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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger

As you may be aware, the PR firm Bell Pottinger have been caught editing articles on behalf of their clients. Following an investigation led by Jimmy Wales, and with assistance from WilliamH (talk · contribs), Keegan (talk · contribs), Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) and Panyd (talk · contribs), we have identified at least 10 accounts belonging to Bell Pottinger, only two of which are particularly active (100+ edits). At no time were any of them considered respected community members, nor did they skew any votes or gain any rights beyond autoconfirmed. Most of their edits were reverted. A report will be coming later in the week detailing things a bit better.

In the meantime, these articles were edited by Bell Pottinger accounts, and will need checking for factual accuracy and neutrality. It is not necessarily a list of clients of the company, and there may be false positives mixed in, as well as articles which have had undue negative (as opposed to positive) weight put on them - please pick something you’re knowledgeable in and give it a good scrub down. Most articles only have an errant commercial paragraph, but some will need more work. Mark the articles with  Done on this list when you’re finished.

[Note from Jimbo: As a part of this process, we should self-evaluate how we dealt with this systematic attack on our integrity. Outcomes can be classified in a few ways such as “community responded to POV pushing appropriately, ending in no overall impact” or “Bell Pottinger got away with something bad” or “Bell Pottinger successfully changed the entry, but in an innocuous way”. We should be most interested in exploring whether and when we failed, so that we can think about how to improve things. So if you work through the history of an article and mark them with {{done}}, please also add a note reporting on the outcome.]

On behalf of Jimmy, Keegan, WilliamH, Chase and Panyd, The Cavalry (Message me) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this here? Seems like fact checker and editing are editor, not administrator, functions. Seems like one of those banners that appear above watchlists (e.g. like the ArbCom elections) would be more appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's headline news in two European countries, is causing a major political scandal in the UK, and involves sock/meatpuppetry from 10+ accounts. See the article in The Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html. We need somewhere to discuss it, and this is an incident which administrators will be interested in, and which administrators can help with. I honestly think that this is the best place to have a preliminary discussion, and to get as many 'eyes on' the issue as we can. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A list of the accounts involved can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an incident which editors will be interested in, and which editors can help with? As there are far more editors than administrators, getting as many eyes on implies targeting all editors (which naturally includes administrators). Gerardw (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of thing could go on WP:VPM (although we do seem to use this place as a general noticeboard..) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also the most watched noticeboard, as far as I'm aware. Regardless, it looks like several editors have found it already ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that this is a pervasive problem because of how we traditionally (and procedurally) treat PR editors; good work all round in tracking down the accounts and articles in this case :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I daresay this will be cross-posted in several places, but bearing in mind that over 5000 accounts alone have this page on their watch list, and that this is a significant incident requiring admin intervention, this is definitely a good place to get eyes on this. And thank you. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with those who think this was the wrong venue. It took me the longest time to figure out the difference between AN and ANI, but I eventually realized that ANI is for Incidents that Require Immediate Admin attention. AN is more an announcements board – items there may be extremely important, but they do not necessarily require immediate action by admins. Technically we don't have the right kind of board to cover "extremely Important Announcements of interest to all editors". Absent the ideal board, AN is the best option as a high traffic notice board, but not ANI. It creates a bad precedent, for anyone thinking something is very important and it ought to get a lot of eyes on it. --SPhilbrickT 14:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I was rather hoping we could focus on the issue at hand as a priority - I will look into moving this all to WP:AN instead if people prefer that venue. The key issue here is not which noticeboard this is posted on, but instead that we have a list of articles that need fixing and a rapidly evolving news story. Let's not get bogged down in Parkinson's Law of Triviality! The Cavalry (Message me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the investigation may lead to actions by administrators and so this noticeboard is okay, I would support closing this thread and moving the discussion to AN as a stable space to consider general impact and a consistent set of actions, across what might be a wide group of accounts, for administrators with an eye to future policy improvement. Flagging it here was a good move to quickly attract interest by experienced folks, but this is more than an incident that might be resolved in 24 hours. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: "nor did they skew any votes".. see this AfD. Gobonobo ^{T C} 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, well spotted. Fixed now. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Only in our bureaucratic nightmares did I dream we'd be discussing whether or not this is the appropriate noticeboard for the notice and not discussing the contents of the notice. Keegan (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that an editor requested page protection and reversion deletion of User:Biggleswiki at RFPP. I am just going to refer this back to you because it's too complicated for someone to handle at RFPP without any background knowledge. Please make the appropriate judgment on page protection/oversight. Malinaccier (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created this (temporary) template which should be added to the suspected articles. The template should be deleted when things get sorted out. PaoloNapolitano 18:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no that's not a great idea - way overkill. This is best handled on the one page - no need to slap templates about. No need to revdel or protect the user pages either. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on the news and immediately went to ANI to find the relevant discussion, its the obvious place for it. That being said, the accounts are blocked so is there anything left to do? Have the relevant articles been POV-checked? ThemFromSpace 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See status list for POV checking updates. Gerardw (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is a client of Bell Pottinger and there is an admitted COI editor on the article (User:Kolokol1) - Kolokol is the URL for International Foundation for Civil Liberties (as well as being a chemical agent used in warfare, from which the foundation obviously takes their URL - the foundation being used in "warfare" against its opponents). The foundation is run by Alex Goldfarb, a close Berezovsky associate, who came to public recognition during the Litvinenko affair when he headed the Berezovsky PR campaign. The foundation itself is funded by Berezovsky. Berezovsky is a client of BP, and Goldfarb too has used BP for PR exercises, as per this and this. A legal case in the UK recently began in which Berezovsky is suing Roman Abramovich for billions of dollars, and in the lead up to the beginning of the case, the article has seen a whitewashing of the Berezovsky biographical article by Kolokol.

• Here Kolokol1 is asked to declare whether they have a COI
• Kolokol1 refuses to respond directly to the question
• After again being asked, Kolokol1 states he has "an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively"
• Here Kolokol1 confirms "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care."
• Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3 and Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is full of instances where the editor has used cited policies and the like, which once reading this, put some things into perspective. There are many instances of Kolokol1 stating for the record that it was his intent to remove negative information from the article, regardless of what it was, using WP:BLP reasoning for doing so, regardless of the use of only highly respectable and reliable scholarly sources, yet engaged in original research and falsification of information as per this and this, and argued for this to be kept in the article.
• The editor's edits to the article have been mainly subtle changes, which when looked at individually do not raise alarm bells to those who are not well-informed on the subject. When looked at overall, the edits to the informed editor look like a PR hatchet job in the leadup to Berezovsky's lawsuit, and I made note of this on the talk page only a few days ago.
• This subject is a little unusual, in that one would need to make use of both English and Russian language sources to paint the picture that was desired, so I probably wouldn't expect BP IPs to be utilised, unless they have fluent Russian speakers on staff, but the hatchet job on the article is obvious to editors who are familiar with the subject. But obviously it is unacceptable that an admitted COI editor was given free reign by the community to perform the hatchet job on the article in the runup to the beginning of a highly public court case involving Berezovsky. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, didn't we have some indef blocks due to this topic not all that long ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we did. Deepdish7 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked after he expanded the article, which did have some problems but which weren't fixable, and which was reverted wholesale by Kolokol1. DD7 was eventually blocked for disruptive editing, after he kept inserting the information which was being reverted by Kolokol1, and other editors (who were obviously unfamiliar with the subject matter). It is wrong that an admitted COI editor was allowed to continue to edit the article, especially after they all but declared they were going to perform a hatchet job on it. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, Russavia takes every opportunity to dredge up his already-discussed complaints about the Berezovsky article and certain editors involved in it. I really don't see what any of this has to do with this topic (Russavia did the same tacking on to another topic at ANI recently where he happily dragged me through his imagined mud). Even assuming Berezovsky is a client of this PR firm (I don't see a source for that, but Russavia believes in the drowning-you-in-links approach that only occasionally support what he says), what does that have to do with anything? Anyway, for those masochistic enough to care, here are a couple of previous discussions at ANI about Berezovsky: [1] and [2].--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are already two sources. But here's another which clearly states:

Other entries changed by accounts associated with Bell Pottinger include those of the founder of the law firm Carter Ruck, London-based Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka and at least two large financial firms.

It is a well-known fact, to any knowledgeable editor, that Berezovsky is close friends with Timothy_Bell,_Baron_Bell, and this friendship and client relationship is even mentioned and sourced in that article. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The link to the list of problem articles is in the opening of this topic. Berezovsky's article is on that list. Why did you need to single out the Berezovsky article, AND why did you need to go through the history of your complaints about the article? There's no reason for the Berezovsky article to be singled out. This entire subsection you've created has no business being here. It's just you and your pet peeve.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should create a "Promotional editing noticeboard" where concerns over users posting promotional content to several articles should be taken forward. Additionally, users who have been flagged several times for promotional editing should be reported to the noticeboard so the appropriate actions can be taken. PaoloNapolitano 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, another noticeboard, just what we need. Sort of a WP:COIN for multiple offenders. I hope not.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Commercial and promotional editing is a much bigger issue than plain COIs. By having a separate noticeboard we can raise awareness and much more easily get the "bad guys" out of the game. PaoloNapolitano 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Very decent of you not to respond in kind to my sarcasm. I'll let others with more historical knowledge decide whether your suggestion has merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The links provided above, like this and especially this one show the editor's connection to the subject too obviously (the editor says: "I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care".) Given this statement, and since Berezovsky article is known by now to have been involved in promotion by Bell Pottinger, I suppose that it requires more attention and perhaps a separate investigation. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont' see how the two links you pick out justify a "separate investigation". First, they don't demonstrate that the editor is part of the PR firm at issue here. Second, if you have evidence he was, then it would be better to add that to the list of articles at the top of this topic with the editor's name (the list identifies editors for the Berezovsky article but not Kolokol1).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor openly declares connection to the subject and says (s)he doesn't care if it is considered COI. The subject of the article is involved in the current court proceedings with billions of dollars at stake. The article is found to be involved in promotional editing by other editors from Bell Pottinger, and the subject is a client of this firm. So, on one hand, we have evidence that commercial promotion attempts (direct violation of COI) are going on the subject of the article, and on the other hand we have an editor who declares connection to the subject, declares COI, gives hints through the username that (s)he might be connected to an organization connected to the subject. GreyHood ^Talk 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you think, then I would voice these concerns at Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations rather than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean there should be some consistency in treatment of COI. If we have a small 100% proven COI at one article, but do not pay attention to another huge COI in the same article, declared by the user personally, that's strange. GreyHood ^Talk 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But the declared COI was taken into account at the time of resolving the rather messy editing situation of the Berezovsky article, by far more neutral admins and editors than Russavia. I long ago stopped even looking at the Berezovsky article because of the level of discord associated with it, but it seems to have worked itself out. Now Russavia - and to some extent you - want to bring it up again in light of this topic. If it's related to this topic, it belongs in that list. If not, but you and Russavia believe it merits revisiting the article, then start a new topic on the article and on that issue. God help anyone who has to evaluate it, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Bell Pottinger

Because the current situation may create a want on the part of Bell Pottinger to do "damage control" or hinder efforts to the group of wikipedian's investigating, I like to propose that:

1. All known IP addresses that belong to Bell Pottinger company, broadly construed, be banned from the English Wikipedia for a finite period of at least 3 months, and reviewed afterwords to see if their continued ban beyond this time frame is appropriate.

2. All editors found editing for/on behalf of Bell Pottinger for the purpose of paid editing or advocacy, be blocked for the remainder of the time frame that Bell Pottinger is banned. Phearson (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my mind this is already done. The underlying IPs we have for Bell Pottinger and Chime Communications are blocked indef, and we're indef blocking accounts as we find them. There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". Keegan (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles, even if the pretext is to make things "factual" and "neutral point of view". - says who?  Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, says me, for one. I'm speaking from my experience of what has happened every time we have issues with SEOs, PR firms, and paid editing: every time an instance is uncovered, credibility is eroded and man-hours are wasted reviewing what are generally POV just "harmless" editing. In the long run if people kept their financial interest away from editing Wikipedia, even perceived to be constructive, the project is better off based on our model. Remember this very important thing: they are editing because of our popularity, not because of our mission. I'd love to know how many donate. Keegan (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made that argument before, but have been challenged in that regard. Paid editing is still allowed on Wikipedia as long as it is within our rules. However in this case, you are correct. This PR firm I think needs an officially sanctioned Ban though. Phearson (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But any kind of ban should be based on documented violations of policy not "oh this might make us look bad so we're gonna engage in some dubious PR ourselves by just ban hammerin'" Volunteer Marek  04:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As Keegan just said...that is already essentially in place. Swarm ^X 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Keegan just expressed his own opinion on the matter. S/he's of course entitled to it but the question is "what basis does this opinion have in actual policy". WHERE is this "essentially in place" (the use of the weasel word "essentially" is not really helping here). I see no diffs or evidence here. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is correct, I stated that this was my opinion. I'm a he, fwiw. Keegan (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

PR firms are not doing their jobs and should not be paid if they have a neutral point of view. Schalice (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV is a valid reason for banning. To pile more onto that, it's also a violation of WP:SOAP — if you edit in order to make your client look good, you're definitely using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. These terms are policy: they've violated multiple major policies. Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A sustained campaign of sneaky editing despite an egregious violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV - if this is true then you'll have no problem providing actual evidence and diffs of this "egregious violation". Also, from what I understand of the case, WP:SOAP is completely irrelevant here - did this account pontificate and rant and rave on talk pages somewhere? If so, where? You're just throwing irrelevant Wikipedia boogeyman code-names just to make something look "bad". Evidence please, or spare me the misguided and/or phony outrage. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is in their contributions. Moreover, they're a PR firm: they have no business-related reason to edit except to make their clients look good; if you'd read what I wrote after the dash, you would have understood that. Note my adjective of "sneaky" — you won't find this in any specific contributions. You need to look at their overall contributions and their rationale for editing. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the moment - Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are. I'd hate to see his talk scuppered by a blanket ban. In addition, some of the articles actually added useful content - for example, Mbombe and Maverick (Internal Security Vehicle), which are pretty decent start-class articles that were created by Bell Pottinger. Let's not jump the gun here. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol. It's hard to keep up with the official policy of the Kremlin on these matters these days. What does Uncle Jimbo desire at the moment? Maybe we misread his intentions and we better back track. Seriously, we have actual policies in place, and the only question is whether or not these accounts violated actual policy. Anything else is empty posturing and fake outrage. And oh, I like how we're admitting now that there WAS in fact something constructive done by these accounts (as opposed to the previous "There's nothing constructive from public relations firms editing encyclopedia articles") - but perhaps that's just realizing up to the fact that edit-for-pay, COI-driven, company sponsored accounts are actually more competent and more respectful of Wikipedia policy - as she is written - than your average know-nothing editors, including, or especially those that spend their time populating drama boards such as this one. At the end of the day it's still the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (which includes people affiliated with some company) and us content editors usually kneel down at the altar of discuss content not editors. Why should that be thrown out the window? Show me the damage done, then we can talk. Volunteer Marek  08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, with all due respect, you can't have even looked at the evidence in the most cursory way to imply that they didn't break existing policy in very dramatic ways. The policy violations are numerous and clear. They violated WP:SOCK in multiple regards, including multiple-voting in polls. There are many instances in the record of blatantly dishonest edit summaries. There is more than enough evidence to indef ban the ip number per the proposal. At the same time, in my talk last night with Lord Bell, they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends. Given the media scrutiny they are under, and that I am personally going to read them the riot act, there is every possibility that they will become model citizens going forward. But I'll go further: policy at Wikipedia is going to change to make it even more clear that PR firms can not behave in this way without facing the consequences.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

they appear to finally be understanding that they have behaved badly and need to make amends; as a PR friend of mine said once - "All is fair in love and war, and PR". Including doing the "right thing" every now and again. Apply doses of salt accordingly. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose for the reason stated by Cavalry. One of the few downsides of my lifelong atheism is that I cannot coherently wish for people to spend an eternity in hell being continuously raped, tortured and punished by Lucifer et al., which is what I would rather like dishonest PR consultants, sleazy marketing douchebags and deceptive spin merchants like Bell Pottinger to be subjected to. As Cavalry points out, let Jimbo talk to Bell Pottinger. If that doesn't go ahead, or they are not receptive to operating appropriately, then community ban the whole company. But if they are receptive to changing their ways, give them a chance. I'm sceptical: the idea of "ethical PR" makes about as much sense to me as a square circle or a functioning train system in London. But let's wait and see if Jimbo can have any effect. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson. Go ahead and wish. Gerardw (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Ah, well, I think it is not hard to understand the concept of ethical PR! Wikipedia itself has many volunteer press contacts who work to bring good work to the attention of the press and to stand ready to answer questions from the press. Other organizations, without a large and well-informed volunteer community, hire people to do that same kind of work. There's nothing inherently nefarious about it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Jimbo raises a good point about himself, actually. His participation in the investigation has been as a volunteer, he's talked to the press as a contact about the story as a volunteer, and he'd be speaking to Bell Pottinger as a volunteer. His only vested interest, as is ours, is the best interest of use of this website. Keegan (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. De facto they are banned already, of course, in the sense that no admin would unblock an obvious Bell Pottinger account. Regardless of the general question of paid editing, competence is required for editing Wikipedia and this company has proved that they do not have it. Some form of paid editing may be acceptable, but a firm that regularly creates articles full of puffery, edits non-neutrally, creates absurd coatracks such as a section about this house in Giano's Blenheim Palace article, and occasionally even votestacks in AfDs – such a firm is clearly not a net positive for Wikipedia.
  Of course they may acquire the necessary competence at some point in the future, or they may outsource the Wikipedia aspects of their business to someone more competent. Nevertheless they should be banned indefinitely. Indefinite does not mean infinite. Once they have their shop in order and want to resume editing Wikipedia, they can contact Jimbo, the Foundation or the community directly with supporting information, and based on that the community can then lift the ban. Whether that is in their interest from a PR angle is not our problem. Hans Adler 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  Response to the argument that we shouldn't act because Jimbo is already in charge of the matter: I am not changing my !vote because I would prefer any hate caused among Bell Pottinger and their clients to be directed against an essentially anonymous crowd rather than targeting Jimbo. I think the community would be much more immune to any attempts at retaliation. Hans Adler 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:COIN states "This noticeboard may be used to... get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here...." Presumably Jimbo is offering the same or similar guidance according to the opposition above. It might be best to try to shunt paid editors into an established process than go directly to challenging a socking arms race. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo is in discussion with them. It's senseless to ban them while this is a developing issue. WilliamH (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WilliamH. Off Wiki actions by Jimbo are in progress. We shouldn't do anything in the interim. Propose it again if you still believe it justified after Jimbo has finished dealing with it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jimbo can ban them if need be. If he doesn't see fit to do so, and instead pursues discussions with them, I don't see how a community ban would be productive in any sense whatsoever. Swarm ^X 04:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment To those opposing on the basis of "Jimbo is talking to them". We need to remember that wikipedia is (mostly) controlled by volunteers, and by consensus has the power to apply punishment and restrictions where need be and whenever. I think that the proposed ban is reasonable given that they have violated WP policy (Jimbo has also supported this statement) and have harmed our position that we provide an unbiased and free encyclopedia to the world's public. We need to send a very clear signal to this company and others like it that what they have done will not be tolerated. Might I remind everyone the actions of Scientology and what arbcom did about it? Phearson (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now, in order to allow this experiment in "ethical PR" to continue under Jimbo's supervision.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – Yeah, what they did was unacceptable – we know about that, they know about that, and most importantly the media knows about that. I'm more content in letting the media backlash (as well as Jimbo, who has done a good job in handling this, BTW) do its work on them in contrast to our community having to do something about it. Now, as with Scientology, if it gets worse, then I'll support a more absolute and harsh ban, but until then, it's not really necessary at this point. –MuZemike 09:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While I support the sentiment, Bell Pottinger are not allowed to edit per WP:ROLE only individuals are allowed to edit, therefore only individuals can be banned. Anyone editing with a significant COI should consider declaring that COI - this includes employees and "friends" of Bell Pottinger working on associated articles. In some cases they should limit their edits to the talk page. But these are individual matters. We are constantly getting more or less enlightened edits from people with COI, and we deal with them on an individual basis, by and large, successfully. (Moreover we are getting better at it.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC).
  
• Comment WP:COI and WP:SPAM effectively ban all organisations and individuals from writing about topics they have a commercial relationship with in a way that could promote that topic. As such, there's no particular need to single out Bell Pottinger by formally banning them. A larger solution of tracking professional spammers would be in order though. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support The only reason for Bell Pottinger to edit Wikipedia is to do it on behalf of a client who have paid Bell Pottinger for their services. Bell Pottinger has as such a COI and edits Wikipedia solely to promote their clients. WP:COI clearly states: "Accounts that appear, based on their editing history, to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization), in apparent violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. PaoloNapolitano 19:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this specific measure is unnecessary/overkill; I believe all the concerns can be dealt with through existing policy-supported methods.  Chzz  ►  05:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Harvard/Science Po Adverts

I hesitate to bring any matter to ANI and cause "wikidrama" - but I was so bewildered by this "event" that I don't know where else to go. Put simply, I logged in and was presented with an advert for an externally influenced research project. I had no previous notification that adverts from external advertisers were now accepted on wikipedia - even for "game theory" economics tests by well meaning post-doc students. Allowing institutions such as the relevant two featured - Science Po (Publicly funded by the French Government) and Harvard University (A private university, with lots of external influences, for example, [regime] to prominently advertise and potentially influence wikpedia contributors is totally unacceptable to me. (imagine we announced a partnership with, say, the Bill Gates Foundation, to display adverts/ surveys for logged in users - this is exactly the same in my eyes.)

I don't wish to be a hassle to other contributors - but I do think our policies in these areas are very important and I strongly object to this kind of dubious advertising. I would ask that administrators or whomever has the relevant authority immediately disable these adverts unless and until there is a clear and sufficiently broad (i.e notifying all potentially affected participants!) notifications of such adverts with consensus to re-enable them. (note: I tried to include a screenshot of the advert in this post - but apparently 2000+ constructive edits is nothing compared to the risk that I might be a spammer so I could not find out how to include such a link - If you have not seen this advert feel free to contact me and I will send you a copy!) Ajbp (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See: meta:Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior ; Discussion at meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior

Please spread the word to help quench a potential ForestFire here folks :-). Jerome is working on getting a proper link in the banner. Could folks see where else this question is popping up, and help CentralizeDiscussion at the above discussion page? Thanks! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this; it's recruitment for a legitimate scientific study, its methodology has been vetted, and we are an educational resource. I might have a question or two about the validity of a self-selecting sample in a population as lopsided as "logged in Wikipedia editors", but I'm presuming that they either wanted this particular profile in participants or that they allow for the bias this is likely to introduce.

Heck, I participated. It was a rather fun exercise (even though I kinda felt like I was "cheating" because of my familiarity with game theory).  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, these kinds of games/studies are designed so that knowledge of game theory can't help you (much - I guess it could if you're a complete dummy but then you're probably not going to be studying game theory anyway). I'll avoid linking to the relevant articles per comments below. But hey, for example, it would've been nice if they tried to get WikiProject:Economics or WikiProject:Gametheory on board with this before it just got sprung on everyone. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, [3] says participants shouldn't discuss what was in the research to avoid influencing others who may not yet have participated. BTW as per the above links it was discussed at AN here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study although more from the point of whether to post talk page notices. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a very poor secret that "An experiment on decision making" refers to game theory research, really.  :-) It's the actual substantive exercises that they prefer would not be shared ahead of time. — Coren ^(talk) 02:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the fact that "giving away" that there's a game theoretic aspect to the study is not that big of a deal (hell, any study of human behavior has a game theoretic aspect to it). However, there is actually one pretty vital piece of information that's part of the study which you're not made aware of in the beginning and which you only find out after you're done (unless I missed the notification somewhere), which may potentially impact your choices and which does involve some ethical questions. I'm assuming the people who designed the study ran this by some kind of Research with Human Subjects Ethics committee externally, but... since they're recruiting on Wikipedia it seems like this should've been checked here as well, though I'm not sure with who - which does suggest that Wikipedia might not be well designed for these kinds of endeavors.

I think people are more annoyed with the fact that this came out of nowhere than anything else. Volunteer Marek  03:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarification, I was not referring to your comment hence the indenting. (I was actually thinking of posting that before I saw your comment.) However it seems likely this thread could easily become a place where people will want to discuss the details of the study, so I hoped to head that off. Nil Einne (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That blogpost's not a binding agreement, though. The only way the researchers will learn is from their mistakes...

I don't want to sound like too much of a grump, because I'm not opposed to this in principle. But why is there no kind of FAQ? What is the purpose of the research? How is it funded? Is WMF getting paid? If not, why is it happening? --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it's not a binding agreement but I thought people here may be interested to know and while it's actually fairly obvious, I'm sure it didn't occur to some people that they would prefer there is no discussion. I don't think the researchers don't want to learn, but they would prefer that any discussion about the actual research either be emailed to them directly or I presume wait until after it's over. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam is spam ... so it would seem Jimbo was just kidding when his last fundraising pitch said Wikipedia doesn't take ads. (And the researchers should have read Voluntary response bias ...) Gerardw (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The banner is spammy and should be removed ASAP. The situation is made even worse due to the close relation Jimbo has with this group. Giving them pride of place like this compromises our integrity and should not be tolerated. The fact that this was snuck in without any en.wiki consensus or discussion is shocking. ThemFromSpace 02:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, I now see that there was discussion of this on en.wiki some time ago, with a majority of the non-WMF participants opposing the idea [4]. ThemFromSpace 02:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair some of the nos were specifically over their idea at the time to spam talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Berkman are cool people who do cool research, and they have helped wikipedia a lot. WMF gave them the go-ahead without nicely asking us first. Whilst I do suggest some torches and pitchforks in the near future for .. certain persons... I hope that we can still figure out a way to let Berkman do their thing, and not let them be the victim here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to centralize discussion

Eyeballs are currently across at least 3 different locations on WP and Meta. To prevent ForestFire, we need to merge to 1 location. Please feel free to link everyone to that one location . (ANI and VP pages are ephemeral, and never the best location imao), the meta page has the advantage of being a page dedicated to this subject. If you have a better location, please supply! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Centralized discussion exists at-->> meta:Research talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The adverts are not appearing on meta. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Put the discussion here, where the actual editors are, rather than where the unaccountable bureaucrats would prefer the discussion. Though I know that's a radical suggestion.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an unaccountable bureaucrat, and a wiki is a wiki. We just need 1 location so everyone is on the same page, ;-) .But so be it, then we'll just have to keep track of everywhere <sigh>, and try to centralise discussion right here, as much as possible. A full list of locations where discussion has occurred is being maintained at meta:Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior#Discussions_about_the_banner. Please update that, at least. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on this links there looks like no substantial discussion at any of them. Did I miss something? I think the most responses were from 3 different folks. This is clearly the best place (i.e. where the actual warm bodies are). Sigh, indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much true, sadly. That said, the best previous discussion was at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study (this is also listed on the meta page, above) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)This is the same link as was posted by ThemFromSpace

Why was this discussion reopened? What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a request that information be provided with regard to the notice. --FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. Btw, i see that there appears to be a "COI" in the editing of one of the people involved. Jimbo the great and his friends have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger folks with blocks for that very reason. Perhaps a similar smack down is forthcoming? (here's a link [5])Bali ultimate (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since we've agreed to centralize here, shall we close the centralization sub-heading? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this discussion was to request that an administrator blocked these adverts (they ARE adverts), which were not approved or discussed by the community. However, it seems clear now, having spoken with Kim and the Berkman representative - that admins don't have the power to do that and that the fault for this notice lies firmly with the WMF. But I invite further discussion on how we can take steps to ensure that such mistakes cannot be made in the future. Ajbp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Ummm...no. This is not the forum for centralized discussion. What admin action is being requested? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying a centralised discussion has to be held here or that the discussion needs to be centralised, but "please could admins arrange for information about the current research collaboration to be provided to editors who are interested?" does not seem to me to be an inappropriate ANI question. --FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

What's being requested? "Immediate removal of the banners." (And, of course, a chance for the peon volunteers to have their say).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I might not be the OP, but I am suggesting that there should be information about the purpose of the banners. ANI seems as good a place as any to raise that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

People are rejecting centralization it seems. Note also further discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Search_banner_Wikipedia_Research_Committee ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A note about the legitimate ad concerns expressed by some folks above

Hi all! As this thread has been started out, I wanted to jump in and, as a member of the research team running this study, make a quick statement about what we are trying to achieve here. This study seeks to understand the dynamics of interactions and behavior in online social spaces. We already started a conversation here back in March 2010 about how we should invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project (see here). We had a readily implementable plan to advertize this study to Wikipedians at that time (i.e. posting individual invitations to user talk pages), but the community was quite unhappy with this. Using a CentralNotice banner was suggested as a convenient alternative instead. So after our research procedures and methods went through a thorough review by the Wikimedia Research Committee, our research team at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Sciences Po worked on implementing that contact solution in coordination with WMF (throughout this collaboration, we actually worked together to enhance the banner features available to the community by developing a code that allows to display CentralNotice banners only to a small subset of users depending on flexible user metrics, so that we could help reduce the general banner overload for this study and in the future). The reason why the banner features our logos in not that the Berkman Center or Sciences Po wanted to advertize themselves (those are not for profit research institutions). Our first banner proposals did not feature our logos. But we simply figured out that people would like to know who is running this study right from the start in a noticeable way, so that they don't have wrong expectations or misunderstanding about who is actually running this project, especially as the banner redirects users to a third party website. I am truly sorry that this gets interpreted as an ad by some, but we were acting in good faith here...

