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

Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

Original poster:

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

Admins:

• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

1. A group of administrators is threatening me with blocks. One has abused his administrative privileges by using administrative clout when the discussion got argumentative. In a discussion in which he was a participant I was warned for being tendentious[1], after [2] I had withdrawn from the discussion about a specific point. Later I took opinions on the concerned page then wrote that I had withdrawn from the article page, [3] After my withdrawl a final block warning for being tendentious was issued.[4]
2. When I was warned for canvassing [5]- for writing to those whose views on the subject were known to me as favourable, inviting them to participate in a discussion, I was not aware that it was breaking the rules, and when it was brought to my notice I immediately stopped doing so.[6], to make amends I wrote to those editors whose views were known to me as unfavourable to make up for the earlier canvassing.[7] [8] After this I was issued a final warning for canvassing.[9]
3. Earlier I was blocked without warning for 15 days.[10] After the warning expired I wrote on the blocking administrators' page asking hin to justify his action.[11] A month has passed but I have not received a reply.[12] Now this block is used against me to create some kind of criminal record.[13]
4. An editor learns by the mistakes he makes. Some I corrected myself. I did not repeat mistakes. I have made ammends to the mistakes I have made. I appeal for action against the following administrators.

The concerned administrators are user:YellowMonkey the administrator who made the first block without warning and without justification, user:RegentsPark who has mis-used his administrative privileges when the discussion got argumentative and user:SpacemanSpiff issuing a final block warning without reason. I do not know what comes first the chicken or the egg, so first I am issuing this ANI and then posting notice on the concerned administrator's pages. If I am breaking rules I will apologise and even face the necessary penalty, but if I am not then the three administrator's should be reined in. They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone's welcome to take a look at the contribution history and the sequence of events. I don't think I need to say anymore, my warning was quite explicit and there should be no confusion on that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The contribution record is here as evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After I it was brought to my notice that I was votestacking (out of ignorance), my thanked user:SpacemanSpiff, for his notice. The wikirules are How to respond to inappropriate canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Immediately on receipt of the notice, I stopped without arguments. Please see contributin history. Why then the block threat? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I was wrongly accused of Forumshopping by user:RegentsPark, unprofessional behaviour unbecomming of an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A two week block for trolling as a first offense with a user who has run up several thousand edits without trouble seems ... stern.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The block was strange in that, there was no warning at all and Yellowman User:YellowMonkey never once posted to the blockees talkpage or left him a template or anything at all. A few days after the block he did appear to have emailed twice to the blockee but the user didn't see them for some time. Discussion of emails is here. No comment of the general editing of Yogesh but there is a fair bit of disruption in the wake of them. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean User:YellowMonkey, the former arbitrator and functionary, or somebody else? Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The email was posted after the block was enforced, not before. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:YellowMonkey, corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, please avoid lengthening the thread. Please wait for the administrators you have accused of impropriety to respond. If would be helpful if you added some diffs to your above statements so the observers could know which specific warnings or comments you object to. The comments of Wehwalt and Off2riorob while possibly correct may be premature. We don't know if all the facts are on the table yet, so let's be patient until everybody involved has a chance to comment. The user is currently not blocked, so there is no urgency. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC), 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To say it is stern is hardly prejudging the outcome. Either way, we do need an explanation from YellowMonkey.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's not start the party without him. For the record, the OP has notified all the admins in his complaint. I reserve comment until YM has had a chance to share his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We may be waiting a while, given that YellowMonkey has yet to explain the controversial unblock (without consultation with the blocking admin) of Dr. Blofeld which occurred last night and about which several editors asked for an explanation on YellowMonkey's talk page. However, not everyone lives on wiki, we can afford to be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are asking for an explanation for a block that occurred a month ago. That's a lifetime in wikitime and responding to this request may not be easy. Generally, and this is addressed to YK, it is better to bring up the matter when events are fresh. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean during the two weeks when he was blocked without a block template telling him how to appeal it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean during the one month that has passed since his block expired. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

YM has served long as an admin and in other positions. I am not aware that YM suffers from lapses of memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither am I. I am also not aware what speculation about his lapses of memory has to do with this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. Then there should be no trouble about an explanation of the block, though it took place a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed seeing my comment above (or perhaps you forgot) ([14]). Since the events happened more than a month ago, he may not remember the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking at cross purposes; my point was that YM is likely to remember and be able to explain to us--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'cross purposes' describes it accurately but this ain't going no where. So ok. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should make a comment here. YK was soap boxing and engaging in tendentious editing here. I warned him about that. He showed up on my page with complaints about abusing admin privilege (here) and I explained that warnings are not an admin function. He didn't get that and continued to post on my page I (gently) let him know that he was now being tendentious on my talk page as well. He started an open move request at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga and then went and started an RfC on the same topic (here). So I directed his attention to the policy on forum shopping here. He is clearly being tendentious on the talk pages of British Empire Talk:British Empire and on the move request Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. My suggestion is that he heeds my well meant advice that he realize that it is better to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later (given here). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This user does appear to be rather tendentious - see previous ANI thread: [15]. He has been accused of trolling which I think is rather unfair, he is just a far-out Hindu nationalist.

This [16] was the state of Talk:British Empire before he was blocked. He does not appear to have received any warning. See also [17].

Any recent warnings of this user would seem appropriate given the user's editing style; what doesn't appear to have been appropriate is blocking him for two weeks with not a word of warning or even notifying him on his Talk, which was basically dead prior to his block. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SpacemanSpiff is known to me to be an over-zealous administrator, warning and banning editors without giving in-depth consideration to the matter. He repeatedly violates the basic foundational pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility and refuses to AGF.

