whether his use of personal commentary (forexample calling me "Essjay") is reasonable. Extra eeyes and opinions is what I ask.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no article at Norwegian diaspora, there was a chart, and that was moved to List of numbers of ex-patriate Norwegians by country and that was deleted. This left no article for Norwegian diaspora so I created a stub from scratch. The argument is whether a term used since 1986 is a neologism, and whether Norway is somehow exempt from the concept of Category:Diasporas with 245 entries. This isn't an article on the definition of "diaspora" and should incorporate all the synonyms for diaspora such as emigration and immigration. A diaspora is a dispersed population that maintains some ties to their native culture through language or religion or food. As for mentioning an event that occurred 800 years before the modern state of Norway, well, all articles on countries begin long before the modern state was formed. The article on Egypt doesn't start on June 18, 1953, but 8,000 years earlier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in the last statement - but have provided no evidence that the population of Iceland live up to that definition. You also have not adressed my arguments related to the RS and WP:NEO policies. And you also have not apologized for your personal attacks comparing me with the Essjay, suggesting that I am faking my credential. Also you say that the phrase has been used since 1986 - there are exactly 16 sources that use the phrase in google scholar - none of them have the "Norwegian diaspora" as their topic but use the phrase in a different context. As for the start of articles about countries that is one thing - but you are explicitly trying to include viking expansion in 800 as part of a supposed Norwegian diaspora. You say that Norwegian diaspora was not deleted- that is ok, I just nominated it now then.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't faking credentials since you haven't offered any, Essjay was much more complex than fake credentials. He argued that he was correct through personal knowledge that trumped reliable sources. His fake credentials were just icing on the cake revealed much later when he worked for Wikia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RAN also began a WP:DRV of the close here before recreating the article. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

An AFD in need of help

This AFD is under attack from a number of sock puppets, that have been changing user's !votes [46]

Is it possible someone could add the appropriate templates explaining this isn't a headcount and I believe there is a template that notifies the closing admin whether a !voting user is new to Wikipedia, could someone add them please. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If the users are marked (ideally, even if they aren't) the closing admin should take their opinions against the actual guidelines and policies anyhow. The number of editors is not so unmanageable as to render useful examination moot (yet). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, I warned User:Bluegal and have notified them of this discusson. I, personally, don't think anything more is needed at the moment. Ravendrop 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Drop another note here if they continue to change the !votes of others. But as long as it doesn't keep up, we are loathe to sprotect AfDs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation Needed

Hello. I am having a problem with another editor. Out of the blue last week I was given a very stern warning by Fut.Perf. on my talk page which stated that if I continue pushing a fringe POV I would be blocked. I then asked this editor for specific details regarding my actions as I consider this a serious matter but have been ignored instead. Is it considered just to threaten another editor with sanctions and not specifically explain why?

I also noticed that three other editors (Immortale, Arydberg, and Killdec) were blocked for certain periods of time from the aspartame controversy talk page within a period of less than a week (Feb. 8-14). Each of these editors (including myself) at one time or another expressed concerns on the talk page stating that they believed the aspartame controversy article was biased. Is it possible that these warnings were given to each of us because our efforts conflict with other editors? Can a fair uninvolved administrator look into this please? Jmpunit (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

24.61.171.248

24.61.171.248 is making personal attacks at Talk:Glenn Beck. It looks like the IP is that of a user who is blocked for socking. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673#Gaming the system and canvassing. Should be blocked for block evasion or repeated personal attacks. The personal attacks are commenting on the contributor and not the content.[47]

By the way, my old tricks involve agreeing that some sort of wording describing the fears of the possibility of inciting violence is possible to add to the article and that CNN should be used if it says the same thing as Media matters.Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono removing comments, threatening editors

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

Please review the following:

• Questionable removal of "personal attack" under the guise of "vandalism"
• Immediate bullyish warning for questionable "personal attack"
• Bullyish, unwarranted civility warning (later rescinded after he realized he was wrong)
• Another removal of "personal attack" because of "blocked user" (?!)

This, in addition to his caustic abuse of other editors on talk pages... Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)