BTY, the study is doing great so far, and I'd like to thank all community members for this! Please consider participating in you haven't done so yet and get an opportunity to see the banner. I very much look forward to discussing our results directly with the community on all relevant fora, including next Wikimania, as soon as it's over. I have high hope that we'll advance the "big picture" together! :) On a side note, please consider that you can reach us directly at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr. We very much look forward to receiving your comments and answering to any questions you may have indeed! Thank you! SalimJah (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to note here the need for your project to provide better disclosure in general, and particularly with respect to information that is being collected about Wikipedia users, even those who click on the banner but don't participate. The simple act of clicking on the banner gives both one's Wikipedia identity and one's IP address to a non-Wikimedia web site, because of the hidden form field submission (to the best of my technical knowledge). Such information has always been 'delicate' on Wikipedia itself, and someone from Wiki____ should have seen that this technical approach is problematic, not to mention reminiscent of spammy web site tactics. I'm surprised that that in itself isn't getting folks upset. I defer to real web developers, but this comes across as a rather technically dishonest way to establish a relationship between a Wikipedia user and your project. (I participated in the survey and have no prejudice.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A quick note on privacy --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Problem

It's pretty obvious that the reason a lot of people have a problem with this banner is because it sort of popped up unexpected. It LOOKS like an advertisement, and this is particularly obnoxious coming right on the heels of a fund raising drive which used "Wikipedia has no advertisements" as part of its pitch. So... ok, if we're gonna have "non-commercial" advertisements popping up, that's fine, I guess. But where was this discussion held? Where was this decided? On media-wiki? Which most people that actively edit en-wiki don't pay attention to? I was pretty surprised by it and I have never seen anything like it before. I ... might actually be okay with but I'm definitely not okay with it just being slapped in there without my input. And IF we're gonna have "non-commercial advertisements" popping up on readers unexpected, who decided on this particular one? There's a dozen of more worthy non-commercial ventures that would deserve Wikipedia attention then some study on how Wikipedians interact with each other. Maybe this discussion was held somewhere but most editors were not aware of it and this definitely was going 'over the communities' head'.

And I'm gonna come right out and say it - at the end of the survey you have a chance to donate your winnings to Red Cross (and also WMF, but who cares about them). Which means that if you really are the "charitable" kind of person, you should play the survey as selfishly as possible (since you don't know if the other people playing the survey are as nice as you), maximize your own personal winnings and then donate all of it (essentially, donating other people's money in the process). Honestly, I'm kind of pissed because I could've given a bit more (other people's) money to Red Cross had they told me that earlier (maybe there was some notification about it, but I can't verify anymore). Volunteer Marek  07:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it looks like an advert, it is an advert. The banner says "Please help" under logos and by-lines for two organizations that are not Wikimedia. With this precedent there is no constraint on the partners the WMF may choose to allow free advertising for next. With prospective future partners for sponsorship of research and collaboration under discussion such as Google or telecoms companies, the question is are we happy that our users will log in and see Wikipedia carrying a large Google logo at the top of the page? Regardless of the goodwill and charitable motivation behind this banner, it shows a clear lack of judgement for how to implement the principle that Wikimedia projects will always stay free of advertising. I discussed this banner last night on IRC with RCOM and DEV representatives who pointed me to the WMF, who have pointed me back to RCOM; I do not appreciate being given an unsubtle run-around when my complaint was as simple as requesting that an apparent advert is removed from Wikipedia due to the potential for negative long term press impact it may have. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was explained above by SalimJah that the original banners didn't even have logos but they were added because it was felt people would want to know who is running the survey. This is the same thought I had very early on when I first saw the banners. And the truth is they're right. Whatever mistakes were made here, I think it's clear if there were no logos etc, people would be complaining that they thought it was the WMF itself or they thought it was fake (actually there still were) or simply that they weren't sure who to make a fuss about without clicking on the link, etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually guessing the media isn't going to really care. The truth is what happens to logged in users isn't going to be a big concern to them unless there is an uprising over it with a lot of people threatining to leave and it's a slow news day (which with the EU crisis and the Virginia Tech shooting it isn't). Also there's some criteria to when the banner shows. I don't know what, the discussions haven't specified just said there is but while the banner appeared for me, someone I know with an account but only 3 edits didn't get it. This isn't surprising since otherwise some joker is going to try and sign up 1000s of acounts just to participate multiple times. (I believe it's also random.) In other words, those users (although I often use the word interchangably this time I mean as opposed to editors) who signed up for an account just for preferences or for the very occasional edit probably aren't going to see it either. I.E. Even less reason for the media to care. This doesn't mean it's okay, that's moot to my point. I'm simply saying that this isn't really something that's likely to have a 'negative long term press impact' Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There only needs to be one example of what looks like an advert for this to be thrown up by the press every time Jimbo says that we will never carry advertising. Arguments such as it is only displayed to logged in editors or that we only do this for sponsors of research will look like thin justification. With regard to Kim's point, yes if the banner was replaced by a standard text only central notice, it would look a lot less like a blatant advert. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the press are much more likely to throw up the yearly donation banners which IMO in some ways are more clearly adverts (not that I care) and appear to a much wider range of people and for much longer. However I stick with my view that the truth is the press doesn't really care. Most of those mocking wikipedia for their adverts saying they will never have adverts are from random blogs and the like not because it's hard for them to make the argument the donation banners which say we don't have adverts are adverts but because it's not really a big deal to them. In fact whatever the flaws in the donations campaigns, I think it's obvious they get a lot more of marketing attention behind them like working out how to run an effective campaign and which banners work and which don't, in other words stuff which most people would associate with an advertisement. For this banner, it seems clear that it's hard far less thought and research behind it then the donation banners ever do. (And speaking of third parties, remember how the donation banners mentioned matching donors in 2008 or whenever it was?) Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuck
Advertisement :(
So, it took us 11 years; but we do accept them in the end.

Anthere (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, someone just added the logos because they thought people might like to know who's running the experiment. AFAIK, the logos are pretty much optional, and can be removed without issue. The request is to participate in the experiment, not to promote PO or Harvard->Berkman. Would this cover most of your concerns? - No, it doesn't even begin to address them. In fact, it does nothing but try and derail the conversations into irrelevant tangents. Who really cares where the logo came from? Who gives a fuck if they're optional or can be removed - so can pop-ups on my browser, should we have some of those? And the claim is that this is just "participating in an experiment" but NOT promoting "PO or Harvard->Berkman" is specious. How about if, oh, I dunno, Procter-Gamble slapped up a banner which requested our readers to "participate in an experiment" but did NOT promote their product? Bottom line is, I've been hearing about how "Wikipedia doesn't have advertisements" for the past six years I've been here. Hell, I saw it again just a few days ago in the statements made in the recent contributions drive (the one with the pretty faces in similar kinds of banners). But now, all of sudden, here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement up top.

Now, this might be a "good kind" of advertisement, this might be a "scholarly study", it might not have had some logo that no one cares about in it originally or whatever, but ... here we are with a blatant freakin' advertisement. Everything else - about how "it's complimentary to our educational mission" or how "it's fun if you know some game theory (?)" - is just some really lame ass excuses.

This totally got sneaked into the encyclopedia. I don't remember seeing ANY major discussion about this. Is somebody going broke and in desperate need of money or something? Actually, I'm one of those people that would NOT have much of a problem with advertisements on Wikipedia, but the way this is being done is just a major insult to the average editor who has contributed throughout all these years believing in the "no advertisements" (again, repeated with a straight face as recently as last week) mantra. Volunteer Marek  11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended as an advert in the first place. I'm going to Assume Good faith here. The research committee were the folks who put up the banner, I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - apparently wrongly. There was a fair-sized discussion earlier this year (though could have been better). This discussion ran/is currently running in multiple locations, because the CentralizeDiscussion notices were removed. Please refer to the other locations for more information about current and previous discussions on this matter. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, I put it to you that there was no clear community consensus to allow advert style logos in central notices for institutions favoured by RCOM or any other non-WMF group. The responsibility for any challenge to Wikimedia website content that appears to breach our values with regard to never carrying adverts for other organizations remains with the WMF. Pointing to other groups, forums or diffuse inconclusive prior discussions about other topics does not help resolve the issue raised here. Unless the WMF firmly supports carrying these logos on its websites in an advert style banner, then the WMF should in turn follow the principle of assuming good faith and remove this apparent advert whilst it is being actively challenged here and not replace it until a credible consensus is achieved. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is roughly what I told them yesterday. In the mean time, I'm kind of hoping that modifying the banner (or some other measure) would prove acceptable, of course. In general, I'd rather not have Berkman and Science PO become collateral damage between us and the WMF --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess they saw it as one of those internal notice banners wikiprojects sometimes use - huh? Can you point me to where some WikiProject has ever been given the opportunity to throw this kind Wikipedia-wide banner at the readers? If so, there's a couple of Wikiprojects I'm involved in that would love this kind of exposure. How do we sign up? Honestly, what are you talking about?

And I keep hearing about this supposed "fair-sized" discussion. If it was that fair-sized, why is this such a surprise? It's pretty obvious that the decision did not involve the broader community (some folks might have patted each other on the back somewhere but that's not what we're talking about here). Volunteer Marek  11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much literally what I told the relevant rcom folks yesterday.

In the mean time, if we just yank the banner, Berkman and Science PO (Good People) end up as collateral damage from yet another WMF/Community SNAFU.

They're really nice and committed to helping us. When I talked with them, they tell me they have put something like 18 months of work into just getting ready. It really sucks that someone dropped the ball.

If we can't find a middle of the road in the next 24 hours or so, well, so be it and that's that then. But could we try to find a temporary solution, so that the innocent bystanders don't get squashed? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you consider the much larger number of innocent bystanders represented by everyone with an account on Wikipedia who logs in anywhere on the planet whilst this banner advert is still present. You have to admit that is quite a valuable piece of internet real estate for a banner advert that we are giving away for free and that the WMF chooses to have no authority over. The issue here should not be how nice Berkman or SciencePo are, but whether we have a common understanding of our shared values and are prepared to stick to them. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you would prefer if this valuable piece of real estate was sold for its real value to someone willing to pay big bucks? I really don't understand the hysteria here. It's like saying "Oh no, they changed the voting age from 21 to 18! Next it will be mandatory voting from birth!" I suppose the real genesis of this controversy is the state of relationship between the WMF and various project communities. Some folks just can't tolerate the WMF making any decisions with a project impact, no matter how those decisions might be objectively evaluated. This clash with "authority" can be seen by the number of objections framed as "but they didn't ask me first!" Nathan ^T 14:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because someone acts like they have some sort of authority, doesn't necessarily mean they actually have any. Geeze. Oldest trick in the book. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've remarked before, and even bearing in mind comments below which suggest there is a problem with the banner appearing more often then it should, it seems clear that not everyone logged in with an account it getting the banner as I know from personal interaction. BTW I should clarify that the person who wasn't getting the banner was trying before it was disabled. In fact I logged in to my account with their computer and still got the banner myself. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the logo issue is a non issue. It's clear some people do consider the logo makes it worse and possibly even for some it would be acceptable without the logo. This doesn't mean the logo issue is the only issue, simply that it is one issue worth discussion for some. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here to add another point of view; I was not upset about the banner and see no problem with it. It may well be the case that many editors, like me, were not upset and are not looking for a forum to express their views, and so are not posting here. I think it's possible that a smaller percentage of editors dislike this banner than might be guessed from the views expressed here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone has wanted to run a "poll" on Wikipedia as academic research. This comes under the heading of "School and University Projects", so WP:SUP applies. The project should be listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, and it isn't. As for the substance of the matter, the people who want to advertise on Wikipedia write We already started a conversation here back in March 2010 about how we should invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project (see here). We had a readily implementable plan to advertize this study to Wikipedians at that time (i.e. posting individual invitations to user talk pages), but the community was quite unhappy with this. Using a CentralNotice banner was suggested as a convenient alternative instead. The problem is that they seem to have assumed that they had the right to use Wikipedia to "invite Wikipedians to participate in this research project" i.e. advertise on Wikipedia. I'd suggest a block on their account for advertising. --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the research committee went with this approach. I'm neutral on blocking rcom or rcom members at the moment. I'm ok with warning them,

In the mean time, we have two sides (wikipedia and the scientists) who have been let down. Can we work together to figure something out? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the state of play, but anything which blocks the research would be horrible. I take a view that there was not enough information, so a number of users didn't know what was happening and got worked up. Because, in fairness to them, they care about what, for all they know, is a giant an unexpected breach of what Wikipedia stands for. Why not relaunch the banner but include in it a link to a brief explanation of why it is there and what it is about, making it clear that it is not a paid-for ad. Unless it is, in which case, making it clear that it is a paid-for ad. Then see if there are still complaints. I reckon there will be hardly any if the accompanying info is well put together. It's legitimate to be bold because, whilst concerns have been raised, there is clearly not actually a consensus against. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

PS If you're looking for other options, they're not going to come. I think it's bite the bullet or abandon the research. Provide better information is my advice, that's all.--FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disable?

Ok; so rather than this turn into a lengthy debate here we need to know if admin action is required. It is (as I pointed out on the VP(t) thread) within our technical ability to disable display of the banner via CSS. If the community consensus is to disable the banner pending further discussion then any admin can do so. Either way this is probably better discussed at another venue (and definitely should be). So, smei-formal !vote. Should we temporarily disable the banner pending discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I may have been too slow (I hid the banner for myself earlier) :P According to the logs ([[6]]) Beria has turned it off in the last few minutes. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the banner being staying switched off. ErrantX, I don't think I understand your prologue; if the consensus here is clear, then this is a consensus. You seem to be pre-empting any !vote as meaningless by saying we ought to have another discussion in some other place, which rather defeats your proposition to disable this banner. Could you clarify the intention? --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, well, I figure any lengthy discussion over whether to allow banners such as this, and whether we need to implement controls to require discussion with the community over banners is not best done here on AN/I. The only extant thing we would need an admin for is whether to turn this banner off now, or have a lengthy discussion first... All of which has been pre-empted anyway :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue here is really about transparency, which removing the banner doesn't fix. If the result is to compromise or karate-chop the research then that would be extremely unfair on the researchers, who have acted in good faith. --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The cat is out of the bag now, disabling the banner is potentially hurting the study and disallowing users who are interested from joining the study at all. What we do need ASAP is a watchlist notification linking to a FAQ about the study, even better if this is also directly linked from the banner itself. Many users are (not suprisingly) distrustful of the banner that suddenly popped up. Anger over this mess, although understandable, should not be a reason to disrupt the study itself. Yoenit (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beria Lima BOLDly switched the banner off on meta. Brion has said that the banner should have been very infrequent, but seems to have gone to 100%.

You know my first thought when I saw it? That it was malware. That my browser had been hijacked. Unlikely as that is browsing in Linux. My second thought was that it was being inserted by rogue JavaScript on the site. - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Same here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests to disable Banners can be handled by any Meta admin. I made this page for any future requests, Meta:Meta:Central_notice_requests please feel free to add a link to the consensus page here once the voting ends here. As David already informed, Brion and Beria disabled the banners for now. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has no legitimacy

Why is this discussion still going on? No admin action has been requested, and admins have no special authority to make a decision over the banners. The above !vote has absolutely no legitimacy. Community discussions need to do be decided by the whole community in a community forum (such as the Village Pump), not by admins (which are only a tiny fraction of the whole community) on an admin board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At some point ... I don't know when ... that consensus seems to have changed. Until yesterday, I (non-admin) saw no good reason to have ANI watchlisted. However, as indicated by the "Bell Pottinger" discussion above -- and the fact the Kim Bruning considered this a valid place to discuss this advertisement (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study) it appears ANI has morphed into admin intervention + community bulletin board. The description at the top of the paged has been changed accordingly: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not consider this to be a good place to discuss this matter.[7] [8]. Others disagreed [9]. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump; you mean... a much less watched forum than this one (by a significant margin)? I suggest that if you want to solicit wide and immediate community input on an issue (in this case one requiring an admin) this is the place :) (it was only meant to establish a quick consensus of immediate admin action before doing as you suggest; punting this to a wider community discussion.. so keep your blooming hair on :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just posted notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying there - it doesn't parse :) I do plan to open a discussion over this wider issue, but not today. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to say that to reach a broad audience, we should just post notices to other strategic locations pointing editors to the common discussion. I hope you punt this to a wider community discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this? [10] [11] :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As promised, I have opened an RFC discussion in project space to help us resolve some of the issues related to this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Central_Notices. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment from an RCom member

I was pointed out this thread on foundation-l several minutes ago, and I feel that smth should be said. You can check that whereas I am an active en.wp contributor, at this point much of my contribution is in the article space, so that I really had no idea of this discussion before. I am now writing as an RCom member but not on behalf of RCom, and as a matter of fact I did not coordinate this response with any other RCom member. Having said that, I find the sequence of events which lead to the creation of this thread unfortunate. Apparently, there was some miscommunication on one or several steps, and we will need to sort out what exactly went wrong and how to avoid this miscommunication in the future. My understanding is that now the banner is not active, and I think we will need to discuss the issue before it gets enabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The RCom reviewed the proposal in June. The proposal is run, among others, by User:Lilaroja, an RCom member, and supported by User:DarTar, an RCom member and a WMF staff member. I do not think at this point any of the other RCom member (including myself) is qualified to comment on details of the survey or on the controversy with the banner. Dario left a comment on the foundation-l which is available here. In the same foundation-l thread there are comments by Jérôme, who is one of the researchers running the project but is not an RCom member (he also commented in this thread). I see that there was no activity in this thread for almost a day, but I will try to get here again people who can answer questions about the survey, and I will try to make sure that this miscommunication will not repeat again. I apologize for inconvenience and confusion which were caused by this miscommunication.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I think we can work things out! --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Email abuse from Mailinator address

I have twice previously reported abusive emails (apparently from Jarlaxle Artemis) sent to me via Wikipedia email, from accounts registered using Mailinator address. I have today received several dozen more such messages. All were sent from the same Mailinator address used by previously blocked users. How is it possible for a serial vandal to continue registering accounts and to send email from an address already known to be used for such abuse and threats? RolandR (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

My memory of the previous discussions is there is currently no way to block domains from being used for the email function. Considering the very large number of alternative mailnator domains and the fact the's no published list I wonder whether approaching Mailinator about it may be a better bet. Since they don't actually send emails, they don't really have an address to contact them about abuse but it seems they do have scripts to try and stop abuse. And [12] says that if people ask nicely and there is a good reason for it they may stop accepting emails for the site. Perhaps if someone here were to ask nicely they may do that for us. Since we don't require emails to sign up I think it's questionable why people would need to use mailinator. And while we could implement methods to reduce abuse like captchas, it would take resources that may be better put to other users. Something along those lines may be enough to convince them to block people getting wikipedia stuff. Of course this won't help with the large number of other stuff disposabile no signup email address services but I guess it's a start Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Which are the accounts? Sending an e-mail from one's Wikipedia account is a logged action, viewable by us CheckUsers (the contents and recepient is not). Even if the account edited and was created out of the scope of CU retrieval, it could still help in forming, for example, a range block. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rianhoxie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vlyvtrmln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RolandR (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Both unsurprisingly confirmed, along with several other accounts. The IP was blocked a couple of days ago. The accounts in question were created as sleepers a while ago to avoid CheckUser detection. Sorry I can't suggest anything better, but the only option at the moment (if only applicable to you), would be to disable e-mail on your account. WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have already disablred email because of abusive messages (including death threats) from this vandal. So we have a situation where one determined bully can successfully disrupt the running of Wikipedia, preventing numerous legitimate editors from fully accessing the features of the project. This is not good enough, and I do not get the impression that this problem is being addressed is taken seriousl. If Wikipedia cannot prevent a racist thug from misusing the email facility to abuse editors, then it would be better to disable the option entirely for all editors, rather than oblige those of us who face this to cut ourselves off. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your impression is mislaid - it is taken seriously, it's being discussed in the appropriate places, and I would be surprised if a technical solution won't be established. WilliamH (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that assurance, but can you say where discussion is occurring?. I strongly agree with RolandR's point: it is unacceptable that MediaWiki has no ability to stop an idiot from abusing editors in such an obvious manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean, all I can say is that "anybody can edit" is a double-edged sword – letting good faith people to edit implies letting people to abuse it at the same time. I doubt the WMF will allow that to happen anytime soon, I'm afraid. I don't personally see how anything can be done about it. –MuZemike 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but resources will never be used for issues like this unless the community demands action. How many emails can an abusive new user send? There should be an edit filter system based on things like account age and edit count, whereby an established editor can email anything, a moderately new user is subject to some filtering, and a new user is subject to strong filtering and rate limiting. I understand that blacklisting mail systems is a never-ending game, but allowing mailinator accounts is obviously stupid (any reply to such an email is posted to a public website). Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But then, you start shuttering out newcomers, which the WMF will not allow on their money or watch; they shot down the proposal for only (auto)confirmed users to create new articles for a reason – that is the direction in which they are going. –MuZemike 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus...except when WMF doesn't want it to. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just received a further 70 such abusive messages from Esechicano12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That makes 150 so far this month, and nearly 600 in the past six months. I can't believe that there is no way to prevent this abuse, and I am angry that the only solution offered is that I disable my own email, thus preventing legitimate editors from contacting me. It's all very well to worry about not alienating new users; but what about alienating well-established editors?

It seems to me this isn't really the same thing though. The email function isn't needed for creating articles. For those who do need to contact relevant places, email addresses are published so there's no real need to use the email function. Perhaps most importantly this isn't just about problems in our content creation but about editorss suffering unacceptable harrassment and abuse. It seems to me it's something the WMF should consider worth spending time on unless they want to alienate editors. I haven't received any of these emails but if the WMF really considers this something not worth worrying about this sends a message to me they don't care about editors. I presume WilliamH has an idea of what they're talking about so I'm guessing this isn't the case. The Captcha idea would hopefully at least make it more difficult for mass emails like the 70 at once. Or rate-limiting new users (even if the WMF really considered new users need to have access to the email function, I can't see why they need to be able to send 70 in I presume a day or 2).

Also I wonder whether the IPs involved are open proxies or belong to ISPs? Oviously for privacy reasons the details can't be revealed, but what I'm thinking is while I suspect the WMF probably doesn't consider it worth the time of checkusers to attempt to pursue normal abusers with their ISPs (WP:Abuse response shows that often doesn't work) it seems to me if the problem can't be resolved technically they should seriously consider contacting ISPs in cases like this if there's a chance that may work (i.e. it's not open proxies). ISPs are also much more likely to be cooperative when it's persistent harassment and abuse of individuals rather then simple but persistent vandalism. (The privacy policy seems to allow this.) ~

Nil Einne (talk)

And now I have received a further 70 vile racist emails from Kahanadada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with specific death threats and links to a website attacking me. Wikipedia must take steps to prevent such harassment of editors. RolandR (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Another interim suggestion: if it's all from the same domain, why not simply block the domain in your e-mail account? The filters in Gmail can be highly customised. WilliamH (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok so to be pro-active about this I sent an email to the ops mailing list to see if there is a quick way to resolve this (obviously it is an urgent matter!). If that falls through I guess the next step would be to make the Foundation aware - getting it on their radar as an issue will be a good thing. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the step to inform the developers (wikitech-l is the developer's list, generally you can only get ops attention directly on IRC). I'm not sure ops can handle this, as we shouldn't block an entire email service, since it could also block email for legitimate users. The developers may come up with some technical solution. I recommend continuing to block the sockpuppets are they pop up. --Ryan lane (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason for anyone to be able to send 70 emails a day thru wikipedia, without an advanced permission. I'm surprised there aren't much worse spam problems with wikipedia email than there already are. The default limit should be 2 destination addresses per day and 2 emails per destination address (all email after the 2nd automatically discarded unless the recipient clicks a link opting into accepting more). The WMF shot down limiting new article creation? Blech, they are silly. Getting their first articles and images deleted frustrates newbies incredibly. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that this account has been sending far more than 70 emails a day. That is just what I am receiving, and I'm sure I'm not the only target. As I noted above, I am aware of at least two editors who have disabled their email access as a result of this harassment. RolandR (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And I've just received a further 80 90 abusive emails from Thossmeyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This thug is trying to bully me into disabling my email, which I will not do. But I expect Wikipedia to take some action to put an end to this harassment. RolandR (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to quickly mention in this thread that the very second you feel the foundation isn't doing enough to help, you should check to see if anyone has even told them about the problem yet. We don't see every thread, and it's easy for things like this to get missed. If we aren't taking any action, there's a good possibility we don't even know it's happening (because no one has informed us).--Ryan lane (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This problem has been raised repeatedly over the past six months. This is the noticeboard for users to advise admins of problems; if you didn't know about the problem, then you should have done. And I never stated that "the foundation" is not taking this seriously; I said that Wikipedia (ie all of us collectively) was not. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I very infrequently check my e-mail associated with this account, but just noticed I received some too, a few dozen messages titled "FREE ISRAEL AND END ISLAMIST APARTHEID!‏" from Cermugin on 12-4-11. The e-mail name was a slur and threat against RolandR, address was the same site mentioned above, mailinator.com. The WMF needs to step up and protect its editors from trolls using its e-mail capabilities to send anonymous harassment and death threats. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There has been a low priority bugzilla ticket (bugzilla:7518) open about this for 5+ years. It might be worth pinging it. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rude etiquette, name calling, and swearing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No immediate administrator intervention is warranted. Take the matter to WP:RFC/U if further discussion is needed. This noticeboard isn't a good place for lengthy dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

---

User Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently entered into the discussion pages in Evolution as fact and theory. This user is swearing, accusing other editors of being "creationists" POV pushers, and being disruptive instead of contributing to the discussion. Several of the editors, including myself, have been working in the evolution pages and contributing without incident. I posted a kind letter to the user and it was deleted with the following comment: "Etiquette in Evolution as fact and theory: Stay the fuck off my page." see here: [13]. This is the kind of behaviour that has also been exhibited in the discussion pages: "See WP:FUCK. So I can use whatever fucking language I want to fucking use at any fucking point in fucking time." and "Why the creationist POV-pushing here?" - while no user is pushing any such view. Some editors have made genuine contributions that can be backed up with WP:V and have made legitimate posts. However, OrangeMarlin is resorting to other kinds of attacks: "Creationists POV pushing attempt to use the English language to conflate real science with their false "beliefs". Period. And Clavicle...spare me your personal attacks. I have NEVER fucking accused you of being a Creationist or a POV pusher. However, your and Thompsma changes may unintentionally assist the creationist POV.". The reality is that Thompsma and I have made lots of contributions to other science articles. This user has come in as a bully and is using foul language instead of contributing in good faith. I've asked the user to cooperate and to get along, but this is not working. Hoping to find someone's assistance. Thank you. I will now notify the user that this is being discussed here.Claviclehorn (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has been notified, but deleted the notification from their talk page here [14]. Stating: "(→Administrator's notice: Like I've ever fucking cared about AN/I's)"Claviclehorn (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am involved. I can understand that the bad words are upsetting, and they should not be used. However, this report is premature and misguided. First, things like this should be discussed at WP:WQA—there is no incident which requires admin intervention yet. Second, if there were some actual engagement with the comments at Talk:Evolution as fact and theory there would be less need for loaded language. While some are offended by the bad language, others (myself at least) are offended by the pointless discussion. Primer for anyone interested: the article concerns scientific responses to the creationist dismissal of evolution: it's only a theory. A large amount of discussion has arisen around a poorly defined proposal to remove one of the standard arguments (i.e. gravity is only a theory). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an editor who believes such language in inappropriate in a professional environment, even if - and perhaps particularly if - it's virtual. However, the editor has a long history of using the word fuck, admitting he is cranky, and I think enjoying the hell out of himself for being blunt.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The foul mouth is not needed and just plain ignorant and rude. Oh well. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Claviclehorn has only made substantial contributions to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Thompsma has edited a wide range of articles on biology, but since July 2011 the majority of his edits are related to Evolution and Evolution as fact and theory.