I have borne the brunt of his administrative actions when I was still a newbie here when he removed well-sourced content and contradicted himself in the edit summary. That showed that SpacemanSpiff either doesn't read edits/study the matter in its entirety before making use of his administrative privileges or lacks competence. This is a pattern, not just 1 or 2 incidents. He is doing damage to Wikipedia by refusing to AGF and by scaring away constructive contributors. I have asked him to step down as an admin in the past and urge him to do so again. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

user:RegentsPark has indulged in hounding me See his edits on a issue proposed by me, that is his first edit on the Ganges page in many thousands edits, and he has opposed my proposal.[18], such actions do not behove an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that just in a cursory check of the most recent contributions from RegentsPark I found edits to Burmese and Indian topics, it is not at all unlikely that they would also be monitoring the Ganges article. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please check his contribution history, I did to as far back as September 2008, no contribution to Ganges.[19] [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous (and potentially disruptive). I'm willing to respond to reasonable requests, but this is mere delusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that exhaustive list. That doesn't however invalidate what I said: RegentsPark has edited on many different India-related articles. It is not unlikely that Ganges would be on their watchlist. I have lots of things on my watchlist that I've never edited, that are even outside the topic areas that I've edited. However, please feel free to keep digging and assuming bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add that we are all humans and all have our failings, so administrators should also assume good faith, instead of calling names and terms like disruptive. If you can give user:RegentsPark who is an administrator the benefit of the doubt, even though he needs to be judged by a higher standard, why do you not understand the hurt of a common editor and how he feels threatened with blocks for flimsy reasons, and accusing him of digging as if he is some grave digger? Please be fair and bi-partisan.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

user:RegentsPark asks why I delayed in reporting user:YellowMonkey to ANI, that is because I wanted to avoid official action, but my previous block was brought up as some criminal record which forced my hand.[42] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not need the 'benefit of the doubt'. The move notification is posted on WT:IN as well as WT:AT. I would have to try very hard to miss it. You need to get a handle on yourself and think about changing the way you're approaching editing here. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No unsolicited personal comments or advice and stick to the issue at hand, (1)Administrators' haste in (mis?)using administrative privileges, and browbeating editors using them. (2)user:RegentsPark's sudden interest in Ganges, and editing against a proposal submitted by an editor to whom he had issued a block warning. (3)Why is user:RegentsPark speaking on behalf of user:YellowMonkey, he should keep out of any discussion but himself, he is not a third party here and such actions consists of hounding! (4)Action to be taken against such administrators. It is 12.32 am local time, I need to call it a day. Good night. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with Yogesh on the move proposal he's making right now, I do agree something smells rotten about these three administrators actions. We've got truly and repeatedly warned disruptive users that pass through here who we can't get blocked for 15 minutes and they had a 2 week block with little to no warning? Yeah. I don't think so. YM's diffs seem clear, as do spaceman's. However I'd like to see some clear diffs on where Regentparks misused his power during a heated discussion. I see one linked warning, but that's hardly sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but I can't see a problem with SacemanSpiff's warning [43] - it appears justified, as the editor does appear to have been editing tendentiously. Part of the problem seems to be that the editor is finding it difficult to distinguish between a warning and an administrative action, in spite of attempts by RegentsPark to explain: neither SpacemanSpiff nor RegentsPark have misused the administrative privileges, as claimed. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about YellowMonkey's block, but concerning recent activity, Yogesh's editing on the Ganges move request has been disruptive and tendentious. It was bad enough when he rebuked an editor for voicing an opinion, but when I saw he started going after editors on their own talk pages (here and here) I understood and supported SpacemanSpiff's warning. --JaGa^talk 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I have no idea as to what the underlying dispute is about but none of those three diffs you link to is in anyway problematic. Rebuking somebody for "voicing an opinion" - usually called "disagreeing with someone" - sometimes happens in the real world. The other two diffs are same thing; evidence that a disagreement exists nothing more. Calling it "going after editors", which implies an attack of some sort is itself a form of personal attack since it violates the part of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks can be Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here, check out the discussion and decide for yourself about Yogesh's behavior. I thought he was coming on a bit strong... --JaGa^talk 05:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether they tried to use their administrative powers or not, things have a greater weight when said by admins. That's a fact of life on Wikipedia and why people often bring things here. When random editor X warns someone that they might be blocked for action Y, the response, if they're not an admin, is many times not what we'd hope for. On the other hand if an admin repeats the warning it's taken with far greater importance. A final block warning after someone has disengaged seems inappropriate. More so when it comes from an admin.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but in this case the warning from SpacemanSpiff was more general - it mentioned the canvasing, which had stopped, but the other issues raised in the warning - especially badgering oppose votes - were (and are) ongoing. If it was just about the canvasing then I'd agree, but it was about a general pattern of tendentious editing, which seems a justified issue to raise. However, whether or not it should have been worded is a final warning is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to say this because I've a lot of respect for YM, but the block in question appears to be shaky and is pushed into the "bad block" realm by the lack of notification, which is mandated by policy and this is not the first time I have found YM to be unresponsive when faced with questions about his admin actions, though it is the first time the action I've questioned has been a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do recall a quite recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive_edits_and_usage_of_abusive_language, where YM appeared to have called another Indian editor a "retarded nationalist" in an edit summary, and never showed up to answer the complaint. --JN466 05:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• A comment on content: it is not at all clear to me that Yogesh was "soapboxing and being disruptive" at Talk:British_Empire#Sepoy. It seems to me there is a very legitimate question of terminology at the bottom of this dispute that Wikipedia should be neutral about -- the British speak of "the sepoy mutiny", while Indian sources speak of "the First War of Indian Independence". [44] It is quite possible to find a neutral term, such as "1857 revolt", and I see no reason to stuff British terms – in the article's editorial voice, rather than marked as British usage – down Indian editors' throats with warnings for "disruption", when we are writing about Indian history. On the positive side, none of the three admins has contributed content to the article, or has a significant talk page history at the article. I'm over to the article talk page ... --JN466 05:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• P.S: See India's First War of Independence, and note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857 in mainspace. --JN466 06:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yogesh Khandke is a patient and mature editor who shows respect for WP policies. If he inadvertently violates a rule unknown to him, he is quick to make amends when pointed out. His only 'problem' is the cultural gap that exists from being an Indian editor editing from India in an English Wikipedia dominated by Anglophone people. He needs to know when to persist, when to back off and needs to learn the general etiquette of the Western world. According to userboxes, SpacemanSpiff is an Indian editor who has migrated to California. RegentsPark is in New York. It is ironical that these editors, instead of helping Yogesh bridge the cultural gap, are going after him. Perhaps it's just being callous or perhaps it's the acting white phenomenon or something similar to the zeal of the new convert. Whatever it is, it is damaging Wikipedia by scaring away assertive, persistent and constructive contributors. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Putting in a note that being an editor from India does not mean you are alien to Western etiquette. Personally, I can't find enough of a 'culture gap' to warrant any of my edits being put away due to naivety. I have had first contact with User:RegentsPark over two years ago, and he is anything but callous or whitewashed. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please it is not about black or white. The three administrators have displayed inadequate understanding of their jobs, and have acted unprofessionally in my case. I request adequate action be taken against them. Please refer to the diffs above. Sorry for interrupting the conversation. Please base comments on the evidence submitted by me in the form of diffs above, and not experience elsewhere or at someother time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• About your point #2, you were warned not just for canvassing, but for badgering users (non-supporters included) on their talk pages. This edit cannot be seen as a way to "to make up for the earlier canvassing" as you have stated. While I do not fully agree with the way your ban was handled, I am not comfortable with the way you have handled this issue as well. This is certainly not proof that an edit like this constitutes hounding. Also, your continued insistence that the issuing of warnings are an abuse of administrative power come off as unnecessarily naive for an editor with your edit count. I am not an administrator, but have issued over a thousand warnings in my editing history. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think at this stage, we are waiting to hear from admin YellowMonkey, who has not yet responded, to explain administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've left him an invitation to this discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  And he's apparently decided to keep editing without so much as a courtesy note here. If that continues we'll have to carry on without him and assume he has no input, and frankly if that's the case I think it reflects very poorly on him.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've been seeing a large number of problems with tools usage by YellowMonkey in the last 6+ months. At the very least he's taking administrative actions without responding to questions about those actions. I've seen blocks for socking without an SPI case as well as the issues listed above. Hobit (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we propose something for the AN/I community to support or oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfC/U maybe? Or should we keep it relatively informal and just look for a consensus on the propriety or otherwise of specific actions of YM that have been questioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious proposal I would make is to see how much support we have for having SpacemanSpiff step down as an administrator since his actions seem to me like they are driving away potentially constructive contributors and this is impacting the quality of articles under the India project. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to YellowMonkey, and let Zuggernaut start his own thread. I would agree with the informal aspect, and possibly the start of such a determination will prompt YellowMonkey to engage in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started a new subsection with what I think is a neutral statement of facts and policy. Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way

Somebody explain WP:FORUMSHOPPING to Yogesh; he started 3 subsections, went to Wikipedia talk:Article titles (unsuccessfully), and now wants to take it to talk at WP:COMMONNAME. The strategy to disperse this mission over many different pages in the hopes that somewhere the mission's accomplished isn't very helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tried. But YK is much better at writing lots of words then reading them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sub-sections were started for the very reason you have started a sub-section has been introduced here, the length made editing tedious. Wikipedia talk:Article titles is the discussion page for WP:COMMONNAME. so that is the only other thread, there I began the discussion there with information that a move proposal was on[45], WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about hiding different threads, I on the other hand opened the thread with information of the other thread. I have even offered to close the thread on talk:Ganges[46], so that it is easier for editors, does that still make me a forumshopper, which is in my opinion about hiding and deceit which I did not resort to. I need to call it a day it is 1.54 am local time here. Good night.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not about 'hiding and deceit'. It is about raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages. Initiating a move request on an article talk page and then raising the issue on a WP space page when you aren't getting the answer you want is forum shopping.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, that is unfair. Yogesh Khandke has done two things:

1. He has proposed to move Ganges to Ganga, in line with an overwhelming preference in Indian English for Ganga. This preference is present on Indian government websites and in the English-language Indian media.

2. He has asked that Wikipedia:Article titles should not give "Ganges" as its key example of when not to follow local English usage in Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. You can hardly blame him for that -- if the article is moved, the guideline has to be changed too, and indeed editors could argue that until the guideline is changed, the move would be -- naturally -- against the guideline. --JN466 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{ec}} I am sorry, WP:COMMONNAME redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles. You are talking about one page. --JN466 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a particularly big deal because it is not an egregious example and, given that he's trying to undo it, I think he gets it (but, apparently, he would rather not admit it). But, raising an RfC ([47])on a topic while a move request proposed by you is ongoing, and when you perceive that the request is not getting enough traction (User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ganga), is forum shopping. It is better to wait till the move request is closed and then raise a more general question on the AT talk page (rather than raising the same question). --RegentsPark (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my bad, I didn't see that it's the same page. Yogesh, the subsection was started because I raised a related issue, not the same issue.

That being said, I nonetheless do see a problem with the way you approach this; your stance/opinion is very clear by now. What I've seen is your re-hashing the same argument over-and-over again, as if nobody had heard you, jumping into almost every other vote. This is not a spoken conversation; what you've written is on record, everybody can read it, re-typing it is thus a waste of time, and, quite frankly, annoying. We've heard you. It just so happens that others disagree with you. You should just step away now, let others say whatever they want to say, and then come back next week or so; unless you have something new to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's block of Yogesh Khandke