Orangemarlin is.... a bit forceful when it comes to defending the represention of science from the mainstream point of view. He should learn to tone down his language.

This is probably related to a disputed merge. Uninvolved commenters are needed at Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Shouldn.27t_be_merged_with_.27evolution.27.

Someone familiar with the topic area should look at Talk:Evolution and Talk:Evolution as fact and theory and discern if there is creationist POV-pushing going on or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor and involved. I am finding the posts by OrangeMarlin disruptive, rude, and inappropriate. The proposal to change gravity is only a theory is not poorly defined, it has been written with extensive citations by myself. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and can be reserved for the talk pages. OrangeMarlin is being disruptive to that discussion and accusing others of being creationist POV pushers when this is far from the truth. Editors, such as myself, are working in earnest and trying to make an honest attempt to raise a legitimate point. I have made many contributions to the article, including a significant amount of work on the lead - and the body of the article. Things were going well, until OrangeMarlin jumped in. I am flexible with other editors and generally get along. I would prefer to get along with this user, but I think OrangeMarlin is not willing to move in this direction and has instead resorted to being foul mouthed and wasting the time of editors who would like to discuss the actual topic.Thompsma (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good thing I'm not evolved enough to be familiar with the topic area. I don't suppose WP:INVOLVED and WP:EVOLVED mean the same thing, do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read (quickly) the discussion at Evolution as fact and theory, and, frankly, I find OM's comments to be productive. His language could be toned down, but he makes valid constructive points. Even if I didn't think that, I agree with Johnuniq - there's no basis for administrative action - this topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly a fan of Orangemarlin and have gone on record saying very bad things about him. But here I am absolutely shocked to see him arguing reasonably and constructively against what does appear to be creationist POV pushing. Not calmly, but he is calmer than I would be in that discussion. Hans Adler 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and maybe someone can tell Georgewilliamherbert to stay the fuck off that page, in words that he understands? His trademark method of escalating disputes by painting everything as a pure matter of superficial civility is the last thing that is needed there right now. Hans Adler 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence there, Hans, but I did not paint anything as a superficial civility issue. My point was - and was apparently taken by the participants there - that grossly UNcivil discussions on actual content or behavioral issues degenerate and don't solve the underlying problem, in addition to being unpleasant to be around. Nowhere did I dispute that there was an underlying legitimate set of issues to have a serious talk about, and hopefully all involved there are on track to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am new to that article's discussion. While OrangeMarlin does use language I wouldn't use myself (well, not here, anyway), I can understand his frustration. Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". He presented what he claimed was an alternative proposal, but which was really a bunch of unclear reasons why he thought change was needed, then got cross with me when I kept asking exactly what his proposal was. I really don't think he had one. He just didn't like that section of the article. Maybe what Thompsma is doing is done in good faith, but his efforts are not very helpful, and seem to largely comprise "I and my nice friends have been quietly playing here for a long time. Don't bring strong thoughts into our lives." He cannot express his position very well, which may be just a lack of skill, or he could be hiding something about his true motivations. But all very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A glance at Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theory shows "discussion" that would try the patience of a saint. And Orangemarlin is no saint (he likely would protest against accusations that he is one). The article needs input from a wider audience to offset the not necessarily helpful approach of certain individuals now participating there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not in any way forwarded a creationist POV. I am a scientist and I have contributed greatly to that article. Let's make that clear. "Thompsma, while claiming to not support the creationist view in any way at all, wants to remove one of the of the most effective retorts to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory" - this is also false. I have suggested integrating the material and getting rid of the section heading. I've suggested an alternative - a section on belief that more broadly covers other literature. This is the problem. OM has created a distraction and others are misinterpreting the text I post. For a creationist I have made quite a few significant contributions to the main evolution article. I've also wrote a significant portion of the evolution as fact and theory article. For someone who hasn't helped, if we were to remove the work I contributed - the article would not be very far along. People must be free to make honest contributions without being accused as a means to bully or obstruct legitimate contributions.Thompsma (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall make my point even more strongly. The gravity comparison is THE most effective retort to those ignorant creationists who say "...but evolution is only a theory". It should not be buried in the article without its own section heading. You may well be a scientist, but you haven't made your reasons clear. THAT'S the real problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m uninvolved here, but I’ve been aware for a little while of OrangeMarlin having a persistent problem with incivility across a broad range of articles, and I think it’s overdue for administrators to take a closer look at his behavior in general. Here are four recent diffs of some of his incivility outside of this topic area:

• [15] “Jclemens is full of shit”, subsequently changed to “Jclemens has something up his ass”.

• [16] “Jclemens is absolute douche. […] Probably a little pussy that would hide in his mommy's basement. Wouldn't have the balls to talk to me like a man. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU TINY LITTLE MAN JCLEMENS.”

• [17] “So, Jclemens, the pathetic little pussy who probably thinks being a janitor is a step up in life, gets to cast lies against me and get away with it? Then I can't even tell him he's a fucking asshole?”

• [18] This one’s too long to quote, but it’s directed at both me and Jclemens, and has the phrase “Go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.

Jclemens is a member of ArbCom, and OrangeMarlin’s grudge against him appears to be because Jclemens suggested that OrangeMarlin be sanctioned for incivility during the abortion arbitration case. The proposal didn’t pass because OM was unable to participate in the case due to illness, but it probably would have passed if not for that.

I’m kind of amazed that OM has been able to get away with this sort of thing for as long as he has. I’ve seen editors get indef-blocked for less than this, and that was when comments like these were being directed at an ordinary editor, not a member of ArbCom. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In that very unique context, Orangemarlin's language was perfectly defensible. In OM's situation I would have preferred stronger words to describe the behaviour of Captain Occam and Jclemens, such as "grandmother-selling pea gamecock" for the latter. The two of you should just be happy that OM prefers the more generic, more common and less stinging scatological and sexual insults, and leave it at that before we get an ANI thread on this precise incident, examining all participants in it. Hans Adler 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you’re thinking of posting such a thread yourself and you think it should be separate from this one, I think you should go ahead. I consider OrangeMarlin to be something of a test case. If you’ve been following the ArbCom election this month, you’ll be aware that one of the questions is about the concept of vested contributors. “The vested contributor is someone who believes they are entitled to a degree of indulgence or bending of the rules because of the duration and extent of their past contributions. In some cases, this view may be shared by other community members.” OrangeMarlin is one of the most obvious examples of this I’ve seen, and the question is whether the WP:CIVIL will ultimately prove unenforceable in his case because of the number of other community members who think he’s entitled to ignore this policy. Since this is apparently an issue that ArbCom is particularly paying attention to now, I expect that how the community handles WP:CIVIL in OrangeMarlin’s case will influence ArbCom’s future decisions in this area. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin is also a test case for whether we really want to treat superficial incivility as worse than much more efficient polite bullying, Arbcom cangaroo courts, practical demonstrations that one doesn't give a shit for other editors' continued physical existence, and IDHT crusades. Hans Adler 11:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that not everybody reading this will be familiar with the background. I am not claiming that Arbcom is typically a cangaroo court, but years ago there was a spectacularly bad case of arbitrator misbehaviour, and recently we had a pretty bad one. Both directed at Orangemarlin, who I am not a friend of. Hans Adler 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, now it's marlin fishing season. Anyone following the situation knows there was a particularly good reason for Orangemarlin's outburst, and since everyone's aim should be to improve the encyclopedia, there would be no benefit from discussing that background. Please wait for another outburst and start a new section at a suitable noticeboard if warranted. It's a little unusual because Orangemarlin has definitely breached CIVIL, but would someone familiar with recent activity please close this section as unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got enough experience with AN/I to know that what you're expecting here goes against how this noticeboard is normally used. If admin intervenation is warranted based on OM's incivility, then whatever action is taken will be based all of the recent history involving this user; not just what was mentioned in the original post. Therefore, there's absolutely no reason why these issues can't all be discussed in the same thread. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's often more than one side to these issues. OM was provoked. OM (over)reacted. But does the provoker not deserve censure? HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how any of what Jclemens did can be considered provocation. Jclemens suggested that OM be sanctioned for his incivility in abortion-related discussions, particularly this comment and this one. And he also expressed the opinion that these personal attacks were indefensible enough that whether or not he could participate in the case shouldn’t affect ArbCom’s response. For an arbitrator to suggest sanctions for an involved party in a case is a standard part of what happens during arbitration. If we consider that “provocation” now, how many other times would we have to overlook editors bashing the arbitrators who suggested that they be sanctioned? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking about provocation in the alleged priors now being dredged up. I detest that aspect of these "enquiries". Someone reports someone for a recent sin, and others jump on the bandwagon and complain about earlier sins, with declarations of "I don't like him either!. It becomes a personal_attack_fest. Anyway, my comment about provocation referred to the incident(s) discussed at the start of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with OrangeMarlin, Thompsma, and Claviclehorn, I just want to say that all three editors are without exception, diligent and earnest in their attempts in wanting to improve and protect the integrity of Wikipedia science articles. That said, the assertion that there is "Creationist POV pushing" is baseless and a red herring. The issue was mainly about reorganization. The current rift between Thompsma/Claviclehorn on one end and OrangeMarlin on the other, results from the lack of familiarity by the former of the latter's use of very colorful language, which I admit, can be a little unnerving to those who are not use to it. danielkueh (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the problem also stems from the inability of those seeking change (Thompsma and Claviclehorn) to present a clear, rational, coherent case. I'm not saying one doesn't exist. Like OM, I haven't seen it yet. And it's not a matter of reading the case and disagreeing with it. It's a matter of reading the "case" and saying "What?" It was not well presented. I'd offer to help but, as I said, I don't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per Johnuniq above: I guess I'm too involved to do any threadclosing, unfortunately, and too disgusted by Captain Occam's unsavoury vendetta against OM. If recent history is indeed relevant, everybody should get a load of this whole thread, where they can take stock of the discreditable roles played by Captain Occam and JClemens. Note input from other arbitrators, and complete lack of support on the committee for JClemens proposals in the matter. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

When you refer to my "vendetta against OM", are you implying that you think I'd been involved in an earlier dispute with him? I haven't, and I challenge you to find anywhere that I have. I had literally no history with him before Jclemens asked me to help identify the editors who had been most uncivil on the abortion talk page, and OrangeMarlin stood out as the worst of the bunch. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying that. It would be quite a trick to "dispute" with somebody off having major surgery. I challenge you to stop compulsively replying to everything on this thread. Please just give people a chance to read the thread I linked to and make up their own minds about your role on it. The questions you've been asking on JClemens's talkpage are relevant to the "vendetta" issue, too. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I would like to clarify one point: I did not intend my words above to express any opinion about the merits of the Orangemarlin vs. Jclemens issue: I'm not endorsing the incivility—just letting anyone interested know that there were some very unusual circumstances behind the comments, and there is no point rehashing that matter. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to call attention to the ongoing problems with User:DMSBel on OM's talk page. For those unfamiliar, DMSBel was one of the editors sanctioned in the recent Abortion case. It is clear that DMSBel has not withdrawn from the WP:BATTLE but has merely shifted[19] the[20] fight[21] to another front. (I haven't checked meticulously, but he may be at 3RR on OM's talk page.) I am increasingly of the opinion that a vacation from Wikipedia would do DMSBel considerable benefit, and that an admin should step in to help bring this about. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I need a vacation? Perhaps I do. Who can take the kind of antics that go on around OM and is bunch of admirers for long period without a break. I'll be the one to decide though when I have had enough thanks, thanks for your consideration. So cut the bull about me needing a vacation, only I know when I need that. Also you talk about me in a thread about another editor and don't even have the decency to notify me, even though it says to do this in a way that you could hardly miss. Try turning the thread round if you like, but let me know if you want to make a pretence of being civil, so I can answer. Were you trying to get me banned without me even knowing it was under discussion? A Fait Accompli? To bad I spotted it then. If OM or anyone else has a problem, let them talk to me on my talk page, and not make snide comments with their friends behind my back. Manly? Not in the least.DMSBel (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq - my track record speaks for itself. I have been a civil editor in here since 2008. I have contributed tirelessly to articles on science. Ecology in particular is one article where I have labored and wrote most of it from top to bottom - a subject with close relations to evolution. The point is that I have contributed tonnes of material in science articles, including the main evolution article. I recently made some major contributions to Evolution as fact and theory - rewrote the lead and made significant contributions to the body of the text and was given praise for this work. Suddenly, somehow, Claviclehorn and I make some suggestions that OM doesn't like and we are being bashed for creationist POV pushing!! It is absurd. The proposal may not have been worded at its best at the onset, but the proposal is taking form as others are discussing it with the genuine intent to understand and help. Other editors, not just Claviclehorn and I have also felt that a change in the gravity section would improve the article. Certainly the points we raise did not merit the response by OM. My issue with OM is the foul language, threats, and accusations that are used to discredit editors that are working diligently to improve the article. It is harassment. I can ignore the fowl language, but the juvenile comments and threats to delete whatever I put because I'm being called a creationist POV pusher is too much. My history of contributions in here, as Danielkueh has noted, have been positive. There is nothing untoward going on here with the changes I want to make to the article - my goal is to improve on the topic, because I am interested in evolution and I have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic of evolution. I'm not making a plea to my credentials, the point is that this has turned into a witch hunt by OM for anyone who changes the article in a way that looks suspcious. The accusations of creationist POV pushing is false and offensive. I have no personal vendetta and would like to get along. However, I agree with Claviclehorn that the posts by OM are problematic and disruptive.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that Orangemarlin is an intelligent person and it would only take a couple of comments that engage the issues raised on the talk page to avoid the whole mess. Yes, your qualifications and work are excellent, but you have a pompous and verbose style that make it hard for someone dropping in to the page to work out where you are coming from. Sorry for the plain talk, but sometimes less is more. One thing that many evolution editors will not be aware of is that there is a continual back-and-forth about civility on the wikidrama boards. I strongly support WP:CIVIL, but dealing with bad language is easy—a far bigger danger to Wikipedia are the WP:CPUSH users who drive good editors crazy with dumb persistence (that's not relevant to the issue at hand—I'm just trying to explain why the plainly uncivil language is not exciting a lot of attention here: it's because experienced editors know that issues are often more complex than counting rude words). Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it’s important to keep in mind that incivility and POV-pushing are mostly separate issues, and the presence of one doesn’t excuse the other. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and editors are required to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA regardless of whether there’s POV-pushing going on or not. As Panyd has mentioned in her Arbitration Candidacy, incivility also has at least as much potential to drive away new contributors as POV-pushing does.

If there’s both incivility and POV-pushing going on, ideally this thread ought to address both issues. That’s what the outcome will most likely be if this dispute ends up in arbitration, and ending up in arbitration seems to be a fairly common eventual outcome for disputes like these. But it would save everyone a lot of trouble if the community could resolve this without needing ArbCom’s help. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"I think it’s important to keep in mind that incivility and POV-pushing are mostly separate issues" This may be true in general, but it certainly isn't true in many particular situations. The classic case is civil POV pushing, where disruptive civility is often used as a fulcrum to frustrate reasonable editors. When faced with civil POV-pushers, some users tend to become angry as a result of the seemingly never-ending problems these articles cause, become uncivil (quoted from WP:CPUSH). That you've continued your crusade against incivility after being sanctioned for your own civil POV pushing only illustrates just how problematic this broad issue has become. aprock (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I’ve reminded you about this multiple times before, but I may as well remind you again: if you look at the finding of fact about me that you’re referring to, you’ll see that I haven’t been sanctioned for POV pushing. I was sanctioned (in August 2010) for edit warring and false claims of consensus, and my finding of fact doesn’t mention POV pushing at all. For you to bring this up isn’t just a red herring; it’s also false.

In any case, I never claimed that POV pushing isn’t a problem, if that’s happening here. What I said in the comment above is that we need to deal with both. Dealing with both is what happened in the case that you brought up: I was sanctioned for edit warring, David.Kane was sanctioned for POV pushing, and Mathsci was sanctioned for incivility. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

From the WP:ARBR&I findings of fact: "[Captain Occam] has gamed the system by claiming consensus for article versions which support his point of view." [22]. aprock (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that’s exactly what I said in my comment that you’re replying to. “I was sanctioned (in August 2010) for edit warring and false claims of consensus, and my finding of fact doesn’t mention POV pushing at all.” Are you disagreeing with me? All you’re doing is quoting the finding of fact that I summarized above. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered both OrangeMarlin and Thompsma in my edits to Wikipedia. Both are diligent and energetic editors. I knew Thompsma was not a creationist POV pusher immediately but his failure to use quotes around one of OM's comments to indicate he was quoting OM set off OM's signature temper. OM has violated WP:CIVIL but I believe his real violation was in WP:FAITH but that is understandable given the subject. There are non-stop incursions by creationists to undermine the evolution and periphery articles. In my dealings with Thompsma he was a verbose debater but I have come to accept that from professors and adjust to it. OM was out of line in this debate by going straight to suggestion of nuclear options with his 'revert button'. Thompsma needed to just rewrite the section and put it up for all to review instead of spending 1000's of words just talking about a potential change. Alatari (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm staying out of it. HOWEVER, (Redacted)

Since this has gotten off topic. GWH bitched at everyone and it's quieted down. The creationists have shut up. I'm good with that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone care to explain how this [23] has not been actioned in a similar way to this [24] comparatively polite edit summary where the user received a block? Leaky Caldron 23:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaky...have you spent a nanosecond looking up the diffs? First of all, the point about the article was settled. Everyone got their point across. The creationists decided that had to get consensus. Everyone else calmed down. Then Captain (Redacted) or Occum or whatever decided to put his $0.02 in here. Now, I would have ignored it, except he made the most outrageous, heinous, vile, unacceptably rude accusation, along with Jclemens, Arbcom (Redacted), against me. Without any retribution from said Arbcom. Without anything period. (Redacted). PERIOD Case fucking closed. His sociopathic behavior is reprehensible. So that is what prompted my remarks. Badger Drink was not wronged. He just went batshit. I went batshit because of the lies against my person by Captain Occam. Different story, different place e. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)One explanation is the community has not had time to evaluate the situation -- the block you reference occurred about 3 hours after the corresponding edit. OM's edit has not been "live" very long. So I'm calling out your question as premature and pointy. However, I do understand the deeper question and have previously addressed it here Gerardw (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Orange Marlin, the language in your statment above is utterly unacceptable. I would suggest you redact it, now, before you are blocked for egrerious civility violations and personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A new language low for ANI (based on my limited experience). You should have carried through on your threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An entirely unconvincing response. The community in the case I referred to had almost reached a mediated resolution. Then a drive by admin., likening himself to a traffic cop saw and immediately blocked the editor concerned. Where is the consistency? By the way, Orange has just repeated the abuse above. What you going to do, redact that as well before anyone else can read it? Leaky Caldron 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bushranger threatened to block OM. No block has taken place. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Captain Occam's claim of uninvolvement is not true and has not helped content discussion in the first instance, and moved discussion from a prospective to a retrospective focus. Just because someone loses their temper does not mean we sweep over the antecedents. Most of us are grownups here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Response to GraemeL) - it looks like Leaky was referring to the Block of Badger Drink, not to the warning given by Bushranger to Orange.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Where have I ever interacted with OrangeMarlin outside of the abortion case, where my involvement was solicited by Jclemens? If I've ever been in a prior conflict with him on any article or noticeboard, I have absolutely no memory of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So that I don't offend Bushranger's sensibilities, I will make this clear. I don't care CO where you did or did not interact with me. I have no clue who you are, but I know that you sit behind your veil of anonymity and cast aspersions against another editor's good name. You stated that I manipulated an Arbcom hearing, one that really didn't matter to me, since I was only peripherally involved, by lying that I was deathly ill. In fact, I was deathly ill for six months, give or take a few days. You got away with that without a single admonishment, save for one or two comments, because Jclemens, an Arbcom member, said the same thing, and we know that Arbcom is protected from any criticism whatsoever. You made up a story with no facts whatsoever. And that is not fair. And that you come here, to something that is none of your business, and get on my case when you made such a horrifying accusation against me is beyond belief. It is simply one of the most offensive acts I've seen on here, and I've seen a lot. Your accusation was a lie, pure and simple. I'm willing to prove that it was. Then what? Will you be blocked? I doubt it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's the use of a tool that you showed me Captain Occam: User Intersecting contributions Alatari (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to understand something about how the tool I linked you to works. A page will be listed there even if OM and I edited it months or years apart. (And in fact, some of the pages listed there are pages I only ever edited once or twice.) I mean, do you really think it means something that OM and I have both posted at some point on the 3RR noticeboard, on requests for page protection, or in Jimbo Wales' user talk? You could enter any two reasonably experienced editors into this tool and get a similar result.

This tool is meant to be a method to search for diffs. In order for the results of the tool to be meaningful, you need to find diffs of OrangeMarlin and myself actually interacting, not just that he edited a page once this year and I edited it once in 2009. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What Captain Occam says here is absolutely correct. I don't know if Alatari's post was meant that way, but it can be understood as saying that there were further interactions between the two, of which I can see no evidence. Hans Adler 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the tool is spatial and not temporal. It was up to your own Recognition memory to place when you two could have interacted otherwise. It seems OM remembered that you two had. The tool was not meant to be a 'smoking gun'. I don't know the history between you two but I hope that even if you two never like each other you can agree to ignore each other and perhaps at some later time be able to work together. Alatari (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There really isn’t any history here. My issue with OrangeMarlin isn’t a personal one; it’s just a matter of what he represents. If what the community ends up deciding about him is that his personal attacks should be overlooked because of how many useful content edits he’s made, what that’ll mean to me is that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA become unenforceable once a person has a certain amount of experience and a certain number of friends. There is nothing that bothers me more about Wikipedia than the way editors are held to inconsistent standards of civility based on how long they’ve been around, and OM is the worst example of this I’ve ever seen. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My issue with OrangeMarlin isn’t a personal one; it’s just a matter of what he represents. - that's probably more telling than was intended. Anyway, these "this-person-who-has-contributed-a-buttload-to-Wikipedia-is-being-uncivil-to-my-POV-pushing,-or-my-fellow-ideological-brethren's-POV-pushings" and therefore "people-who-have-contributed-a-buttload-to-Wikipedia-should-not-use-that-fact-as-an-excuse-for-getting-irate-when-dealing-with-blatant-cases-of-WP:Civil POV pushing-gaming" kind of arguments would be helluva lot more credible if they originated from people who had actually done some contribution/content work themselves, rather than... you know. Volunteer Marek  05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it’s disappointing, but not really surprising, how much this thread has become focused on whatever ignorant claims other editors want to make about me, which I can either ignore (and thereby invite others to believe them) or respond to (and thereby invite more of them). We’ve had two thus far: the claim that I have a history of conflict with OM, and the claim that I accused him of faking his illness. And now in a backhanded manner, you’re making two more:

1: That creationists are “my fellow ideological bretheren.” Have you realized where the name “Captain Occam” comes from? If you had, you would be aware that calling creationists “my fellow ideological bretheren” is about as far from the truth as it’s possible for anything to be.

2: That I’m not someone who’s “done some contribution/content work themselves”. Do you suppose it was someone else logged into my account who wrote the articles William Beebe, Bathysphere, or… do I need to keep going, or are you willing to admit that you know basically nothing about me?

That’s two more spurious claims about me I’ve had to respond to, in a thread that was originally intended to be about OrangeMarlin’s personal attacks. Are there going to be any more of these, or can we get back to the topic that this thread was intended to be about? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Captain Occam, so you are trying to argue that this wasn't enough, in the light of this and this? Maybe you will get some hyperactive idiot of an admin to block Orangemarlin without looking at the background, but then this will go to Arbcom, and you will be toast. And your buddy Jclemens, who doesn't seem to care about the number of bodies he has to trample over while playing to the galley in his pursuit of another year in Arbcom, will sit beside you on the defendant's bench. Hans Adler 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of the links that you posted? One is just OrangeMarlin's contributions, and the other is an old version of his user talk that doesn't contain any posts from me. As far as actual diffs are concerned, is this the only evidence you can find that I've interacted with OM outside of abortion case?

If you think this should go to ArbCom, please just request a case. At this stage, I think there's a very good chance the community isn't capable of dealing with this at AN/I, and I would appreciate ArbCom's involvement. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The last two links that I posted show that there is extremely strong prima facie evidence that in early July Orangemarlin was undergoing an experimental heart surgery procedure and was by no means sure that he would return, that in early September the notification of an Arbcom case in which he was involved reached him while in intensive care, and that he did not resume editing before 26 November. The first link speaks for itself in this context. I can understand the technical point that you were trying to make, but I cannot tell you how strongly I disapprove of your having made it in this form.

The decision regarding Orangemarlin was: "Because Orangemarlin has been unable to participate in this arbitration, including answering findings of fact about his editing in the topic-area of Abortion, potential remedies are suspended until he returns to editing. He is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee upon his return and before participating in the topic area." This was perfectly clear and sufficient, and there was no need whatsoever to try to bully Arbcom into making a topic ban against someone who is recovering from heart surgery more explicit. Hans Adler 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to understand something: at no point have I ever claimed that OrangeMarlin lied about his illness. The only thing I claimed was that after he had recovered from the surgery, I suspected he might have additionally delayed his return until he could be sure that ArbCom wasn’t going to sanction him because of his absence. All of the places OrangeMarlin accused me of claiming that he had been lying… I never actually said that about him, and if you closely read the thread that you linked to, you’ll see that I didn’t.

It's not a crime to want to stay away from Wikipedia for a while especially if it angers and stresses you. It's volunteer work after all. Alatari (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like the accusation that I have a history of conflict with OrangeMarlin, this assertion that I accused him of lying about his illness is an example of a rumor that keeps being repeated despite having no factual basis, and it seems that there’s nothing I can do or say to make people stop repeating it. The justification that's being given for why OM's personal attacks against me are acceptable is something that I never actually did. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believed him, your behaviour was even worse. So Orangemarlin is assuming that you thought he was lying. So what? Do you want to hold it against him that he is assuming good faith? That he thought that you were not intentionally trying to stress an editor who was recovering from heart surgery, but were for some reason convinced that he was dissembling and just didn't want to admit it? Ethically challenged ten-year olds (or impersonators of such) such as you are a much bigger threat to editor retention than swearing. And yes, the swearing is also a problem. We can address it once some of the major causes have been eliminated. Hans Adler 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin isn’t making an assumption about what I thought, OrangeMarlin is making an assertion about what I said. He said, “You stated that I manipulated an Arbcom hearing… by lying that I was deathly ill.” OrangeMarlin’s claim about me is false; I never said that. OrangeMarlin said the same thing in your user talk: “he called me a liar”. I’d never called him that, although I suppose he’s one now for claiming I said something that I never did. You might be able to frame this as an AGF issue if OM’s comments really were about my motives, but that simply isn’t the case. OM is defending his personal attacks by making factual statements about what I’ve said, and those factual statements are false.