• On 30 September 2010, YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for two weeks with a log summary of "trolling and pov pushing at British Empire and talk". YellowMonkey did not inform Yogesh Khandke of the block on the latter's talk page. This was the first block in the latter's block log. The purpose of this subsection is to gain a consensus on the matter of whether or not the block was justified and whether or not YellowMonkey acted properly in the matter.
  • Applicable policies include WP:ADMIN, particularly WP:ADMIN#Accountability and WP:BLOCK, particularly WP:BLOCK#Notifying the blocked user. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if a block was justified, the length was inappropriate for a first time offender with no obvious warnings. In addition the conduct of YM around this issue seems highly suspect beyond the block length. If there is further evidence of his inappropriate use of tools as mentioned above, it should be presented here in diff form. I disagree with going to RfC/U because it is a wasteland of uselessness. Nothing is binding and it's where most discussions are sent to die. There is a discussion happening here, right now, let it carry on to it's conclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections. were the two most recent ANI threads I could find on YM. There have also been numerous notes on his talk page from admins (including me) and concerned non-admins regarding his protections. He has a tendency to semi articles for 6 months where most admins would go with a few days but that's an issue with his protections, not an individual block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block An admin is part of a community, and must follow community expectations. One of those expectations is informing the subject of administrative action the reason for the action, and in the case of a block, how to see review by another admin. YellowMonkey just left Yogesh hanging on the phone. To say nothing of the fact that the length of block was wildly excessive. Look, play social networking games if you like, but that name over there is a real person who needs to be treated with respect. It looks like YellowMonkey let down the side.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this page is not for dispute resolution. If there are lingering concerns about YellowMonkey's tool usage, WP:RFC/U is the correct venue to discuss them. Two of you (preferably editors uninvolved in the original conflict) should discuss your concerns with YM at User talk:YellowMonkey. If you don't get satisfactory answers, you can then start an RFC. This thread has done the most that it can reasonably be expected to do: it has alerted the community to potentially valid concerns, and provided the aggrieved editor with several outside views, and brought in several uninvolved editors who can take any needed follow up steps, such as RFC. I suggest we close this lengthy thread now because ANI is not a substitute for proper dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On a procedural note, we don't have a clear consensus that this was a bad block (which would be a step in the right direction) and I for one am reluctant to drag someone who has done as much for this project as YM has to RfC/U without exploring alternatives first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree with you. Since YellowMonkey hasn't responded here, why don't you take up the issue with them directly, as should any other uninvolved editors who are concerned about the block. Perhaps some discussion on his talk page will result in a clarification of why the block was needed, or a recognition that the block was incorrect and assurance that such errors will be avoided going forward. Only if those outcomes fail, then you can go to RFC if you are still concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but disruption isn't a dispute just because the one doing the disruption is an administrator. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor, who happens to be an administrator, acting disruptively. I'm also seeing a lot of familiar names in one of those previous discussions. Regentsparks, how about instead of running to YM defense, you encourage him to actually partake in it. As far as I can tell at this point YM acts disruptively and refuses to discuss it. As such I recommend he be desysopped. We simply cannot have editors who have no respect for the other users they interact with running around with the tools to do harm as they've done.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• It appears YellowMonkey has not followed the correct procedure, and a two-week block may have been excessive. However it also appears that firm action was desirable. I have just looked at Talk:British Empire where there are several discussions in which consensus clearly is against Yogesh Khandke; the sections are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here are two comments addressed to Yogesh Khandke: not a forum for your opinion...not about India..., please do [not] post spam or nonsense on the talk page. Accordingly it appears only that YellowMonkey should be asked to follow procedure in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block As per User:Wehwalt. But also agree with User:Johnuniq's comments - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So where the eff is YellowMonkey? Does s/he exist? Or has s/he dug a hole to now hide in? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

From the last discussion cited above, that seems to be standard operating procedure. Make a mistake, not explain it, refuse to partake in the discussion of it, carry on. We simply do no benefit from that kind of editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very well. If Their Highness doesn't respond here in, say, the next 12 hours and somebody wishes to file an RFC, I'll certify it. Ping me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey hasn't edited for over 24 hours - I'm not to surprised there has been no response to HJ Mitchell's comment, as he hasn't been onwiki since it was left. I don't know if he will respond, but YellowMonkey has barely been active since this discussion began, with only five minor edits over about five minutes. At this stage I don't think too much should be read into the lack of response. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he has edited. He could have left a cursory note saying he was busy and would respond soon, or something. He hasn't even acknowledged the discussion, much like last time his behaviour was questioned. Instead he let regentparks fight his battle then, and he's letting him do it again.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate to be using ANI, let alone Wikipedia, as a battleground. I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

?? Explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not waiting for him to "fight back", we genuinely want to hear his input so we can resolve any outstanding issues over this block and his admin actions in general. In his defence, I don't think he's edited since I left him a note pointing to this thread. The OP did leave him an ANI-notice, but it didn't point to a specific section. It's not the first time this has happened, but, if he hasn't edited, it's entirely possible that he hasn't been able to, so let's AGF for a little while longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My reservations surround Crossmr's references to battle and fight; that mentality and assumption-making doesn't help. Oh, and I suppose I should mention that YM rarely (if ever) edits Wikipedia during weekends. Obviously though, there's no point mentioning it when some editors keep assuming the worst anyway ("I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down"). That's why "I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when [some] editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back." I added that "some" qualifier in square brackets in fairness to the users who are genuinely making efforts to avoid unhelpfully inflaming this even more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called a metaphor. Fighting someone's battles simply means to speak for someone. You're reaching hard. YM has twice been accused of inappropriate behaviour and he's twice failed to join in the discussion and Regentspark has twice been the person to apparently speak for him. YM is free to break that cycle at any point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I did not speak for YM. I just pointed out that the block in question is an old one and it may not be easy to dredge up the details given that wikipedia is not our primary occupation (I do wonder about some editors though!). Then I got into a totally pointless exchange with wehwalt, which was my 'battle' - not YMs. Just a clarification. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad block. No prior warning, no real justification, excessive duration even if it had been justified, no talk page notice. --JN466 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconfirmation RFA - it's just that bad. An appalling block, per comments above (eg JN466), made substantially worse by a failure to notify. There was nothing to justify a block of any length; other participants on that page had been a bit dismissive of the user's concerns (a remark about "spam or nonsense" stands out as inappropriate), but in toto there was nothing there to justify any administrative action at all, let alone a 2-week block without warning. In view of such a blatant mishandling (intentional or not) of admin tools, the community should revisit the issue of whether it trusts YellowMonkey with them. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a bad harsh block. YogeshKandke wouldnt be around too long after he is done with his POV pushing. YM has done a lot to the project, especially for the India project. we have way too many nationalists, regionalists, casteists, all kind of "ists" and he is one of the few administrators who is willing to confront them what many Indian administrators often hesitate to do for several reasons. He monitors India pages well and identifies vandals and trolls much more easily than other non-Indian administrators. I do not support any harsh action against YM. It would be great if YM says a few words to defuse the situation. --CarTick (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is just the thing. No one here is grabbing pitchforks and torches and going after YellowMonkey, whom we all respect. Frankly, if YM said "whoops, my bad guys, I meant to leave a template, totally forgot, he has my apologies" I think we'd be inclined to let it go at that. But to say nothing and ignore the thread just greases the skids of this towards a RFC/U. Right now there is great sensitivity about so called admin abuse. We can't just ignore this because YM isn't responding. He left an editor out in the cold for two weeks, an excessive block with no block template. We have to work to resolve this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than lengthening this thread, which risks turning into a soapbox for those who feel they've been put upon by administrators, why don't you start a conversation with User:YellowMonkey at User talk:YellowMonkey. I am confident he would reply to polite inquiries from an uninvolved editor such as yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done that. If there is no reply within 24 hours of YM's next edit, I also will be willing to certify a RFC/U. I am sad over this but see no alternative. WP:ADMIN makes his responsibility to explain his actions clear, and the fact that he is a crat and functionary makes his obligation even greater.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is he editing again then? He seems to have been offline before. I'm not entirely convinced that switching the conversation to his talkpage would be a good thing, but I do agree that this thread is turning into a bit of a coatrack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, going by my previous experience with YM, I highly doubt he would respond unless some drastic action is taken. The fellow won't even bother to explain his position to others. I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down. --King Zebu (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of AGF, but I don't think moving it to YM's talk page would do much good. It would reduce exposure to the wider community and most likely be left to stagnate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely we just need to leave a note saying "Consensus on ANI is that the block was too long, and you failed to correctly notify the editor, please be more careful in future." Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, we can do that, but you have to question, in an administrator what is it that has led him to ignore and apparently refuse to answer the communities good faith questions related to his administrative actions ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why he's being disruptive and why this discussion belongs here. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to make one, pretend it didn't happen and ignore the community around you. It's disrespectful, it's disruptive and it's unbecoming of an administrator.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• <ec>unblock if it hasn't already happened. It's pretty clearly both too long and lacked a proper notice. In addition I'm not sure a block at all was appropriate here. It looks like YM hasn't been around much since the block so I can understand his lack of response here. But he also hasn't responded to a request to explain an unblock before that and has had issues with following policies and guidelines in the past. I'd like to see him agree to actually follow the rules when it comes to using the tools. Barring that I'd favor an RFC/U. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, the block expired a few weeks ago, otherwise I'm sure the block would have been overturned by now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah, I knew that. It's what happens when I read this and then walk away for 24 hours without rereading. thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

YM hasn't made any contribs for the past two days. He may not be ignoring this discussion, he might be genuinely unaware of how large it has become. A bit of good faith on the part of the mob wouldn't go astray ;-). On the topic of the block, two weeks is harsher than I'd have done, but nationalist POV-pushing will be the death of this project if left unchecked, so I think a stern approach is preferable to a permissive approach. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

He has contributed since this discussion was started, so unless he made those edits to a random article while ignoring the notification on his page, he's probably aware of the discussion. He has a history of ignoring these discussions and letting others speak for him. Being stern is entirely different than side swiping someone with a huge block out of the blue with no notification, explanation, etc and then trying to pretend the situation didn't happen.--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Taking YelllowMonkey to WP:DRR or RFC/U isn't a productive way of sorting this out. Here's what I propose:

1. YellowMonkey or someone with administrative priveleges should redact/purge/permanently remove the block from Yogesh Khandke's block log. It should never be used against Yogesh Khandke in any way including the way SpacemanSpiff did.
2. YellowMonkey and Yogesh Khandke should continue their e-mail exchanges and sort this out with the goal of becoming friendly, collaborative editors who yearn to improve India related articles. YellowMonkey should make an effort to understand that not everybody is this area is a "retarded nationalist". There are gray areas and our goal should anyway be one of "proselytizing" the so-called Indian nationalist editors in to policy abiding long term contributors.
3. Editors/administrators should consider revising WP:CANVASSING per WP:BRD with the goal of avoiding situations such as this one which IMO was partially trigerred by a message from YellowMonkey to SpacemanSpiff. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per Off2riorob's comment just above. We need to know what's up here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support 1; 2 would be nice, and 3 is interesting. (Otherwise I agree with Wehwalt.) --JN466 06:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No need to do anything to Canvass or BRD. I personally don't see the diff given as canvassing, maybe a lack of good faith, but not canvassing. (Zuggernaut's previous attempts to reform canvassing can be seen on its talk page here and here) As for BRD, how does this relate? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for #1. Support for #2 - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks should not be excised from logs. A 1-second block can be made to leave a note in the block log, if there is consensus that the block was bad enough to merit that. Still waiting to hear from YellowMonkey. Rd232 ^talk 11:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the method I had in mind. --JN466 19:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As an RFC/U has been opened regarding YellowMonkey, and I will call it the most respectful RFC/U I've ever seen, I suggest we close here. RFC/U may be found here--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC is a wasteland of uselessness. Nothing is binding, discussion will pointless drag on for weeks and then all parties can just ignore anything said there. This is the proper venue for dealing with a disruptive user.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

and I would also note even if RfC was the proper venue for this, it should have been drafted first as there are far more concerns to his behaviour than this single incident. A previous similar incident to this wasn't mentioned, and there is also apparently concern over his protection use. If an RfC is to be drafted, it should be complete.--Crossmr (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• For reference: Comments by YM, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey#Response. --JN466 09:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which barely addresses any of the problems raised here, or even there at all. It's as close to a non-response as it can be.--Crossmr (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on IRC by Padrecamara

Padrecamara has recently attempted to obtain "keep" votes in an AfD for an article they have written via IRC as shown here.

Looks to me like the editor was promptly rebuked and backtracked on IRC. I'm sure that the attempt will be brought up at the AfD, if it hasn't been already. I don't see anything to be done here, suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Participation at IRC & Wikipedia, should never mix. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of irc is canvassing, subverting processes, organizing campaigns etc... All of the people there are guilty of whatever this person is guilty of.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm no fan of IRC. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we not tar everyone with the same brush? There's legitimate fundraising, social media, and OTRS channels there.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading that log it appears to be someone with poor familiarity with Wikipedia policies. He mostly asked questions about sourcing, notability, etc., rather than request votes. Having said that, the advice given was way worse than what he could have gotten on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The log has been deleted, since it is highly inappropriate to post logs without the permission of all parties involved. Please bear this in mind in future. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday

Request for enforcement of WP:GS/BI restriction

Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and LemonMonday has been very active at WT:BISE. Despite this discussion regarding an article Westward Ho! at BISE, which resulted in me changing the article to use "United Kingdom" as the largest referenced area as per the references provided by numerous parties at BISE, LemonMonday immediately reverted the edit, and violated the terms of the topic's probation by reinserting "British Isles" without a reference. Subsequently, User:GoodDay reverted the change, only for LemonMonday to immediately revert again. Given that Cailil is now being dragged into mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/Admin Cailil: Definition of Civility, I thought it best to bring this latest disruption here for wider community involvement.