I think you’re the person who’s having an issue with assuming good faith here, by assuming that I was deliberately trying to stress an editor who was recovering from surgery. (Incidentally, at the time I didn’t know the details of his illness; all I knew was that he had been in the hospital.) Isn’t there a simpler explanation for how I felt about this? OM evidently wasn’t in the hospital yet when he left this comment, and my perspective is simply that these sorts of personal attacks are inexcusable regardless of what unfortunate events occurred to him in during time after he made them. You aren’t providing an explanation for what’s wrong with this perspective. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once more we see the triumph of WP:CPUSH over good editors. What benefit may arise from continuing this? Winning a battle? Crushing an opponent? Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why can’t we sanction both the personal attacks and the POV-pushing? That’s what I’ve suggested a few times in this thread. It doesn’t seem reasonable to say that since POV-pushing an incivility are both problems, we therefore shouldn’t do anything about either of them. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking some recent edits, OrangeMarlin does seem to have a bit of a potty mouth, eh? Without commenting on the accuracy of OrangeMarlin's statements, a wee bit of restraint qua form would be nice. If you absolutely must call people names, at least be creative about it. (Adding "fuck" every few words does tend to get a tad stale after a while) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) incorrigible editor, please do not incorrige

The Evolution article has been on my watchlistfor a while. My view is that a handful of editors are spending too long trying to push the article in their favoured direction (cf their wish to have no separate article on Evolutionary biology). Only when outside editors came in (eg Dave souza) could the History section of Evolution be written properly for a general readership: that was largely because the subject is the province of historians of science, not biologists. The discussions on Evolution and "Evolution as fact and theory" do show vague signs of WP:OWNERSHIP. The civility issues seem far less important in comparison. Mathsci (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, and I respect Hans Adler, but the comment that action shouldn't be taken against OrangeMarlin is ludicrous. People have been indef blocked for less than what OrangeMarlin said above. I've honestly never seen a clearer breach of the five pillars. Regardless of whether OrangeMarlin is right or not, he clearly needs to get out of this discussion and stop throwing words like "fucktard" and "sociopathic" around Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Purplebackpack89. Regardless of OrangeMarlin's choice of words, the personal attacks he made about other users on this page should not go without some kind of action. Kcowolf (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  The action that should be taken is to close this section. The circumstances behind the nonsense are such that only bitter feuding involving many good editors would arise from a drive-by admin giving a bureaucractic response to incivility. If there is a problem, it will recur and can be dealt with then. However, kicking someone under the current circumstances would be very counter productive for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here now, it should be addressed. This concept that the Community shouldn't address "surface incivility" because it doesn't have adequate techniques to deal with insidious incivility makes as much sense as a police force saying "I'm sorry you were assaulted and robbed. But even though we have video footage of the crime, we're not going to do anything because we have an unsolved murder from last February." Gerardw (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. This has degenerated into a continuation of the mess that occurred on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed decision. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The eventual decision whether or not to sanction OrangeMarlin needs to be made by people who are completely uninvolved in this issue. That means not you, not me, not Johnuniq, and not any of the other people who’ve been involved in other disputes involving OM. That’s how noticeboards are meant to operate: as a place to get input from the rest of the community. Let’s leave this part of the discussion for uninvolved people to offer their opinions. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I am not involved in any way. On the other hand you are involved to a very serious extent, as it seems you were one of the two people who gathered evidence against Orangemarlin while he was seriously ill and have militated for sanctions against him ever since.[25] Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

…And both during the abortion case and in Jclemens’ arbitration candidady, you showed up to object to that. I can find earlier disputes where you and OM both argued for the same position, but your objections to my involvement in the abortion case alone ought to be enough to show that you have a personal stake in this dispute.

Of course, even just the fact that you’re challenging me about this forces this to become yet another discussion where our own comments crowd out the uninvolved editors who ought to be deciding the outcome of this thread. I’m going to create a new section that’s just for comments from uninvolved editors. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You just attempted to move around various comments. Please stop doing this as it is disruptive. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about this. Having discussion among uninvolved editors in its own section is completely commonplace in threads like this, and I don't believe you're not aware of that. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's disrespectful to the community, please stop. Gerardw (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:UNCIVIL. Please stop. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw: If others don’t approve of that particular solution, I won’t attempt it again. But does anyone else care about the underlying issue I mentioned? I think the comments from involved editors, and these circular disputes, are drowning out any input from the uninvolved people who ought to be resolving this thread.

I’ve probably made this worse, but I’m not sure how at lot of my comments here (such as in response to multiple sequential accusations of misconduct) could have been avoided. If we want this thread to ever be resolved, we’ll need to find a way to make it possible for the closing admin to review the viewpoints expressed by uninvolved editors without having to pick them one at a time out of tens of KBs worth of text. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made no comments about Orangemarlin at all on-wiki; Captain Occam's diffs above are comments about the administrator MastCell. Perhaps Captain Occam has his wires crossed. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, you and OrangeMarlin discussed corresponding with one another via e-mail. Even if you think your statement “I have made no comments about Orangemarlin at all on-wiki” doesn’t include e-mail correspondence, I don’t see how you can possibly claim that you’re uninvolved in issues related to a user you correspond with via e-mail. And in any case, your statement is false in a literal sense as well: you commented on OrangeMarlin here, only around two weeks ago. Another example of your past interaction with OrangeMarlin is this thread.

All right? You’re wrong, and that should be the end of this. Can we stop wasting time with this now, or are you going to demand that I waste even more of it by finding additional examples of your and his interaction? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Captain Occam, a known POV pusher, in dragging thsi on and on in the hopes of getting an ideological opponent blocked. And Orangemarlin is falling for the bait and making uncivil comments about Captain Occam and DSMBel, who is prodding and baiting him in his talk page[26]. Until Orangemarlin is pushed to make some really uncivil comment and gets blocked. Why don't we apply interaction bans here? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to be more uncivil than this [27] so a block for incivility seems a long way off as there are no admins. willing to suffer the storm of protest that such a ban would generate. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because factual accurate descriptions of the behaviour of editors are not violations of WP:CIVIL (OK, not exactly factual, and probably written while being very angry due to their prodding). Specially when the editors being described having prodding the describer in order to provoke an uncivil coment and get him a WP:CIVIL block. Now let's throw interaction bans to stop the baiting and prodding. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, another attempt to sidetrack this with more of the same unsupported nonsense that’s been discussed to death earlier in the same thread? It’s certainly interesting how much of this is coming from the same small group of editors who’ve tended to oppose me in every dispute I’ve ever been involved in. Honestly, given what your past interaction with me has been like, I don’t expect anything I say to change what you’ll be claiming about me here. But for the sake of the rest of the community, I probably have to repeat it anyway:

I’ve had no interaction with OrangeMarlin before the abortion case a month ago. We’ve never been involved in the same articles at the same time, and all of the positions he’s advocating (abortion, evolution) aren’t ones that I disagree with. If you knew anything about me or where my username comes from, you’d know that already. In a situation like this, for you to suggest an interaction ban looks like nothing but vendetta. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You made a thoroughly unethical attempt to turn an implicit topic ban of an editor (Orangemarlin) who is recovering from heart surgery into an explicit one. Amazingly, a spineless arbitrator encouraged you in this attempt (and made a personal attack against another arbitrator in the process). Just as amazingly, given this community's obsession with superficial incivility, you were not taken to task for this reckless behaviour. Then someone started this thread on Orangemarlin, and just as a consensus began to develop that while his language is, as usual, too strong, there isn't really a problem here, you hijacked it for a general discussion of Orangemarlin's well known civility issues. I am sure I am speaking for a lot of editors when I say that this is by no means the right time. And you will have to live with WP:BOOMERANG. Hans Adler 13:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, there are only two possibilities here: either the community is capable of dealing with this, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then this belongs in arbitration, and you (or someone else) should request a case. But if the community is capable of resolving this issue, there will have to come a point when the community decides that despite the complications involved, the issue needs to be addressed in its entirety.

I’ve been looking through some of the archives here, and OrangeMarlin has been periodically reported on AN/I for making personal attacks at least since 2008. It’s almost always gone the same way: because the issue is complex and it isn’t clear whether editors other than OM share some of the blame, the possibility of any action gets deferred to some indeterminate future point, and then the exact same issue ends up on AN/I again a few months later. The most recent example of this was here. Given this history, for you to say that now isn’t the right time to deal with this is basically just repeating the same attitude that’s caused this conflict to continue festering for the past three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the continued festering. This supposed to be the "incident" board -- if you want to do an RFC/U, this is not the forum. Gerardw (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More and more, I think what’s needed at this stage is arbitration. In the discussion below, multiple people are expressing the opinion that this issue is too complex to be resolved at AN/I. Resolving conflicts that are too complex to be dealt with by the community is what ArbCom is there for.

Do you agree with that? If anyone else agrees that this issue belongs in arbitration, I’d appreciate it if someone else could request the case. I feel like I’ve gotten more involved in this than I ought to be, and I’ve also kind of got my hands full at the moment. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Modest proposal

As a bystander, let me make a suggestion. Proposed User:Orangemarlin is blocked indefinitely until such time as he accepts that his behaviour has been well beyond the limits of civility and agrees to conform to the letter and sprit of Wikipedia:Civility policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. The extreme incivility in this very discussion is already enough to justify such a block, irrespective of any history of similar behaviour. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't block people mechanically but to achieve a result. Nothing good can come from blocking an habitual swearer for swearing in response to a deliberate attack to affect his physical health in real life. Hans Adler 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is not referencing the swearing but the personal attacks. Gerardw (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is intended to achieve a result: to give OM time and space to reflect on his own behaviour; to accept that community norms apply to him in the same way as everyone else, and to explicitly affirm that acceptance. Cusop Dingle (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This issue is too complex and there are too many people involved to pin it on just the one protagonist and just block him - there's a wider picture that should be addressed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a cop out, for the reasons I've outlined Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Simple_civility_principle below. Gerardw (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support The comments have been redacted. If Orangemarlin, by not reverting, accepts the community consensus that personal attacks are not acceptable, a block is unnecessary now. If Orangemarlin insists on re-affirming the remarks in defiance of community standards a block would seem to the only remaining option. Gerardw (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that OrangeMarlin has already reverted the first attempt to redact his comments. [28] Did you mean if he reverts this a second time? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

and it needs an Admin. willing to do it....... Leaky Caldron 14:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per BsZ, because situation is too complex and includes various ethical issues. Mathsci (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't block good content writers when they have an outburst because of POV-pushers' baiting and prodding. This doesn't take into account any context, nor what is better for the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose [Original text removed] Orangemarlin's produced content work. I don't think that an editor should be blocked indefinitely for using "fuck" and calling an arbitrator a "tiny little man" to fuck himself offensive. HurricaneFan25 14:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarification: I oppose any block of a content-creator or a net positive to the encyclopedia, uncivil or not. HurricaneFan25 15:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Indefinite" does not mean "infinite". It means until such time as OM explicitly agrees to abide by community norms. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - in addition to all the reasons given above this smells of both a witch hunt as well as some agenda driven axe grinding. Volunteer Marek  15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: in light of the fact that there isn't a consensus for an indef block, I counter-propose a two-week block instead (see "Even More Modest Proposal" below), as recent diffs indicate that his swearing continues Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this is excessively draconian. Swarm ^X 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too harsh, too little appreciation of good content work and good debating skill. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd sooner block Captain Occam, or — since I'm not much of a one for blocks altogether — at least ban him from ANI for three months or so, for his unabashed attempts to game our good faith in this thread. He starts by introducing himself as "uninvolved" and merely "aware for a little while of OrangeMarlin having a persistent problem with incivility". [29] Compare Casliber's brisk comment on this flying start: "Captain Occam's claim of uninvolvement is not true". Considering Captain Occam's very frank push for JClemens as extra respectable for being an arbitrator, I should perhaps remind people that Casliber is one, too. Then CO wikilawyers Orangemarlin's factually very accurate charges (that CO has accused him of being dishonest and manipulative) by responding on the approximate level of "I didn't actually say 'you lied about your illness'". (See this post for CO's actual words.) Oh, right, CO merely made his "suspicions" that OM is a crook very clear. And, gee, CO is certainly a fine one to complain about "unsupported nonsense that’s been discussed to death earlier in [this] thread"! [30] Comes well from the guy who has bloated up the thread by posting 40 times to it, much of it unsupported. Not counting minor edits. By posting 3 649 words to it, 25% of the total thread. (When CO made the remark about "discussed to death" it was a 30% percentage, which has since been evened out somewhat by people chiming in on all the "poll" threads.)

I won't try people's patience by posting Yet Another Poll, about ANI-banning CO. Also, I won't do that because I do give him credit for his unforced acknowledgement that "I’ve probably made this worse".[31] (Even though he makes out that his excessive posting is really other people's fault for contradicting him so much. I guess that's human. :-)) Bishonen | talk 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

• Oppose While I would side with CO on content issues in general, and have on occasion cringed at various postings of OM's (in apprehension of the backlash rather than having my delicate nature offended); I would opine that civility is a two-way street. When taken out of context, indeed OM can be quite an eye-opener; and yet to suggest that a venue of passive aggressive baiting, snide asides, and heartless innuendo would pass for civility would be a massive fail. That an actual sitting arb would act in the fashion that he did amazes me. I was shocked and utterly disappointed that any human being shown enough trust that he be allowed to sit in judgment of others should behave in such a manner. I am completely flabbergasted that anyone seeking reappointment would behave with such a lack of compassion. It is true that this project is an endeavor to impart knowledge, but it is people that make this project work. When we put the "project" above our own humanity, we are ultimately dooming the project to failure. Taken in its entirety, and in context - I am unable to support such a sanction at this time. — Ched :  ?  04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple civility principle

• 'Simple civility principle: 'Every editor, newbie, veteran, admin, bureaucrat, puppet, blocked banned, POV pushing, deceitful or otherwise dickish editor should be treated with respect.' Quoting what is supposed to be one of five fundamental principles: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

If "civility" only means having to be civil to those who are not dicks, it's not a principle, it's a banal description of the obvious.

The concepts that retaliatory incivility is acceptable, or that an editor can be "provoked" into incivility and therefore not culpable, is childish. Adult editors endowed with free will can make choices, and adults accept responsibility for their choices. They started it is not a justification.

The concept that the community shouldn't address "surface incivility" because it doesn't have adequate techniques to deal with insidious incivility makes as much sense as a police force saying "I'm sorry you were assaulted and robbed. But even though we have video footage of the crime, we're not going to do anything because we have a murder from last month we haven't been able to solve."

The concept upholding standards endorses so called "baiting" makes as much sense as saying prosecuting an individual who blows away a punk because they keyed their car is endorsing keying cars.

The parroting of "blocks are not punitive" is a shallow interpretation of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The legal jurisdiction where I reside posts highway signs that say 65 and maintains a police force which issues tickets at approximately ≥ 72 -- most folks drive at 70. It's not just about the specific editor; more importantly, both blocking and not blocking sends signals to the entire Wikipedia community about what is and what is not acceptable behavior. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Burke, attributed.

"Not punitive" implies others means of resolution are preferable; in the case of personal attacks, redaction or striking. "Not punitive" implies a generous reading of unblock requests, contrasted with "do the crime, serve the time" gestalt. An "editor X is such a dick they won't change, so a block would be punitive" reading is a ludicrous Wiki-22. Gerardw (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Play nice - or go play somewhere else. Its OK to loose one's temper if you apologize put the issue behind you afterwards. It is not OK to argue ad hominem, or use disparaging language as a matter of routine. Especially not against particular editors that one has just taken a disliking of. These practices damage the project much more than the departure of a constructive but ill behaved editor. Civility matters. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as too weak. Doesn't really give a handle to block Captain Occam and Jclemens for their severe incivility. Hans Adler 15:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're actually saying you're opposed to treating everyone respectfully? What is your proposed alternative, "Editors who violate community norms in persistent subtle ways we're just not good at dealing with will be driven off the project with heaps of verbal abuse?" Gerardw (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what Hans said at all. He's noting that we also need to deal with other editors who are disruptive and uncivil. (As an aside I consider misrepresenting someone's words to be far more uncivil and disruptive than using expletives, but that's another issue for another day.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what specifically you're opposed to. The basic premise is treating everyone respectfully. It seems to me the alternative to supporting that principle that is being implicitly sanctioned here is "Editors who violate community norms in persistent subtle ways we're just not good at dealing with will be driven off the project with heaps of verbal abuse," which doesn't seem reasonable. Gerardw (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to turning Wikipedia into an environment with zero tolerance for superficial incivility and zero interest in much more harmful actions. Hans Adler 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. All editors should be capable of civil behaviour. Civil but unconstructive conduct can be dealt with in another proposal. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia can only work if it is a collaborative environment where others are treated with respect, which includes not being subject to personal attacks or abuse. Everybody should be held to the same standards of behaviour. If standards of behaviour are more clearly enforced it will (a) help to stop editors beiong driven off who do find such behaviour offensive (anbd may will find such attacks offensive), (b) reduce the potential for accusations of double standards and (c) hopefully reduce the potential for the sort of catastrophies like the one above - If people know what's intolerable and that action WILL be taken for persistant offenders, then it may constrain some editors who would otherwise eventually exhaust community goodwill and get kicked out.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with all of that. But what are you proposing? --JaGa^talk 16:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't even know what I would be agreeing with, let alone supporting or opposing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that problem as well. Hans Adler 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support with addition This is very well done, Gerardw. It is toothless without enforcement guidelines. We need a civility pillar that is similar to WP:3RR. If you are brought to ANI with 3 civility claims that are not dismissed immediately and have merit (as in this case) then there is an automatic block action that any admin can say he is obligated to do. Alatari (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Alatari (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - these arguments about "civility" and all that always end up reminding me of this "Loud is not allowed!". Volunteer Marek  13:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Propose Interaction Ban

• I think the best solution here may be an interaction ban between OrangeMarlin and CaptainOccam(and possibly other editors mentioned: User:DMSBel?). I am frankly appalled by OrangeMarlin's behavior, but there seems to be a history behind his failure of selfcontrol that runs deeper than a simple pattern of rude editing. If I believed that OrangeMarlin would act like this randomly without being provoked I would have issued a preventive civilty block myself. But I don't I think it is clear that the problem is between OrangeMarlin and a coupe of other editors with whom he has a history of mutual hostility - the fact that one part can keep their temper checked and the other can't shouldn't be what determines who is sanctioned. In short I propose an interaction ban - which will be enforced by blocks if further uncivil interaction ensues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed decision#DMSBel topic-banned. It seems that the user is narrowly missing an indefinite site ban and will instead get away with a one-year site ban and an indefinite topic ban. But under these circumstances an interaction ban involving DMSBel doesn't make sense. The user should simply be blocked when they are disruptive under these circumstances. Hans Adler 18:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There were no site bans in the final decision.[32] Mathsci (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don’t know if you saw where I mentioned this above, but I had no prior interaction with OrangeMarlin before I commented on ArbCom’s decision regarding him in the abortion case around three weeks ago. He and I have never been involved in any of the same articles, so when and if the current issue is resolved, I doubt I’d ever interact with him again. For that reason I’m not going to actually object to an interaction ban, since after the end of this thread it probably won’t have any affect on me at all, but I don’t really see what it would accomplish either.

However, mutual interaction bans with some of the other users who’ve been his perennial adversaries might be worthwhile. Perhaps it should cover some of the users that he listed here. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that makes me think that perhaps it doesn't run much deeper than a simple lack of selfcontrol... Without knowing the context that edit really makes me lean towards an indef block. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That diff should also probably be seen in the context of this diff three days later.[33] Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is useful context. It is certainly human to not show one's best sides when under that kind of stress. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That and the subsequent serious operation create special circumstances (you can read about that higher up). That's why unfortunately this is not quite as simple as it might seem. Mathsci (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think what we need to see is Orangemarlin coming forward and saying "I'm sorry my conduct has been unacceptable recently, there were special circumstances, I recognise that I need to do better in future, and will do so". We would surely all welcome that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus: does what I mentioned change your perspective on whether an interaction ban is the right solution? Although I wouldn’t object to the interaction ban itself, it would bother me to see the community decide they think that’s enough to resolve the issue here, when what we really need (in my opinion) is arbitration. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unwrapping Captain Occam's comment here [34]; the insidious implication was that Orangemarlin was a liar and faking a near fatal medical condition; it is a reprehensible personal attack and a stunning lack of good faith. It is disappointing that JClemens essentially validated the comment. This alone is sufficient grounds for an interaction ban. Gerardw (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it really strange how many people are misreading what I said in that comment. In that comment I said, and I quote, "I believe him that he really was in the hospital." As I said in that comment (and clarified further in my subsequent comments), the only thing I was suspicious about is whether after he had recovered from the surgery, he might have delayed his return for longer than necessary until he could see that ArbCom wasn't going to sanction him because of his absence.

Most of my comments there stated this explicitly, and I've also pointed it out multiple times in this thread. Why is it impossible to stop people seeing something in my comment that isn't there? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One alternative is many people are all very stupid. Another is that you choose your words poorly to the point of offensiveness and said something you didn't mean to say. Gerardw (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

the only thing I was suspicious about is whether after he had recovered from the surgery, he might have delayed his return for longer than necessary until he could see that ArbCom wasn't going to sanction him because of his absence.; the issue here is that it violates the idea of "assume good faith". Whether or not you hold that suspicion it is not possible to prove - so rather than voice it you should assume good faith. The problem you have identified is that by being absent for some time Arbcom may not apply sanctions; so rather than question whether that was the intention, simply point out that he is back and query whether this means he will be sanctioned. This would be acceptable :) or to put it another way; you've identified a problem, and in expressing it you've unfortunately mixed in a theory as to why the problem exists. The former is fine, the latter less so. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn’t it generally accepted that there are limits to when assuming good faith is possible? If everyone always assumed good faith in every situation, nobody would ever be banned from Wikipedia. In this case, one of OM’s last comments before leaving was this, posting virulent personal attacks against six people whom he considered his adversaries. That (along with some of his earlier comments) pretty much exceeded the limit of my ability to assume good faith about him.

Am I unusual in this respect? I didn’t think I was, but in this thread it seems like everyone else’s limit is a lot higher than mine. Maybe I’m the one who’s unusual here, but I have trouble believing that the limit of my own capacity to assume good faith isn’t at least somewhere in the range of what’s reasonable. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No. You threw mud at Orangemarlin while he was down. You imputed a bad faith motive for his observed inaction. That is outside the limit. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom motion on Orangemarlin says very clearly that if Orangemarlin wants to start editing in the area that he would otherwise have been banned from explicitly, then he is to contact Arbcom first. What do you think that means other than that Orangemarlin is banned from editing in that area except if he can present evidence that this is inappropriate? At the time when you posted that section, Orangemarlin had made a single-digit number of edits after his operation. From hospital. From a mobile phone. It's unfair to treat an editor under these circumstances as if they could defend themselves, and given that there had earlier been a famous secret cangaroo court case against Orangemarlin, it was of the utmost importance not to blatantly break any of his procedural rights. (It's amazing how Jclemens could be so stupid as not to see this.)

What advantage did you hope to get from an implicit topic ban against Orangemarlin being turned into an explicit one that Arbcom would have had serious trouble to defend as fair if challenged?

As you say, it is generally accepted that there are limits to when assuming good faith is possible. And I find it impossible to assume anything other than that you were doing it out of spite. Because you were angry that Orangemarlin is still alive and wanted to kick him. Hans Adler 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you know... And I find it impossible to assume anything other than that you were doing it out of spite. Because you were angry that Orangemarlin is still alive and wanted to kick him. is another example of where theory of motive is being mixed with the actual problem. I was with you till the last sentence or two... sheesh. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed there, ErrantX. Captain Occam's knowledge of Orangemarlin's editing most probably started when he was gathering evidence/diffs for the abortion case in early September at Jclemens' request. That provides context for Captain Occam's posting on the talk page of the PD. Mathsci (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, HA's last sentence is unacceptable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What??? To quote Captain Occam: "Isn’t it generally accepted that there are limits to when assuming good faith is possible? If everyone always assumed good faith in every situation, nobody would ever be banned from Wikipedia." Can anyone give me an explanation of Captain Occam's (and Jclemens') bizarre behaviour that is consistent with good faith? Why was it so important to them to get closure on Orangemarlin's topic ban? Hans Adler 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We are currently discussing the sentence "Because you were angry that Orangemarlin is still alive and wanted to kick him", written by you, Hans Adler. To have any reasonable justification for making this statement, you must at the very least to establish that this is as plausible as any other explanation for his behaviour. Since you can't look inside his head, you would have to adduce evidence for CO knowing that OM was gravely ill and a level of hatred (no other word for it) on the part of CO towards OM equivalent to wanting OM to die. You did not trouble to produce any evidence, it is inherently implausible, and MS above shows that the facts are against it. That makes it a very serious personal attack on CO, and rather than attempting to justify your misconduct by reference to the purported misdeeds of CO or others, you would do better to admit you were wrong to make such a disgraceful allegation and withdraw it right away. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to confess something I haven't done. My assumption on the motivations behind Captain Occam's behaviour is just as well connected to the visible facts as Captain Occam's assumption on the motivations behind Orangemarlin's. In both cases AGF requires that we self-censor such thoughts. The difference is that I did so and assumed good faith. (To make it completely explicit, my AGF explanation goes as follows: Captain Occam had somehow convinced himself that OM was just simulating. He was aware that he could not say so because that would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe he really tried to assume good faith but failed, or maybe he thinks AGF is just about public appearances. In any case he was unable to see the situation from an AGF angle at all, leading him to make this grave mistake in good faith. An alternative, less likely theory is an astonishing degree of ethical blindness. Assuming this theory is arguably assuming good faith.) When I AGF, I AGF in my mind and build my whole mental model of Wikipedia on it. That's the whole point of. If you don't do that, you might as well not AGF at all. Actual AGF prevents misunderstandings and is the grease that Wikipedia needs for smooth operation. Pretended AGF is a form of dissembling and may well cause more problems than ABF because it's impossible to respond to an accusation that was never made explicit. Hans Adler 12:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I agree as well. Given the sensitivity of the situation, I think people should be careful about making accusations without good evidence, and of course this goes both ways. I don't think it's acceptable to say an editor wishes/d another editor dead. IMO, it's helpful to consider what if you're wrong, in a case like this, it's generally going to be be extremely offensive. Was much evidence presented about significant ill-will between OM and CO before the case started? (It seems CO wasn't a major participant in the case so seems unlikely to me.) If not, does HA actually have any evidence for such an illwill? Not that evidence would make it much more acceptable (well it goes some way towards a suggestion CO was kicking OM out of spite), but if neither are true then the accusation is even more perplexing.

Note that this doesn't mean I agree with CO. As I said, it goes both ways. Even if the timing was slightly suspicious, this is far from sufficient evidence to claim someone is making up a near fatal medical condition. Again, I think it should be obvious many people are going to find it really offensive if you say they made up the claim they were suffering from a near fatal condition, if they really were suffering from one. (I'm reminded of a case here where a university lecturer accused a student of making up the claim their father died. I'm simplifying, there was other stuff wrong on both sides. But one of the obvious problems is directly accusing someone of making up such a thing is likely to be very offensive if you're wrong which AFAIK, he was.)

Also I would suggest CO failed to look in to the timing properly. OM annouced their problems in early July, the case started in early August. Perhaps there were inklings of problems in July. But suggesting someone made up that they needed surgery which could very well kill them because of the possibility of a future arbcom case is an extreme claim and needs more evidence then the timing of return. If the intention was solely to suggest that OM was delaying their return, then CO's comments weren't sufficiently clear and even then still a bad idea. If someone really suffered from such a serious condition, it's resonable to let them return when they feel up to it, and IMO it's not even unresonable if they don't wish to engage in an arbcom case (but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to accept limitations on their editing arising out of it until such time they are willing to engage, nor does it excuse poor behaviour). If CO wasn't aware what OM was recovering from, then they shouldn't have brought the timing issue up without proper investigation.