LemonMonday/MidnightBlueMan sock

A recent sock case from August 2010 resulted in technically unlikely. Comments from the Clerks and patrolling admins stated

• behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing (PeterSymonds (16:44, 27 August 2010)
• Technically Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren 18:22, 27 August 2010

The case was eventually marked as closed with the following reasons - I'm marking this for close. LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now. TNXMan 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Well, LM is back. I also agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Can someone please block as per WP:DUCK. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• HK you were asked to let this sockpuppetry issue go (see my talk-page). The CU evidence was proven 'unlikely'. I agree that LM's edit pattern is a match for MBM but the CU was closed with a negative result.
  You are in content disputes with LM. He is edit-warring and has been warned. If you don't both start de-escalating soon you will both be be blocked for disruption--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, for the record you stated I would leave this alone and It's to AGF on that matter regarding the Sockpuppetry case. And I responded by saying that I though it best if the case was reexamined. You did not ask me to "let it go" or "drop it". If LM is a sock of MBM, this should be recorded and he should be blocked, and the clerks (and you) agree that the behavioural evidence is strong/overwhelming.

I find it bizarre that you say I'm in a content dispute with LM. I'm not. I've deliberately not engaged with him on the advice of another admin (TFOWR) on earlier issues. I've reported incidents and behaviour.

I find it equally bizarre that you threaten me with a block for disruption if I don't de-escalate. Genuinely, this is unfair. --HighKing (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are in a dispute with LM at Westward Ho! - he reverted your position only a day and a bit ago[48][49] - correct?
Asking you to AGF is the same asking to let it go--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not in dispute with LM. Yes he did revert my edits, but the issue is that he did so in breach of BISE sanctions and WP policies. I reported it as such, and I've not engaged with him. And asking me to AGF is not the same as asking me to let it go. I still AGF, but I also believe it is worthwhile to ask for a review on whether he is a sock since the behavioural evidence is overwhelming. The SPI was closed because LM had disappeared. Since he has returned, it's reasonable to re-examine the SPI is it not? --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I reckon it's best to clear up any doubts about LemonMonday's status. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been cleared up! And I object in the strongest possible terms that this keeps being brought up. The intention is clear; to keep bringing it up until eventually someone is found who says "oh yes, DUCK applies, let's block him". LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

An SPI won't do any harm. The innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so how about an SPI on everyone involved in the BI debate, and at regular intervals, just to be sure. In fact, I'm sure someone could automate the whole thing so that all editors are constantly investigated for socking by a bot. LemonMonday Talk 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants to open an SPI on me? then fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How about not making pointy remarks LM. WP is no a battlefield. I have already warned HK to stop and to AGF. The matter is now here before the community and all involved will be dealt with--Cailil ^talk 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, please don't think I'm being uncivil, but at times you would test the resolve of a saint! What would you think about a criminal trial where the defendant was found not guilty, but the prosecution didn't like it so they brought another identical case; not guilty again. Not to be beaten they brought an identical case up yet again, and again and again and again, hoping that eventually they'd get a jury who came in with guilty. Well that's what we have here. I know this is not a trial situation, but I hope you see the analogy. (and Cailil, I just read your remarks but I post this anyway. I'll say no more on the matter). LemonMonday Talk 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident that should the SPI result in your being prooven not a sock? it'll be the last one posted for quite a long time. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not part of the justice system, nor is it subject to the Bill of Rights. It's a privately-owned website, and if they want to run an SPI against someone every day and twice on Sunday, they can do that if they want. And the innocent should have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not LemonMonday is a sock (and a "provable" one through CU evidence) is almost unimportant, IMO, when one considers that he virtually defines what a single-purpose account is. From his very first edit[50] up until his mysterious, nearly year-long absence[51] only to "jump right back in"[52], this account seems concerned with only one narrow issue here at WP. There are barely 300 edits from LemonMonday. Why a topic ban "broadly construed" has not been implemented, when the battleground tactics and subsequent disruption are all that exist for this account, is odd. Get him out of the BISE Wars by topic banning him from it, IMHO. He is campaigning for his cause disruptively as a SPA, and should just move on and edit in other areas. At least one other area. If possible. Doc talk 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc I have to say I agree with you and I would be ready to impose such a sanction myself (as provided for within WP:GS/BI) at this point. I would also suggest an interaction ban between him and HighKing--Cailil ^talk 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is huge. Is there any reason LemonMonday needs to participate in the venue covered by WP:GS/BI? As for the interaction ban, if LemonMonday is removed from editing that venue, I don't think the negative interractions would continue, so I'd support the topic ban only at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Doc's points - Yes, I've made about 300 edits. Yes, I edit primarily in one area. Yes, I left off editing for about a year. No, I am not running a campaign. On the basis of this you would have me topic banned? In response to Cailil - my only recent transgression has been to revert an edit on a single article. I acknowledged at the Talk page this this could have been handled better and explained why I'd done it. In response to Jehochman - yes WP is a big place, and you ask why I have to edit in my area of choice. That question could be put to any editor. You think if I'm removed from the topic the so-called negative interactions would not continue? I suggest you look at the history of the British Isles issue in more detail. The negative interactions have been going on for a long while, with or without my presence. Maybe everyone should consider what is really causing them. LemonMonday Talk 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course we know. Irish and British Nationalism. Why don't you all just go edit Antarctica instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Too cold. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In a recent RfAr (race and intelligence)[53] the Committee decided that:

Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

I told you your reverts were a serious matter, that they were a breach of the topic's probation. Furthermore I believe they could constitute wikihounding. You never made any edits to the Westward Ho! article prior to reverting HighKing. This is the same with British Isles naming dispute article where your first edit there is a revert of HK[54] and Vesperidae[55] and Hada plebeja[56] and Olethreutes arcuella[57] and Epinotia immundana[58] and Old-time music[59]. This info is publicly available in your contribs LM. This pattern of behaviour is not just a breach of the topic probation but of general behavioural policy. If HK's edits were problematic you were invited to show what, where and how on a number of occassions, as are/were others. Nobody has done so and in fact you've used the revert function inappropriately rather than do so--Cailil ^talk 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on those diffs, I agree that LemonMonday should be topic banned from this area. I am considering a three month ban, subject to making sure that complies with the arbitration remedy authorized. After that time they could come back and we'll see if they can be more productive and less prone to battle. Does any uninvolved editor disagree? Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My only objection to 3 months is the pattern of disappearence by this account. I would suggest this sanction be reviewed after 3 months of editing rather than 3 months on the clock. What do think?--Cailil ^talk 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on! Those diffs were from over a year ago, apart from one which was over two years ago. They were reverts. They weren't multiple revert edit warring and they were carried out at a time when there were no sanctions or other restrictions of any kind on the British Isles subject. Furthermore, in all but one case they were to correct an absolute error that had been introduced by the use of the term British Islands. That leaves just one revert, at Westward Ho!, which I've acknowledged was wrong and could have been handled better. I subsequently didn't self revert because the issue moved on in the discussion. I am not battling anything. See my latest contributions at BISE where I've engaged in meaningful discussions. LemonMonday Talk 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please LM, make a promise not to add/delete/replace British Isles on any article, category etc etc; until you get a consensus for it? GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