Edit: I see CO has already clarified and re-reading the comment I realised I misread them, not helped by some of the earlier statements by others including OM's comment on AGF. However part of my answer still stands. If someone is suffered from a near-fatal condition, it's simply a bad idea to say they are delaying their return unnecessarily.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support This should stop the behaviour and baiting problems, and let the content editing continue. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Frankly, I've seen enough in this wider thread to suggest an interaction ban is a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I’m not sure how much I should care about a proposal that probably won’t affect me, but if Swarm’s “last chance” proposal below gets consensus (and it looks like it probably will), what exactly is an interaction ban going to accomplish? I had no interaction with OrangeMarlin anywhere on Wikipedia before three weeks ago, and the only reason I began paying attention to him is because I can’t stand the way he’s able make blatant personal attacks and consistently get away with it. If his behavior is going to improve, which it’ll have to do if the proposal below ends up passing, I’ll have absolutely no reason to interact with him beyond this point. If it’ll make the other people here feel better, I’m even willing to make a promise about this: As long as OrangeMarlin follows the instructions to refrain from personal attacks, I promise to completely disengage from him. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (e/c with Captain Occam, who AFAICS still thinks that direct interaction is the only issue here). I'll support as long as it's made extremely clear that "interaction ban" doesn't just mean actual interaction, but also bans mentioning (=badmouthing, in this case, but CO doesn't seem to understand when he's calling somebody a liar[35][36], so "mentioning" it is) the other person anywhere on Wikipedia. Captain Occam has several times pointed out above that a mere "interaction" ban wouldn't affect him, as he has never confronted Orangemarlin directly, and isn't planning to start now. CO seems quite pleased with himself for having "only" talked about OM behind his back, not to him.[37] Therefore, mentioning (or of course hinting at!) the other person needs to be also outlawed. This is perhaps obvious, but with a guy who introduces himself as "uninvolved"[38], I presume for not having been in a direct "dispute" with OM, all bets are off. Oh, and re CO's comment just above, no you don't get to consider yourself released from the interaction ban if you find PAs, either real or perceived, by Orangemarlin, are you kidding? That's not how interaction bans work. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

The promise I made above was meant to be as an alternative to an interaction ban, not in addition to it.

I don’t think you understand the point I’m making above. When I talk about having not been in any prior conflict with OM, I am specifically not referring to the last three weeks. I’m completely aware that starting three weeks ago, I’ve been trying to get the community to pay attention to his personal attacks, and I don’t have any problem with people referring to that as being a conflict with him during that time.

Here’s the point I was making: I’ve been active on Wikipedia since June 2009. From June 2009 until November 2011, I never interacted with OrangeMarlin or mentioned him or talked about him behind his back. That changed about three weeks ago, because I felt very strongly that he shouldn’t be getting away with his personal attacks. But if he’s going to stop making personal attacks (and get blocked immediately if he fails to stop), then I’ll be happy for things to return to the way they were for 29 of the 30 months I’ve spent here. That means not interacting with him or mentioning him in any context. Do you understand the point I’m making now? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support While still recovering from a serious medical operation, Orangemarlin is understandably angry with Captain Occam for his inability to show empathy and finds it hard to control that anger. His personal attacks, however, are not excusable. Captain Occam on the other hand shows no awareness of how unethically he has acted; even in these very special circumstances, he apparently felt under no obligation to assume good faith. Having prepared evidence against Orangemarlin for the abortion case in September, Captain Occam's own edits and statements recently, as well as his past editing history, make it unlikely that he has abandoned his single-minded plan to bring Orangemarlin to justice on wikipedia. As further indications of this, Captain Occam has claimed above that he would disenegage from Orangemarlin, but afterwards he went straight back to lobbying an arbitrator on her talk page with suggestions of an arbitration case to impose sanctions on Orangemarlin.[39] Thus there are reasons on both sides for an interaction ban. Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - My problem with this is that it distracts from the overall problem. The OP calls it "the best solution here", but I don't see how it's a solution at all. CO wasn't even involved in the original complaint. Swarm ^X 08:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Captain Occam involved himself, escalating matters, which gave rise to a further incident on this page (the now redacted post of Orangemarlin). After that Maunus talked with Orangemarlin on his user talk page and proposed this solution as a consequence. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I'm fully in support of this interaction ban, but I'm strongly against any notion that this is "the solution". That, if this and maybe a couple other interaction bans are put into place, OM's long term pattern of incivility is going to disappear. Getting provoked by an asshole editor is not a remarkable thing that happens only to OM. It happens to everyone. Swarm ^X 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)I don't think the notion is that this is "the solution." Civility is important but so is consensus, and the overall consensus as I read it is that while OM has made unjustified personal attacks, there is sufficient suboptimal behavior by others involved that stronger sanctions beyond the interaction ban and (possibly) warning aren't justified here and now. OM will either proceed in an adequately civil manner in the future, which will be good for the encyclopedia; or they won't, at which point stronger measures can be taken. So I'd suggest this is "the best solution we're going get now." Gerardw (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at some of the past discussions regarding OrangeMarlin in preparation for possibly requesting arbitration about this, and there have been eight other AN/I threads about him that ended with either no decision, or a decision to wait and see whether the problem continued before making a decision. There have also been eleven WQA threads about OM, including four in the past year. Even if at the moment it seems sensible to say that stronger measures can be taken in the future if the problem continues, I think the history makes it obvious what that outcome would actually amount to, because that's how almost every other AN/I or WQA thread about him has ended. This only means it’ll be another few months until this issue ends up back at AN/I again, at which point everyone will be back in the same situation they’re in currently.

I understand your point about how it isn’t possible to do more than there’s a consensus to do, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that what you’re suggesting is a solution at all. It’ll only be the latest iteration of the same cycle that’s been occurring since 2008. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• If a mutual interaction ban between myself and OrangeMarlin could be combined with similar bans between him and the other editors who’ve been targets of his personal attacks, I’ll accept that outcome as accomplishing what I wanted to accomplish. I think it’s important that we include all of his perennial adversaries, though. Based on his comment here, those seem to include Dreadstar, Fences and Windows, DMSBel, Ludwigs2, FT2, and Cla68. It might also be worth including Jclemens, since OrangeMarlin feels and talks about Jclemens the same way that he does about me ([40], [41] [42]), and for basically the same reason. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Even more modest proposal

As noted by this diff, OrangeMarlin's swearing attacks continue. Since above it was demonstrated that there wasn't a consensus for an indef block, I propose a two-week block for his swearing only, leaving out the greater Orangemarlin-Captain Occam feud Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But that diff is several months old.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This was really cheeky. That diff is from July, when Orangemarlin had left a farewell message in case he wouldn't survive his experimental surgery. Hans Adler 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Consensus is as important a principle as civility, and a reading of the comments in this section indicate their is not currently sufficient consensus for block due to the totality of circumstances which have occurred.

1. The interaction ban should be approved.
2. The following text be placed on Orangemarlin's talk page (text, of course, subject to discussion):
"While not justifying the personal attacks and lack of good faith to which you were subjected, the wikipedia community has a responsibility to uphold the its principles, including civility. Personal attacks cannot be condoned, and future attacks may result in blocking." Gerardw (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is essentially saying, "You've doing something wrong, and we're still not going to block you" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

Do we have a clear definition of what constitutes swearing? Or what constitutes uncivil behaviour? One that works all around the globe, for all social classes, in all contexts? You should note from my spelling of behaviour that I am not American, and I repeatedly run into cultural differences of what is acceptable or not in language here. HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Gerardw (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Swearing is irrelevant - it is possible to swear while being civil and to be uncivil without swearing. What matters is civility. We have quite useful definitions of the concept of civility. It is uncivil to communicate in ways that are intended to disparage other editors or which can reasonably be expected to be felt as disparaging. Basically civility is encapsulated in the concept of "don't do unto others" - with the corrollary that you actually have to take into account that some people may want to be treated differently from you and that you have to employ the faculty of empathy to make an educated guess at how they want to be treated. Its no mystery really.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but not the only problem. It's a fact that swearing is socially acceptable in Wikipedia's de facto culture. Otherwise I wouldn't do it, because I have never done it in real life except for an occasional "shit!" and I don't think I would ever do it on the German Wikipedia. But here it feels natural. I slowly acquired the habit here because it's normal.

It's a good idea to change this, but it's a bad idea to just pick some random method that involves a lot of blocking of users for what is perfectly normal and natural at the moment ,and to hope that it's going to have any effect other than causing a lot of disruption and making a number of editors leave the project forever. Hans Adler 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolute requirement

Clear definitions and clearly stated boundaries. We have to have one universally acceptable and accepted standard. A bright line, or a set of bright lines, so that everybody knows, without a shadow of a doubt, where we all stand. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but for many reasons (see above) this is not time/place or instance in which to draw the line. In hindsight, I regret inserting the "Simple civility principle" section above, not because I don't believe it entirely, but part of our responsibility -- a necessity -- is to build that consensus. At this point, I sincerely believe the best option is an acute "stop the bleeding" interaction ban followed by a consensus driven, inclusive approach to addressing the much greater chronic problem. It is my incredibly arrogant intent to try nudge the community towards that end, but being hasty will be counter-productive. Gerardw (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Last chance?

Sorry to pile another section header onto this, but I don't see how any of the above solves anything. I assume most of us know that OM's pattern of incivility is nothing new; I recall a discussion with them over some of their comments earlier this year. A big problem here is that the community by and large let's him get away with it. They've only had one block for personal attacks back in 2008, and they were almost immediately unblocked. OM has always been given a hell of a lot of leeway in light of his positive contributions to the encyclopedia. But I hope we would all agree that calling other editors "Captain Fucking Cumface" or "a little pussy that would hide in his mommy's basement" is too far. It's clear that no administrators so far have felt a block is warranted now (or that none want to see him blocked, myself included). But I think it's time to give OM a formal, final warning that his behavior needs to shape up before he is going to be facing a block. We're really not asking much of him at all. He doesn't need to start being jolly and cheerful and friendly to everyone. He doesn't even need to refrain from swearing. He just needs to stop making personal attacks and other blatantly uncivil comments. Swarm ^X 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, along with interaction ban (reasons previously stated). Gerardw (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I share my opinion about a possible course of action to solve this problem, and your response is an 'oppose' vote? With no comment? Really? Can I ask what exactly you're opposing and why? I could care less whether people agree or disagree with my opinions, but when good faith attempts at discussion and are responded to with an oppose votes with no rationale, it's pretty frustrating and a bit condescending. Swarm ^X 09:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Silly, illogical suggestion!!! Immediately after a sub-section where it was made obvious that we have no clear definition of the crime you want to prosecute someone for, you want to warn him about committing it. We have to do better than that! HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin has engaged in personal attacks. The lack of a specific generally agreed understanding of civility does not preclude reaching consensus in a particular instance. I can not know how far I can swim without drowning, and simultaneously know I can't swim twenty miles. Note: there is no crime and no prosecution here, Wikipedia is privately owned and therefore there is no violation of civil or property rights if an editor is prohibited from editing. Gerardw (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal counter-attacks, to be precise. Hans Adler 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand this simply as saying that from now on Orangemarlin will no longer get the special treatment that he got so far (he was basically exempt from blocking, whatever he did). In fact, whether we make it official or not, the situation is already much worse: By now he is under the same scrutiny as Giano and Malleus. I am not sure what prompted this change. Maybe so far Orangemarlin wasn't a good target of envy because he has never been engaged in serial production of extremely high quality articles, and now people envy him for the sympathies he got when terminally ill... Hans Adler 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support with the proviso that OM responds by explicitly acknowledging that his behaviour has been unacceptable and agrees to abide by community norms of civility (which was the point of the "Modest Proposal" above). Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This a bad idea and shows little insight into human psychology; it is more likely to provoke a final outburst. It would be better to just place the block than try to coerce into some self-flagellation rhetoric. Place the warning. He'll indicate his acceptance or refusal by future behavior, and future behavior is the goal. Gerardw (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If so, then so be it. That's what a "last chance" looks like. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel simply instructing him not to repeat the behaviour, with a clear cut warning it's likely to lead to a block, isn't sufficient? Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Because some people are more likely to feel that they should keep their word once given. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I've seen a few examples of problems with OM's behaviour before, but OM's comments in this thread seem to sufficiently demonstrate the problem. OM may be a good content editor, etc, but unless they can start to moderate their comments and drasticly reduce the personal attacks, they're not an acceptable editor in a colloborative environment like wikipedia. (Someone earlier suggested OM is a good debater, I would have to disagree. My views on many matters are probably closer to OM then their opponents. But from what I've seen here and in some of the comments which started this thread, OM style is more likely to alienate then convince me they are right.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Another editor was blocked indefinitely two years ago for suggesting that OM was a troll. He's still blocked while OM uses far worse language continuously. This lack of natural justice is offensive. What seems especially troubling in the latest outbursts are the threats of violence. As Wikipedians get together at Wikimeets and Wikimanias, it seems quite unacceptable to have such threats being made casually as they may well lead to real harm. Warden (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefly was blocked for BLP violations and longer term disruption (including deleting other users comments in an AFD), not for calling OM a troll. N^oformation ^Talk 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Firefly was given a "last chance" warning, just like we are discussing here. The issue was OM was crying because Firefly had linked to WP:TROLL. That had come about because OM had been nominating Firefly's articles for deletion (the articles were kept). None of that had anything to do with BLP — it seemed to be more a case of lese-majesty as OM was an admin at that time. OM expected that other editors should restrain their language when referring to him. Per WP:SAUCE, the converse now applies. Warden (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Gerardw's reasoning above. Obviously most arbitrators felt we are at a badly chosen moment for poking or cornering OM (see discussion here), and so do I. This is terrible timing for a "last chance". Bishonen | talk 23:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

From my reading of that discussion, a topic ban lacked consensus due to OM's inability to participate in the proceedings. I don't see how that discussion is directly applicable here. Can you clarify? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin got a new lease on life, if you allow me that cliché, and returned to Wikipedia in what seems to me a much more constructive mood than before. That's not a good time to punish him for his past. Keeping up a topic ban is one thing (and it appears that de facto he is under one), but blocking him for overreacting in the way one would expect to an extreme provocation is another.

To put it differently: Punishment can only have a corrective effect when it comes for things that people can actually help doing. Taking into account the provocation, his recent outburst is nothing compared to his pre-surgery behaviour. If we punish even that, he has the choice between just living with a series of escalating blocks or leaving Wikipedia entirely. It's the same principle that made Giano's 'civility parole' such an effective tool for escalating disruption. Hans Adler 00:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans: With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? I find the argument that "he's changed, this was just an isolated outburst" laughable. He's engaged in blatant personal attacks in this very ANI thread! (In the what, two weeks since he's been back?) No one's talking about "punishment" at all, much less for past behavior. It's quite clear this behavior is very current. Swarm ^X 08:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What reasoning? Gerardw has opposed any attempt to force OM to promise they will be better (but only CD is suggesting that), but supported a last warning. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Still blindly enforcement of civility without any consideration for baiting or other circumstances. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bishonen and Enric Naval. Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I have listened to enough and seen enough. OMs very first comments to me were by any standards not just ignorant and rude, but an attempt to poison the well against me in discussion by bringing up a topic ban that I had, and was abiding by, and had been given permission at the time to edit the topic he clashed with me on. He's not simply un-civil, he has become a consumate gamer of the system. Rudeness is the least of the problems. He does his own fair share of provoking, in fact he seems to enjoy it. Intelligent he may be, but the time wasted on these disputes is too much, the annoyance too much. Most every other editor here has equal intelligence, and is more civil. I thought it was just an temperament problem with him, and that he would calm down, but he manipulates as can be seen from his comments in this thread and has pulled a fair little circle of supporters around him who enable him to go on, and make excuses. No. It's OM who baits others. Ultimatum time is here. Last warning before total site ban. No more crap taken.DMSBel (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel is a far more problematic editor than Orangemarlin and has been nibbling at the fringes of his topic ban by poking Orangemarlin on his talk page.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Because of a procedural loophole, DMSBel narrowly escaped a lengthy site-ban himself. The comments above are a clear indication of why ArbCom was vassilating between a one year and an indefinite site-ban for DMSBel. He now appears to have brought his abortion-based battles to this page in a thinly disguised form. Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to request an amendment to the Abortion case? By now it has become painfully obvious that DMSBel simply has moved his WP:BATTLE to other fronts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, others brought me into the discussion before I commented. Thanks for your comments though. You say I am more problematic, how exactly, since the thread is not about me, despite yours and a few other editors attempts to make it about me? I offered OM an apology for earlier comments. DMSBel (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned already in this thread because of the poking. Your rant above suggesting a site-ban is one indication of the problems with your editing. The rest is summed up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. As written on WP:AE, you come here with unclean hands.

@ SBHB: since DMSBel is editing as if the abortion case has not been closed, probably some kind of amendment should be requested. Mathsci (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to discuss at an amendment discusion, I haven't edited abortion or any of its topics since the arb closed. What procedural loophole were you refering too? I come here with reputation smeared by others mostly. But ok my hands are not perfectly clean, are yours? Let me try again then. OM I apologise for instances where my comments have been provocative, I didn't actually propose any measures to be taken against you at the Arb. though I did cite some evidence. I'd certainly like to let the past go. I'll strike my support above, providing you refrain from making comments about me elsewhere on wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, all of this is quite inappropriate, Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way exactly? I have removed my support comment and offered an apology, in what way is that inappropriate? DMSBel (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I am not sure what the reference to WP:AE is about but if you mean by unclean hands, i have been involved in a dispute with OM then I plead guilty, I should not have commented or supported any motion. I have struck the comment.DMSBel (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Unclean hands" is explained in the rubric at the top of the WP:AE page: please read it. Your statements here - "I'll do X provided you do Y" - to someone who's not even present are a further indication that there are unresolved matters. On a technical note could you please indent your comments properly for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK yes that was inapropriate, so I have already done X, I'd like if OM did Y. But as regards not being here, I wasn't notified either when I was brought into this discussion, I just happened across it, and found myself being discussed, not exactly proper was it?. If someone wants to take the support comment right out by all means do so.DMSBel (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand the unclean hands thing, I'd need to read it again when I am less tired. I thought you meant since I'd made comments on OMs page, I was not entitled to support any action here. Is that what it means? Whatever it means, I have struck my support. I am done here for tonight.DMSBel (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I have a high tolerance to editor's rants, frequently expressed out of anger at being deliberately provoked by others. However, the strength of feelings expressed by OM and repeated with apparent equanimity are a bit rich, even for me. They were not, as someone foolishly stated "factual accurate descriptions of the behaviour of editors". They went much further in their personally targeted, repeated vitriol. If this is allowed to stand as an example of acceptable behaviour, which anyone can then use as a defence precedent, we are beyond the slippery slope. Leaky Caldron 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Close now

Propose that this entire thread be closed with no action at this stage as it is clear that there are strong feelings on both sides; any significant issues that occur after a month from closure should be raised at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer: Normally I would enthusiastically support sanctions or last-chances for egregious incivility, however under the circumstances (false suggestions of faking a prolonged near-death condition) no benefit to the project would result from following those paths. There will be opportunities in the future to enforce WP:CIVIL if required. Anyone interested in maintaining CIVIL should spend some time at WP:WQA where assistance to reach swift conclusions on more obvious cases would be very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

“false suggestions of faking a prolonged near-death condition”

Wow. There’s really nothing I can do to stop people misreading my comment about this (even after Nil Einne also pointed out that this is a misreading of it), is there? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As Hans pointed out earlier, believing that there was a prolonged near-death condition, and still persisting to push for sanctions would be particularly reprehensible. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Deciding to not sanction someone because they can’t participate is one thing, and that’s what ArbCom decided. But nobody on ArbCom has ever made the argument you’re making here: that an editor’s publicized health issues (however severe they may be) should make them exempt from any criticism of their behavior. I have health issues periodically—nothing as life-threatening as what OM experienced, but last year I went for a week during which I couldn’t go more than four hours without vomiting—and you know what? While that was happening I never even mentioned it here. I also have a much more long-term health issue that I tend to not talk about in general. And that’s because I think every editor has a responsibility to comply with policy regardless of their physical condition.

Why are you linking to the POV-pushing essay now as something you think I’m doing? Do you actually believe that I support the creationist POV of OrangeMarlin’s opponents here? --Captain Occam (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until consensus is reached; not every editor edits daily (especially on weekends) so let's let the discussion run its course. Closing will not alleviate strong feelings, they'll merely migrate to other parts of Wikipedia. Better to continue to discuss and reach consensus. Gerardw (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Lets settle this.DMSBel (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, others have suggested that an interaction ban with DMSBel, who narrowly escaped a one year site ban on wikipedia, would also be appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means. All I ever did initially was suggest an RFC on an image he was keen to see removed from an article. That was it. He went ballistic at me for suggesting it. From that he took a disliking to me, I don't recall saying anything to offend at that time. But I certainly didn't get into any argument at that time with him. DMSBel (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and undo corrections

Resolved

 – OP hit by a WP:BOOMERANG as a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Administration,

Editors Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite persist in quoting from non-existent sources and repeatedly undo corrections to the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman

I have been accused of sockpuppetry and COI. Both of these allegations are unfair and incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davina_Reichman&diff=465042298&oldid=464947464

Please see: non existent sources removed and translation corrected

The article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” does not exist.

Nicolas A. Palmer, senior editor of The Vancouver Sun, confirmed that the article was factually incorrect and was deleted. The indexing of the article "Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress". Vancouver Sun: p. C.3. June 1, 2010. ISSN 08321299. Proquest 2049290071” been deleted from the databases of ProQuest, OCLC and WorldCat and no longer exists.

The following article from Cambio has been mistranslated: "Vestirse con iPad también se puso de moda" (in Spanish). Revista Cambio. June 8, 2010. Gale A237227979. "Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa [...] El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto."

The Spanish translation of

“Davina Reichman, gerente de la empresa [...] El director creativo de la empresa es Luke Staley, especialista en hacer prendas elegantes, sencillas y clásicas para la mujer y Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.”

into English is

'Davina Reichman, managing director of the company [...] The creative director of the company is Luke Staley, specialist in making clothing elegant, simple and classical for women and Davina Reichman, who developed the concept."

The relative pronoun "quien" is the singular form of plural form “quienes".

Cambio does not state “they developed the concept”. Cambio states “Davina Reichman, quien desarrollo el concepto.” – translation “Davina Reichman, who developed the concept”.

“Page, Emma (November 4, 2010). "Classic but quirky designs".Mosman Daily: p. 56. Retrieved November 4, 2011.” is an irrelevant source as it does not mention iClothing.

Thank you for your assistance in this regard.

Yours sincerely, OliviaBlond (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC) OliviaBlond

Firstly, you have to notify those 2 editors of this topic. Secondly, your userpage reads "My name is Olivia. I am Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles.", added by you [50]. That contradicts "I have been accused of ... COI. ... incorrect." Domenico.y, who is a friend to Davina (there are photos on Flickr) confirmed you as Davina.R flatmate [51]. Simply put, why are you wasting AN/I time, Davina was blocked for COI. You should be too for acting on her behalf as "concerned friend". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (except that she did notify the two editors, although she messed up the template). I stopped looking at the Reichman article a long time ago - so much ado about so little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be three rather entangled topics here. (1) There is a general dispute about sources on Davina Reichman and in particular a dispute as to whether a particular newspaper story can be cited or whether the newspaper in question has retracted it. This has split over from Talk:Davina Reichman to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination). Several editors have displayed behaviour which is far from optimal. (2) There is a discussion as to whether users such as Davina.R (talk · contribs), OliviaBlond (talk · contribs) and Domenico.y (talk · contribs) are sock- or meat-puppets and should be treated as such. This is being conducted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davina.R where OliviaBlond has rather unwisely chosen to respond by restarting the sourcing dispute. (3) There are concerns that the editors mentioned in (2) have a conflict of interest. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Only 2 and 3 matter here. The account is clearly an SPA, the COI is obvious. Sock or meat, either way, I have seen socks far less involved with the subject than this blocked. We know that OliviaBlond is a flatmate. But we do not know the full-extent of the COI – do mere flatmates find sources and know the intimate details of their landlord's career? How do we know that this OliviaB. is not an employee, perhaps even PR, to Davina R. We know she cannot be trusted to tell the truth, having worked in a 3-way effort, herself, Davina R. and Domenico.y, a personal friend to Davina, to disrupt the development of 3 articles, as well as voting in AfDs. I have not been involved in contributing towards the articles due to lack of interest in fashion stuff, I simply performed an RFF on one of the original drafts and advised Domenico.y to account for notability and avoid promo material [[52]] long before Racconish and ConcernedVancouverite got involved. Domenico just didn't "get" what was wrong with many of his sources, lied about his long-term past and present association with Davina.R, and once his COI was identified suddenly Davina.R was here making things difficult and mouthing off at editors who don't consider her notable, took it very personally, hence her block, followed shortly thereafter by this OliviaBlond who engaged with the articles, editors and AfDs to make development difficult. If 3 inexperienced editors, all directly related to the subject, and shouting "Keep" or "Davina and her products are notable" is within Wiki policy and not disruptive, followed by reporting editors who have curbed their COI and halted any agenda, then I hate to see what is. Because there is a known COI, and because of the knowledge being used somewhat more that "a concerned friend" might know without being prompted or commercial interest, there is no reason to indulge in this report further. Olivia Blond should be blocked. If Domenico.y starts becoming disruptive, again, he too should be blocked. Problem solved. I see no similar COI where the 2 being complained about matters, the complaint aims to be retaliative, imo. Though there may be some concerns over the material and sources they are using, that can be sorted out amongst editors once the contending COI accounts are removed. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually (1) is rather relevant, since it will be seen that, although the underlying cause is a content dispute which is not really a matter for this page, I referred to the behaviour of various parties in connection with that dispute, which is. There was a significant amount of unconstructive behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination), by various editors attempting to pursue this content page dispute. Examples include User:Davina.R, [53], [54] (reiterating content dispute and accusation of bad faith); User:MarcusBritish [55] (personal insults); User:Racconish [56], [57], [58], [59] (perpetuating the content dispute, to the level of baiting), User:Milowent [60] (personal comments on another user). The only reason I'm here is that the whole discussion got so out of hand I almost brought it here myself. Cusop Dingle (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean to say is (1) is irrelevant because AfDs are not based on uncivil remarks, but on consensus and comments regarding such things as notability, references, COI, WP:ISNOT promo issues, etc. However, Davina.R made a point of lashing out at every editor she could name before the AfD even got underway. Or if you want a more apt description, she threw shit into the fan and thought because she was the subject of the article in question it granted her auto-immunity. Wrong! Her game plan was flawed, as was her attitude from the moment the AfD began. You don't walk into a job interview and shout "all the employers are morons!", just as you don't start an AfD and open it with "all the editors are morons!" either and expect no comeback. There are no unwarranted civility issues there, except what she invited – but that said, it's old news now. We all know very well that some of the editors have played a substantial role in down-playing her notability, not including myself, I only have made 3 edits – 1 copy-edit, 2 reverts, no context/ref changes – so I had nothing to gain or lose from the AfD outcome. Davina's attacks prompted my response, deservedly. As for other editors, they can speak for themselves. Given that Davina.R + Domenico.y + OliviaBlond form a totally unacceptable COI bond, one being the actual subject (with commercial interests), 2 close friends (commercial ties unknown), one of which I extended a vast amount of AGF towards, and I'm sure any of the more involved editors can substantiate the patience I extended towards Domenico.y, to the point of being made to look a completely naïve twat, because he was leading us all on a merry game, which admittedly has greatly affected my ability to extend trust on Wiki – once bitten, twice shy. Regardless, her provocations were not merited, extended the COI she presented further, and led to her thankful block for disruptive behaviour. As this AN/I thread is meant to find a problem and deal with it – OliviaBlond is a self-identified "concerned friend" who shows a great intuition in the article topic, is an SPA as she has never edited unrelated to Davina. COI is a no-no on Wiki. Block her indef. Problem solved. Topic closed. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The concerns over COI and puppetry certainly seem valid, and need to be investigated. The conduct of Davina.R at the AFD was unacceptable, and the block merited, but does not excuse the poor behaviour of others. "She started it" is not a valid excuse. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuses be damned. This thread was opened by OliviaBlond in an attempt to negate claims of COI and socking, and that's all that matters. Anything else is superfluous and only drags on the thread like that crap being argue below, and we don't see anyone in the AfD telling Davina to "get f--ked" so please quit your whining. No admin is going to act on uncivility in an AfD from 24 November, especially as the main perpetrator is now blocked. So you might as well not even have picked that stick up to be thrown around in the first place. No one cares. Now, to the point, socking claim hasn't got a CU or admin response at SPI yet, and I doubt it will with Davina.R blocked and Domenico.y has gone stale. As for COI, it's quite evident, plain as the nose on your face, so again there's nothing to be gained from finger-pointing at other editors because whether they argue or not the COI is still the main issue, and you ain't going to be winning any medals by raising the issue here 2 weeks late. Better to focus on the COI now, stub it out, done. No one is interested in your conclusions of conduct issues, the COI remains fact however.. doesn't need investigating in great detail, there are links to the diffs that prove it. Her own userpage proves it. Maybe enact a little of your own advice now, and not allow this topic to draw into matters that distract people from the main issues. Because all that will happen is those uncivil editors you named will take it to heart, and you'll have opened a can of worms. You can't expect to make friends on Wiki by playing negotiator or snitch when there's nothing left to settle, the AfD is closed. We all have better things to do. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this can of worms is already open, and I am trying to disentangle a few of them for the benefit of the community. MB's response here seems rather heated, and he would probably do better not to use phrases like "be damned", "whining", "get f--ked", "finger-pointing", "snitch". Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. You've been here for short 5 months, you're a puppy, there are bigger dogs here than you, and they have have no interest in the matter. The community isn't interested in some frisky Aussie pocket designer, or her best friend's sappy opinions of her. And do learn how not to misquote in bad faith, this matter isn't about me, and don't you dare try to pass the buck my way! Case closed. Ciao, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The community may or may not be interested in Australian designers, but it is certainly interested in the conduct, constructive or otherwise, of individual editors. Such conduct can range from COI and puppetry via extreme incivility via dishonesty down to petty name-calling. I am sure other editors can decide whether or not they are interested in this matter without asking MB's dog, however large, to tell them what to think. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:HORSEMEAT WP:MYOB Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - OliviaBlond's comments seem quite correct. A couple of articles stated that the subject was a partner, this was disputed by the subject and the subject appears to have had the article taken down. Some wiki editors have got overly involved against the subject and are insistent on continuing to repeat what seems to be a bit of false reporting. Youreallycan (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is at least a prima facie case to that effect. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• The short story for anyone interested: Olivia Blond has a COI with the article subject. The article subject is very marginally notable is best. The only people who care about this article are Davina and her friends and a few random editors who have stumbled across this baloney. Its a huge time-waster.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The SPI has been closed with a CU confirming two accounts are technically interchangeable, and the third is likely here [61]. Although not directly related to the ANI, since accusations have been thrown regarding the materials which were repeatedly removed by the group of related accounts claiming the articles had been retracted, I have posted on the article's talk page regarding my own research on the matter in the archives here: [62]. I think it is best to keep the discussion of the article citations on the talk page of the article in question as it appears to be a content issue rather than an ANI issue. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Olivia is now blocked as a sock, this ANI should be closed. Someone not connected with Davina can resolve any content dispute and life will go on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My Son Marshall, My Son Eminem problem

Because I reverted another editor three times previously, User:Eeekster re-added content that I removed which is content that I added myself and tagged me for 3RR. I explained that tagged information will make it so that the article will not be applicable for DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because it's a 3RR violation. Eeekster (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really violate 3RR. It started with me removing an editor's tags on content that I added. Then I decided to remove the content because of the tags and because I wanted it on DYK. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I count six reversions you (SL93) made in the space of less than an hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The last three were so that the article would be eligible for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And so? Is that one of the exemptions to WP:3RR? I'm surprised you came here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

For featured articles, it is allowed. For DYK, it should be the same. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The exemption I assume you are referring to states: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page" (emphasis added). The article isn't anywhere on the main page, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It was removed by another editor. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And DYK articles cannot be approved with tags for the main page. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, you're saying it was on the main page at the time you reverted? And then it was removed? I forget how to look at the history of the main page, but the edit summary history of the article doesn't read that way. And even if you are correct, you are supposed to make it clear in the edit summary that you are claiming the exemption, and you didn't mention the DYK thing until I think the 5th reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that. DYKs go through a nomination process. Articles cannot pass that process with any article issues. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So the exemption doesn't apply - it's not intended for what you would like to happen, it's intended for something already on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So basically you following that rule like the Bible is stopping me from helping build a quality article. Why are you against the removal besides pointing to that rule? SL93 (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:IAR please. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that if I violated 3RR, as you clearly did here, I wouldn't have the nerve to come complaining to WP:ANI. I realize that despite being touted as a bright-line rule, admins sometimes give editors leeway on violations in extraordinary circumstances. However, I must say that wanting an article to be a DYK on the main page isn't what I would consider an extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps others here are more sympathetic to your position than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's improving Wikipedia so it is a WP:IAR situation. It isn't just about DYK, it is about improving the article and improving Wikipedia a little bit as a result. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a reason to break WP:3RR. You should just drop the stick, admit fault, and everyone can move on. See my comment below. It's no longer an issue.--v/r - TP 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I did a ton of googling on this and this is what I came up with and what I did. I couldn't find any other source for Mrs. Nelson suing anyone to correct any information. I think the source we have isn't a reliable source. Two lawsuits I could find involving the book were 1) From 1999 well before the book was written to address the song My Mom, and 2) Mrs. Nelson was sued in 2009 from someone else who claimed he helped her write the book. Neither of them involved correcting information in the book which seemed odd to begin with because she wrote it. So I reverted SL93's removal of the sentence and then I reverted myself with my rationale. That should solve the warring. If my rationale is flawed, someone uninvolved can feel free to revert me and make a more informed decision.--v/r - TP 02:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to repeat your searching efforts, but I agree that the source used for the assertion is unreliable. Also, the assertion itself was weird - she sued whom? to correct what? Makes little sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please answer this. After reading WP:IAR, do you really think there was no good reason to violate the 3RR rule? SL93 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, I think you were out of bounds. And, as I just said on my Talk page, I've gotta get off Wikipedia and eat something. So, knock yourself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And you still haven't put forth how it doesn't go by IAR, which is a policy, and just pointed to WP:3RR. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Because WP:IAR says any action "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". An unstable article, due to edit warring, is not improving Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been an edit war if editors did not revert my removal of content that did not improve Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia is ambiguous. Both sides in an edit war feel they are improving Wikipedia. Thus, WP:IAR would apply to both sides. Essentially, if WP:IAR applied to WP:3RR, then it would defeat the entire purpose of WP:3RR. Both sides honestly feel they are the ones improving Wikipedia. That's why we have WP:3RR and why WP:IAR doesn't apply.--v/r - TP 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the purpose of 3RR to stop an article from appearing on DYK? It will be eligible with a couple hundred more characters. SL93 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, why don't you just continue with your interpretation of WP:3RR and WP:IAR, and we'll just recap this conversation when you've been indef blocked for edit warring. Do you think that will improve the DYK process? You're lucky you didn't get blocked this time. Your really failing to get the point. You are so focused on your point of view, you've refused to look at this from the perspective of Wikipedia. You've made an article unstable by edit warring. Edit warring happens because edits feel they are improving the article by reverting to their version. That's what an edit war is. WP:IAR would completely circumvent WP:3RR everytime if it could be used as a excuse or exemption. There would be no such thing as WP:3RR. You have 5 days to solve the tag issues on the article. That is no reason to edit war. Even if you had one day, the rule on tags at DYK exists for a reason. You can't simply remove the tags and send it to DYK without fixing the problem. If you can't get that, then you have serious competence issues. Drop the stick and don't use IAR for 3RR again.--v/r - TP 03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag issues can't be solved which is a problem. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called a talk page?--v/r - TP 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried that with Eekster. It didn't work so I brought it here. SL93 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You call it incompetence while I call it removing something that cannot be fixed as you showed also later on. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:3RR can not be violated to get an article on the main page. End of line. This doesn't seem to have been a BLP issue or a reversion of vandalism either. So please drop the stick and start listening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you warred with User:WWGB over tags, then you removed it and warred with User_talk:Eeekster whose comment you was "You violated 3RR". Instead of admitted your mistake and pointing out that you intended to remove the contentious material and address WWGB's concern that "uninformative, no. important to the book's history, yes." Your comments to Eeekster appeared as if you WP:OWN then content even though it was released at the time of submission. Eeekstar was also at fault, they should've just reported the warring instead of continuing it, but that doesn't excuse your own behavior. That's why I undid your revert, and then reverted myself with rationale that addressed the issues brought up by the other two users.--v/r - TP 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I was stupid, but pointing to essays doesn't make you less rude by saying that I am incompetent. I have thousands of contributions here, I help save articles from deletion, and I improve articles but you call me incompetent. Really? And what exactly is Wikipedia's view with thousands of editors and readers?SL93 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if you had gotten the point when I was nicer than I wouldn't have had to be mean to get through that thick skull of yours. But now that it's resolved, here, have a cookie.--v/r - TP 04:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

TParis has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

• Ignoring the very denigrating cookie above, tell me if i've got this right. What happened is that tags were added to a sentence in an article. These tags would have invalidated the article for DYK. The source for the sentence, however, did not have the specific information that the tags wanted. After a few reversions back and forth, the article creator decided that, since it was impossible to get the proper sourcing to fulfill the desires of the tag adder, the article creator removed the sentence entirely, since it wasn't really necessary to the article. Then, another editor came in and reverted that removal of the sentence, adding it back in tags and all, essentially creating an impossible situation where there was no way for it to be fit for DYK. Is that correct? And then the article creator is taken to task for 3RR over this? WP:IAR definitely applies in this scenario and Eeekster's actions were horrible here. Silverseren^C 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that SL93 was warring prior to Eeekster's involvement and refused to acknowledge what warring was. However, I did say "Eeekstar was also at fault, they should've just reported the warring instead of continuing it..." Eeekster and WWGB apparently felt that the sentence improved the article but felt a citation was needed. SL93 didn't address their rationale in his reverts. However, I'll be sure to point the next edit war that quotes WP:IAR to you since you feel it justified.--v/r - TP 16:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that WP:3RR has built-in safeguards (the exemptions) to enable users to avoid a violation. Those safeguards go toward protecting the encyclopedia (as opposed to the vague language of "improving" in WP:IAR). As I understand it, WP:AIR is rarely accepted as a justification of a policy violation except in extreme circumstances. Not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not involved, but I think everyone is being a little harsh on SL93. This is NOT about whether you can violate 3RR for a DYK. During SL93's brief edit war with WWGB, WWGB suggested removing the sentence, or, barring that, tagging it. SL93 at first disagreed with both of these proposals and reverted multiple times (violating 3RR). However, SL93 then conceded the war by agreeing the sentence should be removed. This should have ended the edit war, but Eeekster (who had not previously edited the article) then reverted to the version w/ sentence & tags. Eeekster is of course welcome to disagree with the consensus established by SL93 and WWGB, but it doesn't look (to me) like that's what happened here. Instead, it looks like Eeekster misinterpreted the edit history, and thought SL93 was continuing the edit war, rather than ending it. Eeekster continued to state that SL93 was violating 3RR, without apparently noticing that SL93 was now agreeing with a version suggested by WWGB, and a version which WWGB was not contesting. That's my reading of the edit history and comments on Eeekster's talk page, anyway. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're right, I missed these two edits by SL93. It still doesn't absolve SL93 of the earlier warring. It does, however, lend more weight to this ANI notification that Eeekster caused more problems than good.--v/r - TP 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• In my view, SL93 is partially "absolved" by self-reverting and conceding the edit war. Eeekster should probably be cautioned to take more care in looking at the edit history before reverting apparent 3RR violations, but it was a complicated case and SL93 did not explain it very well on Eeekster's talk page. At any rate, everyone seems to be happy with the current version (thanks to TParis stepping in), so this is mostly resolved. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• As one of SL93's harshest critics, I don't object that much to what he did on the article page. I note, too, that he was never reported to WP:AN3. My principal problem was his conduct here during which he stubbornly clung to the notion that he can break the rules based on WP:IAR just because he wants to nominate an article for DYK. In any event, I still hate to see someone pommeled, so I suppose a partial "absolution" will make him feel a bit better about the whole thing, which is fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that yes, IAR *can* override 3RR, obviously. But it can only do so if that would somehow improve the encyclopedia. I've seen a few cases where that has actually happened, actually!

However, in this case, I get the impression that reverting back and forth prooooobably doesn't improve things, so IAR doesn't apply. It'd be interesting to block both parties (as per IAR) for violating IAR... though I'm sure we can name some more specific TLA's. ;-)

I understand that things are cooling down now though. That's good to hear. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's so obvious, frankly. That said, I'd love to see links to when it happened. It's not that I don't believe you (I do), but I'd like to understand the circumstances. "Improve the encyclopedia", just like IAR itself, is so vague. I understand, though, if it's too hard to dredge up the cases. One can remember something but still have trouble finding proof of it, or it would just take too long.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it all started when VFD (Votes for deletion) , VFD'ed Wikipedia:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007; (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 ) even though the proposed policy had a lot of support. So I ended up being the only admin to ever find themselves enforcing a deleted policy. %-) And that was just the start. You can probably follow events and individual edits from there.

In short: It turns out that some trolls were manipulating wikipedia procedures, so we had to do a lot of IAR to put them back under their bridge ^^;;

In a similar vein, I also claim to be the only admin to have ever blocked someone for violating IAR ;-) [63] [64] --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not an excuse for any edit war. It's as simple as this: Every good faith edit war comes down to one simple principal...both sides feel they are improving the encyclopedia. WP:IAR allows both sides to continue an edit war which makes an article unstable which in effect harms Wikipedia. Therefore, not improving. Any bad faith edit warring would be vandalism and is covered by the exemptions. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and, except for content on the main page, there is always time to discussus content.--v/r - TP 13:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in first approximation both sides are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but if you look at the ensuing edit war, you can see that they really aren't. So IAR doesn't allow it in this case. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Muhammad by User:FormerIP

WP:TPO states, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Original edit: [65]

Diffs of edits by User:FormerIP:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Similar, earlier today: [69]

Could someone persuade FormerIP to take a little break from that talk page? The discussions are quite difficult enough without these pranks. Cheers, --JN466 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, twaddle. FormerIP is taking a jab at you and Ludwigs2 for making needlessly pointy assertions with images...Ludwigs especially with his insertion of File:Male Model John Quinlan In Calvin Klein.jpg here. This is hardly something to come to AN/I about, esp as you made no attempt to raise the issue with him beforehand. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just not helpful, Tarc. I might agree with you that Ludwigs2's image insertion wasn't helpful either, given that it probably wasn't intended to be a serious suggestion for inclusion in the article. But a number of editors on that talk page have enough difficulty already to discuss matters coolly and soberly. To have editors falsify each others' posts on top of that is unlikely to help matters. I twice restored what I had actually written – which is relevant information for other editors, as we're now considering adding such images – and each time he vandalised the post again. It's still vandalised now. A takeaway menu? I don't think I am required to assume good faith of an editor after clear evidence to the contrary.

Not falsifying each others' talk page posts is a bright line, as far as I am concerned, and he crossed it, three times in about an hour. If he's run out of arguments, or can't discuss civilly, then he should take a break, rather than resorting to talk page vandalism. Cheers, --JN466 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The best plan might perhaps be for the image talk page to be put under "article probation" under the surveillance of an uninvolved administrator. There is too much disruption from multiple users that is outside the usual norms of wikipedia. That stifles, drowns out or prevents any useful discussion from regular editors. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think FormerIP's changes were helpful and continuing them after objection was a bad idea. However I wouldn't consider this a clear cut case of changing someone's comments. The image captions weren't signed therefore it's difficult to know who put them there without looking at the source. Further the images were located in between your comment and Alanscottwalker's comment (rather then interspersed within you rcomment). And your comment didn't really refer to the images either. Therefore even viewing the source, it's not really clear who added them without checking the history. In other words, for images appearing like that, you really need to make it clear if they are intended to be part of your comment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the pictures are spammy. But I'll leave them as they are now. --FormerIP (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Of note the issue of Muhammad images is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Muhammad_Images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior

This is the first time that I have ever reported anybody anywhere for anything in Wikipedia. Regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approximately 2 years, there is no more “assuming”, there is “knowing”. I am going to describe the general situation for context, and then describe a specific small situation where I have decided to finally take a small stand and request a small action.

User Noviseminary chronically exhibits obsessive battling behavior with other editors. Also, certainly in my case, this includes following to other articles where I've edited do this at those in response/retaliation for standing my ground at another article. This is mostly focused on the individuals rather than actual content disputes. The pattern is to go after the targeted individual and do very aggressive deletion, tagging, and very aggressive editing strongly and directly focused on the work of the individual. And, if someone stands their ground with them they follow them to other articles where the victim has edited and start similar activities.

Due to their extreme cleverness:

• wiki-saavy in general
• misusing (and, to newbies, misrepresenting) policies/guidelines (rather than violating them) to conduct warfare
• often a small overused/ misused shred of legitimacy in many of the battling edits
• continuously rapidly erasing (not archiving) their talk page so that it would take hours for someone to see their history there
• knowing how to sound wikipedian and pretending to be (sound) reasonable when doing this
• mixing in legitimate housekeeping type edits with the obsessive battling edits and pointing to those to refute complaints

it would take me 20 hours (including hundreds of diffs) to fully communicate what this individual has been doing, hence I'm only noting this for context in a "IMO" framework, and then asking for and supporting a remedy on a particular situation as taking a small stand on a big problem. Most of this is conducted against newbies, I was also a newbie when it started. This chased many of them out of Wikipeda but I survived.

In my case, it started about 2 years ago with a brief head butting at the Carrie Newcomer article, my first interaction with them, where I ended up leaving it as they preferred: [70] and branched out as they followed me to article after article from there. ALL of my subsequent conflicts with this individual have been at articles which they subsequently followed me to, and each “following” was generally preceded by (and in response/retaliation to) me standing my ground with them at another article

These sections of the talk page at the Machine vision article provide a tiny but very typical/representative glimpse:

• Talk:Machine vision#I reverted deletion of 3/4 of the article
• Talk:Machine vision#Processing methods section
• Talk:Machine vision#Please discuss on talk page before removing large amounts of material
• Talk:Machine vision#Proposed plan to expand / improve
• Talk:Machine vision#Phoenix
• Talk:Machine vision#Removal of direct interface section

Another very representative slice can be seen at the small talk page and edit summaries of the Feast of the Hunters' Moon article.

I leave my talk page as an “open book”, I don’t delete anything except broadcast type items, and I only archive two types of things, one of them a special archive for this individual due to the length and nastiness of those items. This can be viewed at User_talk:North8000/Archive_N

I have not followed them to any articles. The only time that I’ve ended up at one of their articles was about 2 times (only) when one of their many fights showed up on a notice board that I watch and then I made only low key moderator type comments.

In response to recent renewed clashes at the Machine vision and Feast of the Hunters' Moon articles they followed me to an article (Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) where I have been doing some rescue type work.

The rescue work article started out at an article called Signature image processing. (SIP) I originally brought up the idea of deleting this predecessor article. My concern was that that it was overly narrow and focused on one company's particular method of doing weld monitoring and testing, and that the generic-technical-sounding title was not such, it is a term only for that particular company’s product, and that it had a somewhat promotional tone. Other editors disagreed, making good points saying that it was a heavily sourced article on a legit topic. During ensuing conversations, it became clear that none of the editors had a coi. Over a three month period it was decided to redirect/expand this article into a broader, uncovered topic which is Weld monitoring, testing and analysis where the subject of the previous article became merely a section in the new article. I sort of "warned" ahead of time that the other sections would temporarily be stubs, hopefully temporarily as other editors built it over time. I researched other articles, especially the Welding article to make sure that this topic was uncovered. Also it was clear that real coverage of Signature image processing at Welding which is a top level article on a even much broader topic would be ungainly/undue. Recently I rechecked with the 3 other editors (also see their talk pages on this)....100% agreed and I made the move. As anticipated the new sections were stubs. I posted a note at the talk page of the Welding (which, structurally, this is basically a sub-article of) article about this article and solicited editors. I did some work and the intended to leave the article (for development by others) until Novaseminary assaulted it.

Then Novaseminary followed me to the article in immediate retaliation for me standing my ground with them at the Feast of the Hunters' Moon and Machine vision and did the following:

• First they proded the article (and tag bombed it, I’ve left all of the other tags in place) saying that it did not meet notability and that the SIP section was “seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here.” I removed the prod tag, saying that the subject has EXTENSIVE coverage in sources, plus referring them to the extensive talk page discussion which led to this.

• Second So then they put a notability tag on the article. To be doubly safe I put more material & sources in. I responded and removed the tag.

• Third So then they nominated the article for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis) As of this writing it is still open, but I think that it became obvious to Novasemianry that the deletion is wp:snow prompting them to take the next actions.

• Fourth So then (with the AFD still open) they gutted the article and undid the whole consensused rework by moving the SIP material back out into a separate article, undoing the redirect. I reverted this

• Fifth So then(with the AFD still open) they edited the redirect back into a competing article which duplicated the SIP material. Mind you, this competing article is the same content and topic which they originally said "seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here” I reverted this

The articles for deletion page is very informative on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

Again, regarding this individual, after hundreds and hundreds of interactions and observations over approx 2 years, there is no longer a matter of “assuming”, it is a matter of “knowing”

I have decided to, on behalf of Wikipedia and their other current and future victims to invest the time to take this small stand on a big problem. I am not asking for action on the larger problems because I have not spent the 20 hours it would take to fully communicate and support what I have said that this individual has been doing. I ask that the proportionally microscopic but important measure be taken of blocking Novaseminary from editing the Signature image processing and Weld monitoring, testing and analysis articles for one week or one month and warning them to, after that, obtain consensus before doing such aggressive, controversial major changes on these. It is important this bigger problem of abuse of editors with clever so-far impunity be confronted, even to this very small extent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to say that I have observed the same sort of things with Novaseminary. The response to newbies has been particularly disturbing. This edit is a good example of what I have seen. The Strict Baptists article had been subject to vandalism in the past, and Novaseminary might have thought the newbie editor was the vandal. But Novaseminary's actions were also based on a dubious interpretation of WP:IMAGE, and worst of all, there was very little explanation or encouragement on the article's talk page, the offending user's talk page, or even in the edit summaries. Perhaps a mentorship would be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is a colossal amount of history to read through here, but my initial impression is that Novaseminary is a valuable contributor with a deep understanding of wikipedia, but who can be prickly and difficult to deal with. He also seems to have problems working collaboratively, and struggles when not getting "his own way". More seriously, a quick look at the deletion discussion presented by North above reveals what looks like an attempt by Novaseminary to subvert the result when he realised the discussion wasn't going his way. That said, he does a lot of good work and is valuable to the project; perhaps mentorship would be of benefit? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  I'm pretty confident that I know this individual the best of anybody in wikipedia. This is a people-chemistry-with-editors driven situation; content battles are the trigger and the result of this, but these battles are not driven by the usual clash of ideologies or content agendas as most other Wikipedia battles are. And they do have a very nasty streak in one area that I have not discussed. I am also guessing that a small action might have a substantial impact with this individual, but some type of mentoring would be better. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

North and I obviously have a history. I prefer to focus on content, however, so I will briefly address the recent content episode North mentioned.

• I think Weld monitoring, testing and analysis is not itself a notable topic (as such), though it may contain many notable topics. It seemed to me to be several concepts strung together. I sent it to AfD here. This article had been created when North moved it from Signature image processing, leaving behind a redirect. I do think Signature image processing does meet N on its own (if barely), so I spun it off in its recent edited form from Weld monitoring, testing and analysis at Signature image processing. I then edited Weld monitoring, testing and analysis using summary style, adding a link to the main article (Signature image processing) and adding a source I took from the amin article so the new summary was sourced. This also had the effect of bringing the Weld monitoring, testing and analysis into proportion among the topics. Anyway, if North thinks Signature image processing fails WP:N, the way to delete it or enforce an alternative to deletion is through AfD. He should not continue re-redirecting and removing talk where I explained myself. Regardless, none of my edits to either article have been disruptive, nor is the AfD (even when North went personal at the AfD immediately).
• Unfortunately, I am personally being called into question here. To that end I would note the following:

• StAnselm, himself sometimes prickly to work with, sometimes great to work with, was blocked a few weeks ago after I reported him at WP:AN3. There is also a minor disagreement between us that is the subject of an RfC (here) that is not going his way.
• And North and my real history turned sour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream where an article he created was deleted after I put it up for discussion. He went so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts, User talk:North8000/Archive N (where there is no nastiness on my part). I would summarize our main philosophical disagreement as being that I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced) and North is fine with more personal knowledge and synthesis in the hope (honestly held, I believe, but wrong, I believe) that this will elad to better articles. The is exemplified on one of the examples North gave above, here. But it needn't get personal.

So if I hurt North's or StAnselm's feelings, I wish I hadn't and I am sorry. But disagreements about content, however strongly held our positions may be, should not get personal. For any part I had in turning them that way, I am also sorry. I hope you all are, too. I have done my best to avoid them both as of late, but that is not always going to happen. I'd say we all get back to editing constructively.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream is another place which Novaseminary followed me to and exhibited this behavior. If I were spending the 20 hours preparing the overall presentation, that would certainly be in there. Not as tidy of an illustration due to its hugeness and the fact that the other 1/2 of the material is no longer available to view (extensive relevant talk page content lost with the userfication) but a read through the AFD shows the same obsessive battling behavior. Gutting the article and removing references and notability-related information simultaneously with nominating it for AFD based on notability, and they probably spent at least dozens of hours to attack it and every detail in it from every possible angle. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is further instructive of the cleverness of this individual to note what I already said that the special ARCHIVE was due to a combination of me never deleting and seldom archiving editor conversations from my talk page and wanting to get theirs off of my main talk page. After explaining this they described it as "so far afterwards as to create a section on his talk age for my posts". And they implied cause-effect by "afterwards" whereas it actually happened 10 months later. North8000 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The described "philosophical disagreement" does not exist. I 100% agree with Novseminary's description ("I feel strongly that material should not be added until sourceable (preferably sourced)") of "their side" of the non-existent philosophical disagreement. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A minor but very clarity-creating example that this is person-focused battling rather than about such differences is when, as the first edit to the article in three months, with this edit [[71]] I added an additional "medium quality" reference to the article. It was from a national website on events, not such a high quality wp:rs to be assault proof, but I added it only as a second source supporting a statement that was already in there. Within a day Novaseminary showed up and began battling to eliminate the new source, with no challenge of the statement which it supported. In short, they battled to reduce the sourcing on a statement because it was one of their targeted victims (me) who added the source. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to my previous comment, it is instructive and illustrative to note that in order to continue the "come after me" process at the weld monitoring article Novaseminary in essence did a complete reversal of their position on the SIP material. When the way to "come after me" was to attack the overall article, they in essence criticized the SIP material as unworthy of even being a section in the article. When that failed, in order to continue to aggressively go after my work they took the material that they essentially said wasn't even worthy of a section in the article and instead made an entire article out of it. This dramatically illustrates that it was about coming after me via aggressive and obsessive targeting of my work rather than anything else. North8000 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the depth of material here, would a RFC/U not be a better venue? --Blackmane (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

{small|Someone screwed up somewhere and my comment was moved somewhere else. --Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}}

What I strongly request

1. The creepiest, nastiest and most concerning me-focused stuff from this individual I can't and didn't talk about here and received partial help on from oversight on. As a remedy, a complete ban against this individual doing or writing anything even remotely raising privacy concerns regarding myself, including anything that involves or is focused on or based on even guesses/imaginations about my RW identity.* As an aside, by my initiative and choice, I gave an oversighter my RW identity in relation to this.
2. A warning to generally dial back their targeting me and my work for aggressive activity at articles that they followed me to.* North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

*These could have wording that does not presume a determination of past behavior. Like a preface "Whether or not such has occurred, do not......" North8000 (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What I suggest

1. A 1 week block at those two articles, and a warning to go to talk and get a consensus before making any major controversial changes there after that.
2. Some type of mentoring or at least mentoring-lite regarding this type of behavior. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Climate_change_alarmism

By AFD and DRV it was determined this page should be merged. A couple editors are attempting obstructionist tactics to keep the page up, despite losing the arguments art both processes.