HighKing hasn't edited any of those articles either other than in relation to British Isles naming matters either (apart from one minor edit on old time music).Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Umm LM that's what makes them worse. The British Isles revert and westward Ho! are current, the flora are a year old but you have no namespace (article) edits between October 09 and October 10. The only namespace edits you have from October 09 and October 10 are reverts of HK at articles you've never editted before. Again I refer to the ArbCom ruling from the 'Race and Intelligence' RfAr above. You cannot contradict your own actions LM and your actions are publicly available - there is a pattern of following HK around and reverting him - WP:BISE was created to prevent that. That you continued to do this a year after is the problem. This is not the first time that a topic ban on your account was discussed. One was considered here at ANI in August '10 but not implemented--Cailil ^talk 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Note LemonMonday's revert on Westward Ho! wasn't necessarily bad. He was actually following the terms of the closure, which was for the "largest area", British Isles > United Kingdom. He also added a source afterwards (RS or not). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE was not created to prevent people following HK around reverting him, it was created to come up with a Guideline on neutral usage of the term, so that there was some actual policy based reason for his systematic changes. So, where is the proposal? Without it, HighKing is in material breach of that arbitration finding imho. Just because he uses BISE now, instead of simply making the unilateral changes himself, doesn't affect that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We've tried to create guidelines on 2 or 3 occasions at BISE. All were stonewalled/disrupted by, what now has emerged, a bunch of socks. The strict civility policy has been great to date. Rather than driving editors away with targetted hate campaigns and a general lack of respect for others opinions, I suggest we'd be better served by focusing on removing the disruption that prevents progress. --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HighKing is where the "buck" always seems to stop with for some reason. Especially for the SPA accounts. Whatever HighKing's "agenda" may or may not be, he is clearly not a single-purpose account, and adds more than mostly disruptive shenanigans. Look at his history, even very recent history, compared to an account like LemonMonday. He's playing it more "fairly" than LM. This isn't guerrilla warfare. Edit a cheese[60] article for a change: it's less "controversial"... Doc talk 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would add that I believe I am being "targetted" in a campaign, and have been for a long while. What we need is more of the same in terms of strict enforcement of civility, which to date has been hugely positive. We also need to remove the socks. A sock farm was largely responsible for nearly all the disruption (MidnightBlueMan, Mister Flash) and removing it was also hugely positive and resulted in a lot of progress being made. It has recently stopped again. I have put forward a theory that LemonMonday is another sock based on the behavioural evidence. While the result of the CU was "Technically Unlikely", nobody can argue with the timings/contributions. Since the CU we've also found some socks/editors who have the ability to "hop around" on VirginMedia's ISP (and other ISP's that use VirginMedia) to make it look like they're in different geographical locations (e.g. TheMaidenCity). We know that MisterFlash used VirginMedia, it would be a good idea to check if this is another pattern that should be taken into account. --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Run the CU, we need to end any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HighKing is an SPA. Just because he makes around 50 edits to cheese articles, during 2,000 edits in and around the BI issue, does not change that. I don't see a single confirmed sock, let alone suspected sock in the top 15 contributors to the latest proposed guideline to come out of BISE. It failed for the same reason as all prior proposals, simple lack of clue about NPOV. Socks will continue to appear for as long a BISE does not fulfill its stated aim, and instead carries on being a clearing house for HighKing's continued programme of systematic edits. HighKing has never been able to see why he is the common denominator here, but it's obvious to everybody else, even the people who by this stage can still even be bothered to engage with him over the daily trivia that he brings to BISE. And we can see from this Westward Ho! farce how effective it is at non-disruptively dealing with even that type of busy work. MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you on some sort of civility parole? --HighKing (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if you considered Micks comments and responded to them? I agree with Mick, BISE is the reason for the socks and Highking is the SPA that is responsible for the existence of BISE. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the drama/entertainment page. If you've concerns, open your own AN/I. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Not that a single part of that post was incivil. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not uncivil just wrong. The majority of cases in the last six months have been proposals for the inclusion of British Isles by the various Unionist SPAs such as LemonMonday, LevenBoy etc. BISE was set up to prevent edit warring over multiple articles and HighKing has used that process since. The subject has also been plagued by socks such as Irvine22 who have been sophisticated enough to work around CU checks--Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you even pretend that was remotely a fact, when anybody who goes and looks at the page, can see who has submitted the vast majority of requests, even if we are for some bizarre reason, pretending that only the last 6 months matters. Any 'unionist' requests, as you so incivily put it jesus christ, imagine how HighKing would flip his lid if someone characterised his BISE requests as 'Republican' have been more often than not, on pages HighKing 'corrected' first, well before BISE was created. Would you rather the socks just went and reverted directly, instead of doing what you are asserting is the 'correct' process and wasting their time with BISE? Damned if they do, damned if they don't with you it seems. Duplicitous socking has barely influenced any BISE discussions at all, and even when acting on their own, they are usually just ignored. They have not affected the discussions on individual BISE trivia, or discussion/drafting of the proposals it is supposedly creating, as the link above showed. Applying the same evidence based approach to BISE itself, you can see that the biggest single confirmed sock that ever editted the page has half as many edits as HighKing, and is only sixth in the all time list, behind even you. Then there are another four non-sock editors in the list, before the sockmaster, who has a grand total of nine edits to the page in that guise. That's some disruption eh? The real disruption like this ANI report comes from exactly the sort of thing HighKing did with the Westward No! 'resolution'. BISE was not set up to prevent edit warring, that is a ret-con justification of it from the Mfd. It is as much a myth as your 'evil socks are everywhere disrupting everything' drama-mongering. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If my memory is accurate, I was the first to support HK's creation of BISE. My understanding was/is it's function is to co-ordinate add/delete/replacing BI usage discussions, get a consensus for each case & thus avoid edit-wars on the articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The page was originally about 'special examples', keyword special - the idea was that after a few cases had been discussed, the consensus to create a guideline would be clear, and the guideline would be put out there for the community to approve. What it has become after that has failed time and agains, is just a routine clearing house for HighkKing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Everybody, it's time for somekinda review of BISE, as obviously everyone isn't in agreement about its functions. Indeed, it's reason for exsitance. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its the valueless to the educational content and the pointedness of the whole worthless issue that is disruptive. Its complete trivial nationalism.Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly but it has restricted disruption by nationalists of various hues (British nationalists are a part of the issue) and Unionists. It was a response to a disruptive pattern of editing by both sides. Its noticeable that editors on the anti-nationalist side (such as yourself Off2riorob) always come with this mantra that getting rid of HighKing will solve all the problems when the facts say otherwise. I've seen the same tactic used as noise to defend not banned editors such as TritonRocker and Irvine22. --Snowded ^TALK 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually find the issue so pitiful that I don't sit on either side of it, the whole pointy issue reminds me of a throwaway kindergarten project not an encyclopedia, its the worthless disruption that imo is detrimental to the project. Other editors may have added this or that, but User Highking is a single issue account in regards to the removal of the term British Isles from the whole project from totally obscure articles that he finds in a list of searching for the term British Isles. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a CU on LemonMonday 'first. Then review the BISE after. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There was already one inconclusive, this is a fishing report in an attempt get the contributions reassessed to overturn the last verdict. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The next one might be conclusive. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, make a report in the correct place, coming here and suggesting after an inconclusive report, please block as a quacking duck is a back door attempt to override an actual investigation.Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Something's gotta happen soon. BTW, has anybody put out a missing editor's report for LM? GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