In particular, this edit:

“ It isn't part of the topic of media coverage so it shouldn't be merged into that article. Looking at it I am coming more and more to the conclusion that we should just let this degenerate into a major content dispute since the admins didn't do their job properly. It is I believe the obvious path now and dictated by WP:IAR. The encyclopaedia is what is important and if there is trouble and admins running round the place then so be it. That is not important. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ”

is basically a declaration of plans to act in bad faith.

The AFD closed with a merge result, the DRV said there was no consensus to overturn that result. At the DRV, several users engaged in attacks against the closing admin, claiming that 12 days was too early to close, and thus attacking that admin. Examples:

This is AFTER the relevant part of the AfD closure instructions ha d been pointed out to him:

“ 86** asserts "7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it", citing WP:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. Ironically, the shortcut for this section is WP:NotEarly. And the actual text does not say that a discussion must be closed; it says only that after seven days an admin will "assess the discussion for consensus" – nothing more. And note that I do not object to assessing the discussion, I object to this notion that discussion is mandatorily closed after seven days; there simply is no such requirement. If that is unclear, check the lede at WP:AFD: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days [emphasis added], after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." If that is not clear enough look to WP:Deletion policy, as I have previously cited. As I have said before: The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) [Emphasis added.] ”

Oh, my. 86** is prone to misstating other's arguments, and does so here in saying that I was "claiming that 12 days was too early to close". He has kindly pulled out my exact words; let's read them together: "The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus." How could I be any clearer? As to "thus attacking that admin" – wow, what can I say? Is it an "attack" to point out a misstep?

86** would also fault me for commenting "AFTER the relevant part of the AfD closure instructions ha d been pointed out to him". Which is nonsense. If you think that is a valid complaint, open a subsection citing specifics, and let's examine it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More can be seen on the talk page of the article and at the DRV, but it's clear that a small cabal of editors are determined to use any tactics to prevent any action being taken.

Users will be notified when this is up. 86.** IP (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DmcQ, J.Johnson, and Talk:Climate change alarmism notified. 86.** IP (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011 December 2#Tally of_actual votes_at Afd), JJ's argument is bizarre. He suggests that an AfD should be kept open until there is a consensus. This would (a) mean that any 'no consensus' closures were invalid, and (b) that the admin would have to assess the AfD first, and then decide whether to close it. Not only is it not the way it is done (regardless of arguments over the wording of policy - though I think current practice is in accord with this), but it would make a nonsense of the whole procedure to have repeated assessments of 'consensus', by (presumably) multiple admins, with the first to call 'consensus' making the decision, regardless of how other admins saw it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another misstatment. I never suggested "that an AfD should be kept open until there is consensus." My "suggestion" (based on the cited policy) is that if there is no consensus when the AfD is closed, there is no consensus. And that is was a misinterpretation to claim otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

An action to improve the encyclopaedia is not an act in bad faith. I am not a part of any cabal and I give no favours to anyone. And that includes admins here too if you don't do your job properly. So the admins decided to go with the people who wanted a merge even though they gave no arguments why they wanted it and didn't even look like they investigated the place they said the merge should be to. And now this person just sticks the stuff somewhere else unrelated because they've found it really shouldn't have gone where they said. Well it doesn't go in the other place either as would be obvious if they looked at it for a few minutes instead. If they didn't have ants in their pants to merge it some where anywhere else and remove the article perhaps they could do something useful with it instead. Dmcq (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're sseriously claiming that the section about "...alarmist language is frequently employed by newspapers, popular magazine and in campaign literature put out by government and environment groups..." isn't appropriate discussion for Media coverage of climate change? 86.** IP (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly am. The article media coverage of climate change is about how the media cover it. For instance how they try to be even handed by bringing in a representative of both sides so giving an impression of parity between arguments. It's about how the media in different countries differ in their coverage. It has section headings like nattive distorions and factual distortions. It is not about what government and campaign groups say. And it is most definitely not about what the Koch crowd do or meteorologists wrote never mind military contracytors or think thanks like you just stuck in the media article. May I also point out that you violated the 3rr rule and now have the result of your third violation protected by an administrator? I realize it is always the wrong version which is kept but could someone discuss 3rr with this editor please rather than go along with his accusation of bad faith against me and the silly merges to wrong articles? Dmcq (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If the decision was to merge, the 'wrong version' is one that doesn't do this. Can I ask an admin to do the obvious here, and close this, now that the article has been redirected? A decision has been made, and the previous history of the article is easy enough to access for anyone actually prepared to conform with the decision, and merge whatever useful content there is in the article. If it has been decided that the article isn't valid, it isn't, and arguments that there is nowhere for content to go are irrelevant. Ignoring decisions because you don't like the consequences of complying with them is hardly justifiable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Weel that would be nice if the original closing admin had checked the arguments properly. Or if the review was an actual review. However it checked if the original decision was 'egregiously wrong'. I didn't want it to be a decision about admins. I wanted it to be review of the points in the deletion debate by someone else. But it was decided they hadn't acted egregiously wrongly so it is a case of admins covering each others asses. And it is right to create a stink about people doing that rather than checking what is best for the articles in the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Just to note, I haven't violated 3RR; though in the confusion of today's edits I did come close, for which I apologise.) 86.** IP (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Count them

• (cur | prev) 00:46, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk | contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465206328 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) Undo bad-ffaith action)
• (cur | prev) 00:42, 11 December 2011‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465205436 by KimDabelsteinPetersen: rv. Please engage in discussion before doing things. You *have* been bold - now discuss!. using TW)
• (cur | prev) 00:38, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk | contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465205436 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) DRV. You lost it. YTour views did nbot hold sway. You are not arbiter)
• (cur | prev) 00:34, 11 December 2011‎ KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465197073 by Dmcq: rv Please do not go unilateral here. Discussions are active on both talk pages.. using TW)
• (cur | prev) 00:32, 11 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk | contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (Undid revision 465197073 by Dmcq (talk) Fix to correct link)
• (cur | prev) 23:33, 10 December 2011‎ Dmcq (talk | contribs)‎ (16,998 bytes) (Reverted to revision 465149117 by William M. Connolley: Topic is not dealt with at the indicated place. (TW))

Certainly seems like three to me. Dmcq (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're allowed three. Read WP:3RR. You aren't allowed more than three. 86.** IP (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess your other edit removing everything at

• (cur | prev) 17:26, 10 December 2011‎ 86.** IP (talk | contribs)‎ (46 bytes) (←Redirected page to Media coverage of climate change)

just counts as a normal edit then. Well even if one is allowed to remove stuff four times with impunity it isn't something I'll be going in for. Dmcq (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More simultaneous postings here and on WP:FTN by 86.** IP. Plus this.[72] Hmm. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The post on FTN is on a different subject (asking for help with sourcing); it has nothing to do with this ANI report. I don't know what on earth you're getting at with the homeopathy thing. If you want to accuse me of something, do it, don't make these vague insinuations that innocent behaviour is somehow evil. 86.** IP (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we all know who Mr. 86 is. But so far as I am aware none of his previous accounts are under sanction, nor has there been any double-voting or other misuse of the alternate accounts. I'm willing to be corrected if there's evidence to the contrary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find I only edit under this account. 86.** IP (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement as parsed in a strict grammatical sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were advised before not to post on multiple noticeboards, no matter whether the issues are slightly different. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, you're trying to claim I can't ask for sourcing help on FTN, when I ask about this here? That's not "slightly" different, Mathsci. 86.** IP (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The advice concerns the frequency with which you post about climate change articles. No administrator could help you here. And also your editorializing of others' comments is quite unhelpful.[73] Could you please calm down? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

...You know what. Every sentence of that is wrong, but it's not at all clear what any of your points are meant to be, if you have any, and it's not worth dealing with you. Please don't talk to me again. If the rest of us can get back on topic: Dmcq has announced his intent to not be bound by admin rulings on issues that he dislikes. What should be done? 86.** IP (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, 86.** IP, you can request me not to edit on your talk page, but not here. As I wrote, the frequency with which you open topics on climate change articles is unhelpful. It is perhaps not the right way of going about things. Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd like to have had a proper review of the decision at the AfD rather than a check that the closer was not 'egregiously wrong' or that it was numerically close so there is no consensus to overturn the decision. There's so many things wrong with that. There were twelve editors who said keep in the AfD and 12 who said delete or merge. That should have been no consensus especially given the weakness of the delete/merge arguments which said things like it was a fork without pointing to content tat was forked and said to merge to a place which really wasn't suitable. It was turned into a decision about admins rather than about the article so here it is for admins to look at the results of their handiwork. If something is called a review it should do a review. It should not act like a court which needs overwhelming evidence before overturning a verdict of an admin. I think I read something about Wikipedia not being a moot court? Dmcq (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. 12-12 does not automatically equal "no consensus". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about democracy. I said the closer didn't check what was said properly and should have for something close like that. And the review was a sham just to see if the reviewer had done something 'egregiously wrong' rather than to have a second opinion by someone else. Have a look at the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_change_alarmism_(2nd_nomination) and the review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_2#Climate_change_alarmism_.282nd_nomination.29. Though I guess that's too much to ask for here. Do any admins do anything useful about content policy or are they quite content to have any amount of silliness and policy violation provided it is done with civility? Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: The AfD was closed and the DRV did not overturn the close. At this point those who opposed the AfD close should simply stop fighting old battles and simmer down for a spell with a nice cup of tea. IT is continuing this sort of battle which causes the most grief on Wikipedia. And I think/fear ArbCom might step in and reinstate the sanctions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq

dmcq (talk · contribs) Dmcq has reaffirmed his plans to continue using edit warring to try and overturn the AfD by force. [74] - and that after he was told to stop refighting old battles here and on the talk page of where he's fighting. I suggest he be blocked, or at least wwarned that if he continues, he will be blocked. When an editor announces he is not going to be bound by Wikipedia's decisions and rules, as he did there and here, that user is not acting in good faith, and no amount of discussion will help. 86.** IP (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Kay Uwe Böhm and edits at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Resolved

 – Editor blocked inefinitely. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but Kay Uwe Böhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding badly garbled, non-helpful material to the lede of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster for the past several days, insisting on essentially "signing" these edits with invisicomments, and has been routinely reinserting his material whenever it's removed, including having edited invisicomments asking him to discuss it on the talkpage, without discussion. The editor already has a block history for similar behavior on Pebble-bed reactor, and apparently was indeffed on de-wiki for not being very collaborative. I'm not sure if we're looking at a WP:COMPETENCE issue due to the language barrier, or if we're dealing with a troll, or what, but I'd like to know if we could get some additional admin opinions on what to do with this. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, as a non-admin, I'd agree that we have a basic competence issue here, regardless of other matters. Sadly, some people just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, and it is futile to do anything but to thank them for their efforts, and suggest they find somewhere else to express their opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI. 95.88.170.214 (talk · contribs) and 95.88.168.248 (talk · contribs) seem to be User:Kay Uwe Böhm. Oda Mari (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Warned. --John (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The user apparently still doesn't either pay attention to the warning (diff, diff), nor does he try to discuss the matters. 1exec1 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week, specifically for adding insults about other editors as comments in the markup here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And I have extended that to indefinite. --John (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat and malformed unblock request

Here. He's already indeffed but thought the admins should know about the threat. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems he hasn't read the "release your contribution" line either... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• I saw that. The whole thing is very sad. I hope this will allow him to get on with something else, and free up time and energy for the rest of us also to do more productive work. I was sincere in what I said on his talk; I think he is well-intentioned and if he got better English comprehension and a mentor (not me though!) he could maybe contribute here in the future. For now though this is the best outcome we can hope for. --John (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed his unblock request and left links to relevant policies. NORTHUMBRIAN SPRǢC 23:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Safa Khulusi - a review of my actions please

I came across what appeared to be an edit war at Safa Khulusi. It looked like one side (User:David Dawoud Cowan) thought that the large quote in the section Safa Khulusi#Shakespeare theory had undue weight and was removing it, and the other side (User:Paul Barlow) saw that as censorship and was reverting the removal. At that point, it looked like a content dispute to me, and not blatant vandalism, and I thought both viewpoints may have merit (A quote may well be justified, but it was also longer than the rest of the section). I gave both parties a warning - Paul Barlow did not appear pleased with it, but I felt I had to give exactly the same warning to both to be fair. (I accept I could have left a hand-crafted message with both).

Both ignored the warnings and continued to edit-war to include the whole quote/remove it entirely, without either side seeking consensus or compromise. I felt I had little alternative but to impose a block of 24 hours on both - I thought the essential first step was to halt the edit-war. User:Folantin expressed disapproval of my block. (And at that point, after I had suggested an SPI report, Paul Barlow explicitly stated that the issue was not one of sockpuppetry, and so subsequent claims by others that he was merely dealing with a sock would not appear to be valid).

Paul Barlow requested unblock, but it was declined by User:FisherQueen.

As soon as the blocks expired, both sides resumed the edit war, with both Paul Barlow and Folantin on one side, and this time User:Simon Salousy (who may be an SPA/sock - I don't know) on the other. Paul Barlow did explain his position on Talk page, but resumed his part in the edit-war just a few hours later - Simon Salousy had not engaged in Talk page discussion, but had used edit-summaries, so he wasn't being entirely uncommunicative, and consensus on the content had not been reached.

I felt I had little alternative but to impose blocks again, and blocked all three for 48 hours. (I did not issue Folantin with a warning first, as it was clear that they were fully aware of the edit war and the previous sanctions, and appeared to me to be deliberately continuing the edit-war. Folantin went on to claim a right to 3RR, and that I was involved and should not block - which I thought at the time was an attempt at gaming the system.

Folantin appealed the block, and User:Antandrus accepted the request and unblocked - and left me a message on my Talk page. (Which is fine - I openly say that anyone can revert my admin actions if they think I'm wrong, and I just request that I'm informed). Antandrus also implied that I should unblock Paul Barlow too.

I'd appreciate your thoughts, and if you think I was wrong or heavy-handed, I'll be happy to apologise and make whatever amends I can.

I will now go and inform the people mentioned here - I also think I need to unblock Paul Barlow (and Simon Salousy, so be even-handed) so he can freely talk here. But the edit-war still needs to be stopped, so I will temporarily protect the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• My initial take on this is that a protection might have caused less drama than blocks. However I have no problem with blocking contributors who exceed 3RR when BLP is not an issue and they are aware of the rule. --John (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  With hindsight, yes, it would, but I really wasn't expecting such drama to unfold - and I've always thought that blocking was the preferred option when the protagonists are few and easy to identify -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, and I am not suggesting that you have done anything wrong as such. Your interpretation of policy has some merit. But by posting here and asking for review, you are implying that you are prepared to learn from what happened and perhaps do it differently the next time. Again, there is no problem with blocking for 3RR (and I weakly disagree with what Antandrus said at your talk on the subject) but it would perhaps have created a better outcome with less hassle if you had protected rather than blocked. Kudos for bringing your action here to seek feedback, I should have said that the first time. --John (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes indeed, I am grateful for your suggestions. It does sound like more care in deciding the best way to stop an edit war would be better, including a deeper look into the protagonists' longer term backgrounds -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't had time to review the back-and-forth in any depth, but it appears to me that User:Paul Barlow exercised due diligence by seeking engagement on the discussion page. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Automatic 3RR blocks are standard for non-BLP, non-obvious-vandalism cases. So there is no problem with that. But in the case of blocks for general edit warring I would like to see more admin discretion used. When both positions are reasonable, and one side is in the majority and trying to discuss on the talk page while the other isn't, then symmetric blocks aren't really appropriate. I think it would have been best to protect the article on the version that encourages communication (per IAR and what I am sure is common practice, even though nobody will admit it), or to just wait for the single editor to break 3RR and then warn the others. Hans Adler 14:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  After taking a closer look, I think you should have spotted that SPA David Dawoud Cowan (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of SPA Simon Salousy (talk · contribs), and simply blocked both accounts for the socking (one indefinitely). I have made a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Simon Salousy. Hans Adler 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, Paul Barlow explicitly stated that socking was *not* the issue. But I do appreciate your taking the time to offer your thoughts, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what Paul Barlow stated. He has more than twice your experience, but purely as a content-oriented editor, and doesn't seem to have much experience with POV conflicts and edit wars. As an admin who is about to block people he doesn't know well, you should look at their contributions first. Then it could not have escaped your notice that these SPAs with 13 and 7 edits, respectively, are obviously operated by the same person. Hans Adler 19:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I appreciate that, and I do not mean to argue it as a justification for not investigating further - I'm just explaining that it is the (possibly flawed) reason why I did not pursue that angle -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry for not immediately getting that. I didn't mean to rub it in. Hans Adler 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• You would probably have been better to protect the page if you weren't prepared to sanction the SPAs. The problem was that the new SPAs simply kept deleting the content using the same rationale, which was not based on any Wikipedia policy (in other words WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). There was also the obvious WP:DUCK issue that these were sock or meat puppets of one another and it was extremely likely they had a conflict of interest. I made only two edits to the page, both with edit summaries citing valid policies. That is nothing like edit warring in my book. I felt you dealt with Paul, an experienced writer with over 55,000 edits, in a heavyhanded manner which didn't assume good faith, and that also annoyed me. However, my edits to the page were motivated by protecting sourced content against unreasonable censorship. Paul attempted to engage the SPAs in dialogue. They were not prepared to listen. You would have done better to try to get them to enter into dialogue and one way would have been protection of the page. A bit more tact, clearer communication on your part and this might have been solved with less drama. I don't bear you any personal ill will as a result of this incident, it's only a website after all. I just wish you had played things a bit differently. Paul and I are long-standing editors who have dealt with some of the more difficult areas of Wikipedia (though not often in collaboration). I'm not asking for a completely free hand, but I think we deserved a bit more of the benefit of the doubt.--Folantin (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  Hi, and thanks for your thoughts - I agree now that page protection would have been preferable in this case, and I should have approached it more sensitively. On the subject of good faith, I never suspected anything else from Paul. It just seemed apparent to me that he was going about things the wrong way - even a well-meaning edit war is a bad one and has to be stopped. (And on the same subject, do you honestly believe that "I suppose this is just revenge for calling you a 'jobsworth'", "an admin with a personal vendetta", and "Off you go to IRC to get your buddies to endorse this for you" were shining examples of good faith on your part? I'm not bothered by them, but just sayin') -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe you weren't bothered by Folantin's comments, but I sure was. Acting like a jerk seems hardly the way to resolve an editorial dispute. Boing has been the utter model of politeness and civility in this matter - indeed, he appears to possess precisely the sort of level-headedness that the mop requires. Quite a few admins could learn a thing or two from his behavior. Not pointing fingers, of course.

    That said, Hans correctly pointed out that protecting the page and warning both (or all three, once Folantin caped on in to 'save the day') to head to the talk page and some sort of informal mediation of the matter would have caused a lot less drama. Blocks and block logs are forever in the user history, so they should be handed out with care. Boing has pointed out repeatedly that he suggested to both Folantin and Paul Barlow that they submit a SPI regarding their suspicions of the third user; both, however, chose to ignore them, preferring to edit war and snide insinuation to actual work. Kudos to Hans for actually doing what neither accusing editor took the trouble to do by actually filing the SPI.

    The thing that bothers me about all of this is that Folantin and Paul Barlow are going to see their unblock or the results of the SPI (if it is in fact the same user) as legitimization of their behavior. I think it vital they do not walk away feeling they were right to act the way they were. They were edit-warring and tossing accusations about a user without bothering to do the legwork to support them. We block people for that sort of crap, period. Hopefully, the next time they encounter this sort of situation they will act differently, though judging from the actions of the involved users (returning to warring immediately after coming off a block for same), I have little hope for that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    Different people are bothered by different things. E.g. I am personally more concerned when I see a notorious fringer grave dancing on the talk page of what appears to be a serious content producer, and when the grave dancer subsequently comes to ANI to agitate. Hans Adler 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    Indeed, Hans. But I'm sure Jack's comments have nothing to do with his long-term grudge against Paul Barlow and this sudden interest in the pronunciation of J. Thomas Looney's name [sudden interest in [75] is purely coincidental and in no way any kind of stalking. --Folantin (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

    I have not been contributing for the past day, since I have been away. I've no idea what is meant by the assertion that I "resumed edit warring". I have repeatedly attempted to engage the editor Simon Salousy in dialogue. With regard to "Boing"'s statement that I said it was not an issue of socking - that was when I believed that the editor had abandoned one account and started another. There may be many reasons for that of course. As a new editor he may have forgotten how to log on to the old account, or mislaid his password. However, as soon as activity on the old account resumed, it, of course, became apparent that socking was indeed the issue. It was absolutely obvious that this editor had no intention of following any form of resolution procedures. There was no dialogue. I had put a very polite message on his page. Yes, I subsequently reverted his edits. That's normal procedure when an editor is behavaing like a vandal. I did not get anywhere near 3RR and I added repeated explanations on the article talk page. I am really at a loss to understand what I am supposed to have done wrong. As for the ever endearingly disingenuous Jack Sebastian, I can only endorse what Folantin said. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul. You and the other editor had been repeatedly reverting each other over a period of at least several days, and even if you had not specifically violated 3RR (which is not an entitlement anyway) that did not mean it was not edit-warring. I also don't think the vandalism exception applies, as the other guy's edits were not blatant vandalism - he just had a different opinion on the content to you, and what looked like a complaint of overdue weight by use of a large quotation is not automatically without merit. He was not discussing it on the Talk page, that's true (though he was using edit summaries, so there was at least some input to go on), but that also does not mean that continuing the revert/revert/revert/revert was the right way to proceed - on either part.

I think what you needed was an actual consensus on the Talk page (ie more than just you explaining your preferred version). As it was, there actually wasn't a consensus, just your comments on the Talk page and his in the edit summaries. And I thought you both had to be stopped from warring until such a consensus had actually been found - help from a related project, for example, would have been a way forward, where someone else could have examined your Talk page comments and the other editor's edit summaries, and added to the consensus. Or help from this forum if you thought the other guy was violating policies.

Anyway, I felt I had to be even-handed, so I gave you both exactly the same warning (and with hindsight, I made a poor choice - I should have used a personal message rather than a template). But as you both ignored my warnings to stop edit-warring and immediately continued, I felt you had to be forcibly stopped (again with hindsight, protecting the article would probably have been better in this case). And after the initial blocks had expired, you both carried on as you had left off. The bottom line as far as policy goes is that being right does not allow you to edit war, and being the only party in the dispute to use the Talk page does not allow you to edit war - you should have reported the other editor for edit-warring, or sock-puppetry, or perhaps general disruption here at AN/I, and then with community support we could have blocked only him (had that been the outcome).

But as I say, an edit-war that's been simmering for days simply has to be stopped, and I believe I was right to stop it - but after the feedback I've had here (for which I thank everyone), I now believe I should have found a better way to stop it.

Going forward, what I think is the best way is to continue the Talk page discussion and get that consensus (and from what I've seen so far, it isn't 100% obvious that one side is 100% right here), and once that has been achieved, editors reverting against it can be blocked. (Oh, and I'd suggest you don't revert any new edits by the same editor until consensus has been achieved, just report him for edit-warring if he does it again, and leave it for the proper channels to conclude). Any bad edits can be cleaned up in due course - there's no urgency to fix things immediately. And, erm, sorry for rambling more than I intended -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and edit warring promised by Wicka wicka

Can someone please evaluate this promise by User:Wicka wicka to determine if any action needs to be taken? I'm not so much bothered by the promise to edit war but the blunt admission that "I have several accounts and will be changing the article back to it's proper, logical location [emphasis added]" is disturbing and potentially actionable. ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly sympathise with the dispute of Wicka Wicka vs those that place typography above usability. That said, I think the only thing to do is to wait for those "several accounts" to actually show up and do something.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see any sleepers via CU but yeah, file an SPI if you think multiple accounts have been/are being abused. WilliamH (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On the typography thing, can't that be solved using redirects? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WW's comment was totally unacceptable. How the hell does calling fellow users 'dipshits' not create a toxic editing environment? I think at least a short term block would be called for. There is no room in Wikipedia for incivility. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wicka wicka has made 307 total edits on that account since joining in May 2010, most of which are to IU articles. Assuming for the moment that he doesn't use other accounts and that 307 is a true figure of his editing, a short (24-hour?) block would be in order here to convey to him that his confrontational behavior and threat of sockpuppetry is not going to be tolerated. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wicka wicka has been warned.—Kww(talk) 22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested speedy deletion of User talk:Itsrsu as this page is used for avertising

Resolved

I have found several additions of advertisements from the same user, User:Itsrsu, basically all this user's contributions:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reflexology&diff=prev&oldid=446463613
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godwin%27s_law&diff=prev&oldid=450247135
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BP_America_Production_Co._v._Burton&diff=prev&oldid=460405377
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspen_Dental&diff=prev&oldid=462876530
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperbaric_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=465090200
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiation_protection&diff=prev&oldid=465308790

I've found his talk page was used for advertising as well (archived version) and I have tagged it for removal (User talk:Itsrsu).

ConradMayhew (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Revisions have been deleted and the user has been warned. m.o.p 18:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User Orwiad10

Orwiad10 (talk · contribs · logs) has made exactly ten trivial changes to articles by adding invisible characters (such as %C2%AD) to them. I noticed only because by doing so he broke a link at East Germany. I'm reverting all these supposedly trivial changes. I'm not familiar enough with the list of banned users: does this look like anyone any of you recognize? I'll be notifying the editor as soon as I post here. --NellieBly (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Should part of the above comment be removed as per WP:BEANS? No sense handing the car keys to someone looking for a joyride. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. --NellieBly (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The edits are suspicious. The character inserted was a soft hyphen (the character is hex 00AD which is represented as C2 AD in UTF-8). Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to become autoconfirmed possibly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Occupy Marines

Sorry I don't have time to deal with this myself - such time as I'm donating today is going to another project, and I'm simultaneously dealing with some real world stuff. Occupy Marines seems to be the site for an edit war: 72.152.12.11 (talk), 77.100.209.249 (talk) and JohnValeron (talk · contribs) are caught up, with JohnVaeron apparently having ownership issues whilst others try and clean up this article, which is in a sorry state. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• The article certainly is in a truly dreadful state! JohnVaeron appears ready to edit-war over the inclusion of a needless section, sourced to a web page mirror of a tweet, urging people to believe the so-called Occupy Marines "work with Wikipedia"—it's a dreadful circular reference "trick" to try and give this vanity page an air of authority and encourage people to protect and expand it on Wikipedia. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Geez, that thing is a bad joke of an ad campaign masquerading as a genuine Wikipedia article. "...an online entity of unknown origin and uncorroborated membership that materialized a month after the inception of Occupy Wall Street" ? Really? Tarc (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I think a bit of both. Same with the Press Release posted there 72.152.12.11 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this even notable? There seems to be almost no independent coverage of "OccupyMarines", aside from brief mentions of the existence of the facebook group in relation to the Occupy Oakland incident. The article itself seems to rely primarily on first party sources, which only exacerbates the problem of notability. Resolute 20:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it's notable, and I pulled the references to their Facebook page which has a total of 41 fans. Plus the interview conducted with, and by, Occupy Marines. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that you guys are prepared to jump on the bandwagon here making me a scapegoat, obviously without even bothering to read the lengthy Discussion page on the article in question. If you'd done your homework before rushing to judgment, you'd have learned that this page was nominated for deletion on November 23, 2011—2½ weeks ago. The result of the discussion, in which I was not involved, was Keep. It's not because of me that this page was retained. I've simply been trying to improve it.

Moreover, if you'd care to check the revision history of this Wikipedia article, you'd find multiple edits in November by a user identified as OccupyMARINES, suggesting that entity was allowed to contribute repeatedly to an article about itself—again, long before I got involved in this.

But, no, none of you has time to actually dig into the background here. You're too busy reporting me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. JohnValeron (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, some people have an eye for legitimate content, and this does not fit the bill. To-date, I see you making little-to-no effort to improve the article in any way, shape or form. You've defended the inclusion of what others agreed is navel-gazing and inappropriate nonsense. And, you were going to edit-war over the sane and reasonable removal of primarily-sourced drivel. That is not working to improve the article, that's protecting the bottom one percent of Wikipedia content. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason you see me making "little-to-no effort to improve the article" is because you haven't looked at the history of my contributions. You weren't even involved in this until a couple of hours ago. Like I said, rush to judgment without doing your homework. JohnValeron (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact of past edits is irrelevant. We're dealing with the article AS-IS. What happened in the past is not germane to the issue at hand now, which is the CURRENT state of the page. The CURRENT state of the page is that it's almost entirely self-referential, with no clear basis to establish notability. In fact, that we're 'newcomers' to the page means we have no investiture of effort into it, and so can look at it objectively, with a NPOV. What we can see is that there's little but self-referential guff and no real substance. And so, perhaps you can see that there is no need for a Wikipedia page, because there's nothing there to have one of, YET. Now, if the group becomes notable for something, then yes it may be deserving of a page then, but right now, the most notable thing about it is that it exists, and existentialism isn't a basis for wikipedia articles. All I have to ask is, name ONE notable thing this group has done. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My past contributions to this article are relevant because the issue you raise—that of removing the article due to lack of notability—was decided 2½ weeks ago. Faced with that fait accompli, and respecting the collective judgment of Wikipedia, I resigned myself to improving the article, not refighting battles already decided. If those skirmishes are now to be re-waged by you and the others on this thread, I wish you luck. But until the dispute is resolved, I'll continue doing my best to improve the article. JohnValeron (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, why were you prepared to repeatedly revert a sane removal of irrelevant content? My gut-instincts tell me the Occupy Marines website is a "tentacle" of Anonymous, and—content wise—you were, possibly still are, defending the indefensible.

This is why I infrequently edit Wikipedia; some people would rather talk the hind legs off a donkey than be a little ruthless and slash out obvious self-promotion. The article is a confusion of weasel-words, overloaded with cherry-picked quotes that appear all-too-often to have been swallowed by naive, lazy, journalists, or cribbed from the Occupy Marines website In Their Idiotic Up-Style Crazy Talk.

By all means, improve the article; at present, that would involve slashing at least 50% of the content, removing the confusion of weasel-words, eliminating the Up-Style Idiocy, and improving the grammar beyond kindergarten level. These faults may well not be yours, but you have repeatedly defended the offending content.

I doubt, once an honest, neutral cleanup of this article is complete, there would remain anything that gives it sufficient import, or notability, to remain on Wikipedia. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I concede that, as a Wikipedia editor, I am not as "ruthless" as you say you are. I'd rather work for consensus with other editors. My reversions earlier today resulted from not understanding why you removed entire sections of the article without explanation. Once you did explain it on the Discussion page, I stopped reverting. I can certainly live with the revised article as it now stands. I await Wikipedia's collective decision on the three issues outstanding on this article: neutrality; notability; and sources too close to the subject. I look forward to participating in that debate. I hope you will find time to join us. But it's a debate that ought to take place on the article's Discussion page, not here at Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JohnValeron (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete? For what it's worth, I'm tempted to open another deletion discussion. The last one did indeed end in keep but after reading over it a lot of the reasoning from those !voting keep was pretty anaemic, and based largely on invalid criteria such as "...an article about an organization which indubitably exists" and (I kid you not) "...20,000 people like it [Occupy Marines]". Comments from uninvolved editors? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you on this Basalisk. 77.100.209.249 has done some further source research in the discussion page of the article and it appears that the sources are very very thin for any sort of notability. I realise I'm an 'invovled editor', but still. 72.152.12.11 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yesssss, I'm an evil deletionist (/sarcasm). I'd readily support deletion, but prefer not to nominate under an IP; and, I believe I've reasonably made the case on the article talk page. This article was—seemingly—brought to Wikipedia by Henry Trawlins, Anonymous member 9,000.

I'll freely admit I was asked to look at this, but was given absolutely zero direction as to keep or kill; it was atrociously written, contained huge swathes of original research and propagandistic puffery. Perhaps common sense (which is rather uncommon) might prevail in a new VfD. --77.100.209.249 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

77.100.209.249, you write: "This article was—seemingly—brought to Wikipedia by Henry Trawlins, Anonymous member 9,000." According to its history, the article was created on Nov. 20 by user Nowa. If you have information to support your charge that Nowa is a troll and member of Anonymous, please report it to the proper Wikipedia authorities. Otherwise it looks like nothing more than reckless insinuation on your part, and if so is quite unfair. JohnValeron (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Grow a sense of humour, John; you'll live longer. Thankfully, someone has re-nominated this silliness for deletion—perhaps saner heads will prevail this time, despite your canvassing. If, as you say in the Vfd and below, you were "notifying those involved in the discussion re deleting this article 2½ weeks ago", you also notified those who voted for deletion? --77.100.209.249 (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD page not created

I don't know how to do it manually, and I don't know what reason the nominator gave. Phearson (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just in the process of creating the page. The AfD can be found here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 03:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD canvassing

User:JohnValeron would appear to have gone on a Canvassing spree with relation to the new AfD - see Special:Contributions/JohnValeron. Mtking ^(edits) 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

That's exactly what I did. I simply notified those involved in the discussion re deleting this article only 2½ weeks ago that it was again under the gun. I made no attempt to influence anyone as to how they should participate in this new debate. As it happens, in my notifications I overlooked both of those who voted last time to Delete, for which I apologize. Please do not assume bad faith. It was an honest mistake. JohnValeron (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, it should be noted that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Marines_%282nd_nomination%29 user Dream Focus, who was allegedly "canvassed," removed the accusatory template inserted by user Mtking, commenting in revision history: "There is no possible justification to have that there." Nevertheless, user Mtking reverted Dream Focus's change, insistently assuming my bad faith even though I've repeatedly confessed my mistake and apologized. User Mtking is waging a vendetta against me out of spiteful pettiness, and will not be deterred even by those who he falsely claims have been victimized. JohnValeron (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• It certainly looks like canvassing to me; working systematically through a list of all those who !voted keep before (even though most were repeating WP:ITEXISTS), but not contacting those who thought the article should be deleted. That wasn't about broadening participation; it was votestacking. bobrayner (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My intent was to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. How on earth can you pretend to know that my intent was otherwise? JohnValeron (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • It's also unfortunate that IP addresses arrive to paste a keep vote as their first edit. Hardly surprising, though, because there has been blatant offsite coordination in addition to the onsite canvassing - just look at the Facebook group. bobrayner (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• We can deal with this. I'm going to be watching the AfD closely. Wikipedia is not a democracy and I will not allow the closing admin to close as "keep" this time if the keep arguments are just WP:ITEXISTS. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, if it's a foregone conclusion that the article will be deleted, why waste everyone's time and energy with such a silly thing as discussion? Simply close the AfD now and be done with it. JohnValeron (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami move warring again

User:Kwamikagami is move warring again. This time on the articles: P'urhépecha language and P'urhépecha people. I tried to make him discuss and selfrevert pending discussion per BRD here and at the talkpage. He just reverted the move again. Some admin please move the article back and give him a warning or a block for this continuedly disruptive move warring behavior. Evidence for previous discussions of the same behavior here: [76][77][78][79] ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not "move war" at P'urhépecha people, and I did not "revert again" at P'urhépecha language. There had been no prior discussion on moving to P'urhépecha as you claimed on my talk page. The COMMONNAME convention you cite supports Tarascan, and even if we were to go with the autonym, it would be Purepecha, not P'urhépecha. — kwami (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I contested your move and moved it back - you reverted in violation of BRD. That is move warring and you do it all the time and now it has got to have a consequence. I am sorry to say that you obviously don't have the expertise to know what is the commonname here. Move the article back where it was, get consensus for the move then move,. Thats how we work here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is decided by common usage. You're not even accepting linguistic sources if you don't feel they're specialized enough. P'urhépecha (or perhaps Purepecha, which appears to be the more common form) may get there eventually, but it's not there yet. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Old sources. In any case what is the common name is decided by consensus not by you unilaterally. You are move warring. Move the article back.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the pre-move version. I don't think Kwamikagami should have moved to their preferred title again when it was dispute the first time, but while I'm not an admin, but I don't personally see the need for anything else here provided no further moves are undertaken. I agree per WP:BRD, keep the article at the original title until consensus is achieved for a new title, probably by starting a WP:RM when you're ready. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is reasonable to note that Kwami has a long history of making controversial unilateral moves, and that I approached him amicably asking him to move it back pending discussion and that he refused - claiming the right to decide unilaterally what is the common name. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• I find Kwamikagami's behaviour disturbing; for such a long-standing sysop to be engaged in this kind of move warring is surely inappropriate. A quick look at his talk page shows that this isn't the first time even this month that he's been accused of this kind of disruption. There are also a few other issues, such as this talk page where he implicitly accuses another editor of racism and bigotry, and his apparent oblivion to the edit summary "rvv" being an acronym for "reverting vandalism". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He was also blocked in October for edit warring. All from an admin of 7 years? Seriously? If he went to RfA now, I strongly suspect he would fail. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Basalisk. This is a personal attack, which is never justifiable (even if the other person in the dispute is making negative assumptions, which he was). Barring an occasional exhaustion of patience, admins should be above that. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal

Resolved

 – Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin delete User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal per the user's request and include a link to the MfD in the deletion rationale? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

user:Ambelland has been making extreme personal attacks at Inter-Services Intelligence. He has accused me of vandalism[80], being biased, editing in bad faith[81], twice [82]. The information he is removing I added several weeks ago [83] after similar content had been reverted out as not reliably sourced [84] It is well sourced and written in a neutral manner so I cannot imagine why Ambelland thinks I am being a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left the user a note about throwing vandalism accusations around; apart from that, perhaps you should take this to dispute resolution. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi the reason I said it was vandalism is darkness removed 4 paragraphs , and has made a number of edits in bad faith . I requested Darkness to move with consensus in the page , but instead he has decided to make unilateral changes . The points you are bringing up are already discussed in the article, and are not as clear cut as you make them out to be . Whilst you have "sources " you haven not give the exact extract of what the sources say, and the points you are making are not main steam views I have not accused anyone personally , personal attacks would be me calling you a lying swine but I have not said such a thing --Ambelland (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review requested

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

---

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Stephfo was topic banned on 29 November 2011 see here for topic ban details. If editors would care to read from here, they will see that the discussion initially proposed a full ban, and it was only reduced following input from Stephfo's mentors.

Since then, Stephfo has continued to edit disruptively, displaying exactly the same tendentious manner as before. See for example Talk:Wilhelm_Busch_(pastor)#Legacy, where he has accused every other editor of bad faith towards him, or User_talk:Stephfo#File:WilhelmBuschPriest1.png where he got into a snit with everyone trying to rescue a copyright image that he had uploaded first to commons and then to Wikipedia without a FUR. Or User_talk:Stephfo#Please_assume_good_faith, where he carries on the bad faith allegations. Or Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wilhelm_Busch (pastor) - still arguing that everyone who disagrees with him is acting in bad faith, adding now the folks at DRN. Or Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#encounter_with_Jess where he got turned down flat because none of the alleged "attacks" from User:Mann jess, who had been one of his mentors, were attacking him.

This user is incapable of editing with other people. He has driven off or worn out all of his mentors. He completely ignores everything anyone else says, and returns with walls of text quoting snippets of policies which he does not actually understand. User:Noformation even tried to get help from another editor who he thought spoke Stephfo's language (genuine mistake, he didn't), to help him understand some Wikipedia policies and editing etiquette. Stephfo's response [85] was to hope the person would help him prepare to get his topic ban removed.

I note that some may consider me involved (although I have no vested interest in the article about the german pastor that sparked this), but I didn't block him because he turned down a suggestion of mine (use the text at User:Stephfo/Wilhelm_Busch_(pastor) to create an article on the other chap]]. Rather, it was the way he turned it down [86], apparently without any understanding of anything that had been said, complete with rambling misinterpretations of policy - for example, "f I ask edit-opposing party to enlist all "active" objections 1-N, it cannot be dismissed with WP:WEASEL words "absolutely everything" as then I have nothing to collaborate on" and "f you read WP:Encyclopedic style you would find out that the sentence "who said" is IMHO more suitable for naive yellow press newspaper than encyclopaedic article"Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support block I initially voted that this user be topic banned from creationism articles but not blocked indefinitely as kind of a last ditch effort to acclimate him to the encyclopedia, with the hope that non-controversial topics would allow him to learn the ropes. Unfortunately this user has been unable to edit in non-contentious topics for the same reasons he was unable to edit in the contentious ones. It has taken so much time and so many kilobytes of data, along with much editor patience, to explain the simplest of policy, but literally to almost no avail. Simply explaining the difference between good and bad faith took more time than is reasonable for any contributor. Overall, Stephfo is a net negative to the project. His very very few good contributions have been outweighed by endless bickering on talk pages. At this point I would support a community ban, but I will wait to see if anyone else proposes it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note:I have notified Stephfo of this thread N^oformation ^Talk 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support block As the editor who welcomed him 5 months ago, and has been working with him ever since, I can very safely say that Stephfo does not, cannot, and so will not ever understand our basic editing policies. He operates like one of those essay-writing bots, stringing together occasionally relevant sentence fragments, while completely incapable of understanding input, criticism, or surrounding context. His sole purpose on wikipedia is to drive away productive contributors with long rambling WP:IDHT swaths of text asking for clarification on basic words and ideas any wikipedia editor should be able to comprehend. I'd like to stress that this is in no way a minor problem to be easily dismissed. I've become increasingly discouraged with how readily we treat experienced, productive editors as expendable soldiers, required to waste time, energy and motivation working with unproductive, uncollaborative, or ill-intentioned newcomers until they're driven off in angst and frustration. How many good editors are we willing to drive away for one bad one?

It's now been 5 months, and we have 5 ANI cases, 2 DRN disputes, 4 other noticeboard discussions, 4 blocks, and who knows how much talk page content, all universally agreeing that Stephfo's arguments, approach to editing, and understanding of policy are severely lacking to the point of disruption. Conversely, we have a handful of constructive edits buried somewhere in all that mess. I'm sorry we weren't able to recruit a productive editor from this experience, but I'm unwilling to sacrifice experienced editors in a hopeless effort to make that happen. It took multiple editors days of discussion across multiple talk pages to impress upon Stephfo the meaning of WP:AGF, and he still doesn't get it. This is over - it's time to move on. Good luck to Stephfo in his other pursuits, but English wikipedia is just not the right place for him to be contributing at this time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Support block per above. Enough is quite enough; wikipedia has better things to do. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support block per above. I had some hope, what with the user's passion, alas, Stephfo, I fear, lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to become a productive editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Block Review requested

I would like someone to review this block I've made. I've blocked Alarbus indefinitely because I believe very strongly that he is using sockpuppets to deceive and harass a group of editors that he has been in a dispute with. He has been proven to have used several undisclosed sockpuppets in the recent past - seemingly for non-problematic reasons. However:

Last week User:Alarbus and User:Truthkeeper88 were involved in a dispute revolving around the use of colors in templates on the Ernest Hemingway pages. The dispute was rather heated. In my administrative capacity I chastised Alarbus for his confrontational behavior. Otherwise I have not been involved with Alarbus before that dispute - so I do not see myself as involved, except that I have dealt with the user in an administrative capacity before.

December 11 Truthkeeper88 (talk · contribs) and Modernist (talk · contribs) create [article] and in the process [this template] which 186.73.132.154 promptly reverts. The IP then follows modernist to various templates reverting his edits over a minor color issue. Modernist suspects that the user is Alarbus, who is known to have a grudge against Truthkeeper88 and has a record of editwarring over template colors - he posts to my talkpage. I block the IP at 02.33 and at 02:36 Alarbus makes his first edit in 6 hours to the IP's talkpage. This makes me suspicious and when I confirm the pattern in their edit histories I decided to block Alarbus per WP:DUCK. I request some other admins review this block, to see if they are perhaps less convinced by the weird string of coincidences than I am.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to bed now. I've filed a C/U request. There is also possibility that he is acting in concert with the IP for trolling purposes of course. I am happy to defer to the judgment of another admin - do what you think the evidence requires - I will not consider it wheelwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have spilled over from my talk page to SPI and now to here. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes here, or who's-trolling-who, but Alarbus (talk · contribs) appears to be  Unrelated to the IP in question here and, in fact, doesn't appear to have any additional accounts beyond those we found last week. It's possible that someone is having some fun using the IP - either to troll Alarbus or Maunus and co. - I can't tell which - Alison ^❤ 04:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's the IP doing the alleged stalking, and User:Alarbus has been shown to be unrelated to the IP, then it seems to me that Alarbus should be unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am still convinced of foul play - then either with a proxy or a meatproxy doing the trolling. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A terribly bad block of both Alarbus and the IP - who are unrelated. The IP is clearly in Panama, and you can ask a checkuser or Alarbus himself to see that he's not there.

Maunus is an involved admin. His friendship with Ceoil led him to comment twice on last week's ANI report of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#User:Ceoil and User:Truthkeeper88 which complained that Ceoil had reverted Alabus 4 times on Alarbus' own talk page in the clearest case of WP:HUSH that I've seen in some time. In the first comment, Maunus calls Alarbus' reasoned objection to removing harvard references "hassling her with irrelevant objections condescension" [87]. Ceoil's behaviour on 3 December between 05:32 and 17:39 included 4 consecutive reversions and aiming the following invective at Alarbus: 'stupid', 'tool', 'prick', 'worthless tools and pricks', 'simple', 'ass', 'condesending prick'[sic], 'you severe judgemental prick', 'fuckwit', 'motherfucker', 'dangerously stupid', 'liar' - capping it off with an edit summary at AN/I of 'fuck off prick'. Maunus' comment on that was "I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented wikipedia form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions" [88]. So we know who are Maunus' friends. What is astonishing is that he then decided to close the ANI thread 2 hours from its start with a summary that begins "No action" [89]. He then amends that to include "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" [90], and in an amazing display of forgetfulness goes on to Alarbus' talk page to harangue him about his behaviour!

Maunus clearly does not understand that from an accessibility and usability view, colours need to be sufficiently different from their backgrounds, and preferably user-changeable (i.e. not coded inline with the HTML). This is a world-wide web standard, and not unique to Wikipedia. If more than one editor makes that point, it only means that they know something about web design, It does not mean they are sock-puppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus proves the point, despite Maunus' selective recollection of who was "editwarring".

At this point, I'd be content to see Maunus unblock and offer whatever grudging apologies he's prepared to make. I don't think that a sensible admin would dig the hole any deeper by pushing this. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a friend of Ceoil - that comment you refer to was my first ever interaction with him. It is possible that with the comment I made him a friend - but he wasn't before. So I am not involved. Alarbus has been proved to use sockpuppets - several of which have editwarred over template issues. The IP may not be him - but I remain unconvinced. Also Note that RexxS is himself "involved" in that he took exception to my commending Ceoil for standing up in front of Alarbus harrassment of Truthkeeper last week. Like Modernist and Truthkeeper88 below me he is just here supporting a friend. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth Maunus acted in good faith. Both the IP and Alarbus had never edited at the same time; as soon as the IP was blocked, Alarbus appeared. There was a clear circumstantial case for looking into whether or not the were socks - given Alarbus's history, and both seemed to be aggressive and hostile when it comes to editing templates; seem to consider themselves to WP:OWN templates and whether or not the colors can or cannot change - which they can. The comments above underscore the recent problem of Alarbus's stalking the work of various editors last week and the animosity that was stirred up. I think Maunus acted correctly and in good faith in this case...Modernist (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

RexxS is also involved and I haven't posted because I'm involved. I'm off to work but will post diffs later in the day. As for Ceoil and Maunus being friends - they've never interacted as far as I know until last weekend when Maunus responded to the AN/I report posted above. I haven't interacted with Maunus for probably more than a year, although in 2009 I did do some copyediting for him. Alarbus has been edit warring on many nav templates. Anyone going through his history can find that. Diffs to follow later in the day. Maunus made a good block. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I realize the Checkuser didn't prove my suspicion of foul play. But as I noted that was not the only evidence on which I based the block - rather it was behavioral evidence - which to me is highly suggestive that Alarbus may in fact be hounding a specific group of editors either through an internet proxy or by collaborating with a person in Panama. I do not buy for a second that a Panamanian editor just happened to take up an interest in Hemingway and Van Gogh templates just a week after Alarbus and Trutkeeper88's conflict and happen to disagree with the same minor issues on the same templates that Alarbus does. I brought the issue here to be reviewed because I am aware that this is a judgment call and that others may disagree. I am not swayed by disagreement from Alarbus' friends RexxS. And I cannot myself unblock Alarbus while I remain convinced that this will enable future harassment. If another admin reviews and decides to unblock I am fine with that, but my conscience does not allow me to unblock untill I am convinced that this will not cause damage to the project in the future. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

184.100.94.240 and Free Radio Santa Cruz

There seems to be an issue with Free Radio Santa Cruz and an editor (User talk:184.100.94.240) who believes in removing sources claiming they are "leftist". I see this as a POV issue, and am requesting some assistance with an administrator. I have informed the IP editor of the POV issue, and that Wikipedia has a neutral policy. The editor believes that he/she is justified in removal of the sources and other content because of the ideological beliefs of the sources on the article. If it sounds confusing, it is. I would like some help. Thanks --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone goes to the discussion, they will find that I legitimately edited the article with an explanation on the talk page. The sources were both from partisan leftist sites and no objectivity was presumed. I also added notability and citations missing tags. The article needs improvement. "Milonica" believes he is the final arbiter of all that is here. He reversed my edits without discussion. He parades his experience as being an editor and makes threats. This is some welcome. 184.100.94.240 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record I never said I was the final arbiter in anything. What I saw was deletion of sources and content based on what you perceive as sources that have no objectivity. I disagree, specifically since the sources are as follows... Santa Cruz Sentinel - a newspaper, Santa Cruz Independent Media - a news site, both of which I have a hard time finding anything partisan about, and Democracy Now. As for the last one, I'll give you that one as being slightly partisan, but regardless, does that mean the article on the site is partisan itself? Democracy Now! likely covered the story from the Santa Cruz Independent Media. Where is your proof of partisan-ism in the links? You think its okay to remove sources because they may lean left or right? It is information, not partisan politics as you believe. If you have a problem with this article, I would ask you to look at any number of other articles on Wikipedia, with similar sources. I bet you could find a lot. This isn't about making threats, its about sticking to policy here on Wikipedia. I would love to have another editor jump in on this issue, because as I've said all along, it is a POV issue. See: WP:NPOV. Also, you're close to violating the three revert rule, and you didn't give enough time for others to offer there opinion before deleting the content. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Sentinel and the extensive Democracy Now segment seem ok to me as sources for the article, though some minor quibbling with the article's wording compared with the sources might be apropos. I'd say 184.100.94.240 is both editing tendentiously and edit warring (s/he removed sourced stuff about the FCC raids against the station, replacing it with an aggressively worded unsourced claim that the station is ideologically leftist and operates illegally[91]--give me a break). After the initial removal, 184.100.94.240 reverted to his/her version twice[92][93] I'm going to restore the removed material and would suggest an immediate EW block if 184.100.984.240 removes it again. If there's a serious question about the sourcing, WP:RSN is the appropriate venue for discussion, but I think we're just dealing with a POV-pushing troll needing RBI. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for review of Admin's conduct/prventing challenge to block

I logged into my account to edit a few grammar problems I found and discovered that I was [[94]] for "trolling", which is odd because I haven't edited in a month. Believing this was done in error, I tried to challenge it and discovered that even editing my own talk page was disabled. I then logged out and tried to dispute it only to have my edit reverted and my IP blocked.

User:Antandrus then added this [[95]] rude comment to my IP's talk page.

I'd like a formal investigation into his conduct and to know why an admin is allowed to prevent me from even challenging a block that I obviously believe to be wrong. I'm very frustrated by all of this and just want to be able to edit articles. Thank you. 174.253.14.138 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Haarscharf (talk · contribs) is a fairly obvious sock of the blocked Nachteilig (talk · contribs). Note that a previous IP, 174.253.18.252 (talk · contribs) spent yesterday evening trolling my talkpage (which see) over a protection I'd put on Nachteilig's user page after they started fiddling with the sock tag. Behavior and writing style indicate that these IPs are related. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not obvious at all and simply isn't true. And preventing a user from challenging a block on their own user page doesn't seem at all sporting, and certainly goes against the spirit of things here. Furthermore, the IP comments on your talk page are respectful and inquisitive, so I'm not sure why you're labeling them "trolling" except that you disagree with the conclusions. 174.253.4.218 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocks may always be appealed at WP:BASC, if a talk page access has been suspended. Send an email to the address there, but please stop avoiding the block simply because you don't like it. Of course you don't like it, you aren't supposed to. You're supposed to stop editing Wikipedia. How you feel about it is irrelevent, and disagreeing with it is not sufficient cause to dodge it. Nothing is. Stop editing, send an email to WP:BASC, and await their response. --Jayron32 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Weird personal attack/revert war/sock puppetry(?) thing.

76.208.166.194 (talk · contribs)/76.208.179.253 (talk · contribs) has been making personal attacks against User:Dahn, on User talk:Bogdangiusca. See [96], [97], and to an extent [98].

I, not realizing at the time that the two IPs in the history were the same person, reverted the last of those edits here, sparking a really weird revert war as the IP repeatedly readded the blank section header he had inserted so that he could gripe in the edit summary. These are the only edits by those IPs in living memory.

This is obviously part of some larger conflict and without that context I don't really know what should be happening. I'm opting to bring it here because I noticed that Dahn has been involved in another ANI notice quite recently, to which this is presumably related, so this seemed the easiest place to find someone who knew the correct course from here. Warning? Range-block? Semi-protection of the user talkpage? Whatever it is that's going on, it's clearly pretty WP:LAME. --erachima talk 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP for harassment. You may have noticed that there is a long string of IP edits from the same range making longish posts on Bogdangiusca's talkpage, all through 2010 and 2011. The earliest postings in that series indicate it might be Alex contributing (talk · contribs). Sad, because he can be a decent contributor at times, when he feels like it, but in between there have often been phases where it's been necessary to shut him out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but, uhm, *cough*. --erachima talk 08:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly problematic accounts

Here’s some behaviour I’m not entirely comfortable with. I guess there is a lot of whitewashing of companies, people etc. going on largely unnoticed. To give just one example, Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa was almost reduced to an orphan, with only one other article linking to it (I've added two now). If you don’t mind, please look into these accounts:

• Flyer747 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  see example
• Theoneveritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and 203.142.41.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  see example
• Monkeyassault (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  While a first glance hasn’t brought up anything I consider as serious as some of the behaviour from other accounts, this seems to be a single-issue account where so far I would not rule out undisclosed paid lobbyism.
• Mkativerata (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  Not a single-issue account, but possibly with a political agenda to hide dirt rather than try to find sources that would support a critical point of view.

Haven’t got time to notify them of this post now, I’ll do that later (or you do it). Thanks, Wikipeditor (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the users above. In the future, you *must* notify users if you bring them up here. --NellieBly (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...especially if you have time to provide a pretty damning drive-by report, you certainly have time to notify the editors. Of course, as you're supposed to discuss issues with the editors directly first before coming here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:CrustyPores refactoring other's talk page comments

User:CrustyPores needs a chat about not refactoring other's talk page comments over other user's signatures as part of petty vandalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were you I'd take this guy to WP:AIV. Vandalism, refactoring comments, perhaps the lamest attempt in history at impersonating a member of the House of Representatives, and that lovely user page image collectively point at an editor not interested in the betterment of the encyclopedia. ETA: It seems User:Baseball Bugs did just that. --NellieBly (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED, ALL PARTIES ARE NOW ON THE BEST OF TERMS, NO NEED TO FOLLOW THIS UP ANY FURTHER. NO WORRIES. TOLDUIWASHARDCORE 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add gross username to the list of complaints. And garish, totally inappropriate signature while we're at it. --erachima talk 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the username that God (and myself) gave me, sir. My pores are crusty, and this is the reality of the life I live everyday in these gritty streets. I have no idea why you would post to a page about a dead person, unless you are trying to imply that I'm a "recreational drug user", or threatening me in some roundabout way. Actually, I'm not convinced that you're not trolling. TOLDUIWASHARDCORE 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely-blocked as a vandalism-only account. The block seems appropriate. I guess this thread is done.  Chzz  ►  13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)