Resolved

 – Per WP:IAR. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
User:Sarek of Vulcan has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And unblocked by User:Rich Farmbrough with summary "Time reduced since it's a first offence". Rd232 ^talk 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) Friday morning at 3:15, thanks to teenaged daughters and ill-considered promises. Since then, I've been patrolling the article, but in my zeal, I'm pretty sure I've broken WP:3RR, which I always consider a bright-line rule. Even though I'm not planning on editing it for a while, that doesn't mean I'm not in violation. If someone wants to identify 4 reverts in 24 hours and report me at WP:EWN or block me outright, I won't appeal it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Making a mistake is one thing, admitting to it is another. I obviously can't speak for everybody, but I would be willing to forgive and forget. The Thing ^T/_C 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually spent some time going through that article's history so I could come back and tell you that you're being paranoid! User:TTTSNB echoes my sentiments exactly :) - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than breaking 3RR in the future you should prolly bring it to a relevant talk page or here if there's serious issues that need oversight and extra eyes. I assume it's edit-warring over plot details? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, it wasn't edit warring, although there was a bit of that as well. However, since WP:3RR defines a revert as "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time", I'm clearly over the line, even if you ignore straight vandal reverts. 3RR has a specific exemption for featured articles on the mainpage, but this is just a current event movie release. Also, I turned down a semi-protection request on that page, so I took a more-active role.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By your edit summaries it seems that you were reverting vandalism. If you read WP:3RR carefully it says that reverting vandalism is ok. Agree with TTTSNB if it did seem to be an issue for someone. @David Fuchs: He didn't break 3RR. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unintentionally incorrect information is explicitly not vandalism. See here for an example of that type of edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also be willing to forgive and forget, if you were doing something good and maintaining wikipedia I would be using rule Ignore All Rules. I think you did nothing wrong. :)  JoeGazz  ▲  19:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I support your reverting on the article, Sarek, but you have brought this on yourself to a certain extent by turning down the "semi-protect" request. The reverts were necessary to keep crap out of the article, but as you say it wasn't intentional vandalism so isn't exempt from 3RR. All the regular editors have been put in a difficult position now because we can't do much about the unconstructive edits once we've used up our revert quota. Some editors will just ignore 3RR, but others are probably concerned about being on the receiving end of an ANI. We either need to semi the article or have explicit permission to suspend 3RR on it temporarily for non edit-warring cases. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I counted 7 reverts in about 21 hours, but the vast majority of them were maintaining the quality of the article rather than the usual edit warring. I think we should consider adding an exemption to 3RR for high-profile articles since this film is easily at least as high profile (and just as prone to crap, albeit good faith crap) as any TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support an amendment for exemption - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support "reverting crap from high profile articles" amendment, perhaps in more politically correct terms or maybe not, that is funny right there. We kinda already have an exception for "unsourced BLP crap". Just extend that to "unsourced crap". I've had 10 reverts in 10 minutes before, though that was obvious vandalism by one editor and no one was awake at AIV. N419BH 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

After I pointed out the reverts to Sarek, he insisted I enforce the rule, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I still think we should create an exemption (and apply it retrospectively). I'll start a threatd lol, thank you, Malleus! at WT:EW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'll start a threat at WT:EW". A Freudian slip? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A little too quixotic, imho. And LOL at the threat! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Harry Potter can be serious shit to the right people. I, fortunately, am not one. HalfShadow 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: WT:EW#Reverting_crap_from_high_profile_articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock please

• This is silly. Someone unblock him please. Edit warring/3RR can be excused for reasonable reasons, per IAR. Almost all the reverts he made resulted in him improving the article by any measure. If he wants to be blocked, let him block himself. NW (Talk) 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If he wants to be unblocked then let him unblock himself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is normally inadvisable and can lead to bad things. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't the normal response that being right isn't one of the exceptions to 3RR? Making an exception here seems to be one where others will point to the gap between treatment of admins and ordinary users. That said as blocks are preventative assuming they understand the reasons for the block and are unlikely to continue/repeat the behaviour an unblock would normally be granted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. "Users may be blocked to protect the encyclopedia." - this does not do so, rather the reverse. I would do the same for any editor who self-reported 3RR and was not causing problems. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Precisely there doesn't appear to be a preventative reason for the block at this point. That is however different from making an exception to allow admins to determine who is in the right in an edit war... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the irresponsible block. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardly irresponsible, considering I insisted he apply the same standards to me that I would have applied to any other editor in the same situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked for unnecessarily trying to get himself blocked and told to stay away from himself? :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that if you're going to get yourself blocked, you would have to warn yourself first, as per the instructions at WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How come the block only stuck for 43 minutes then, without Wehwalt's usual cries of "admin cowboy"? How come you haven't re-blocked yourself, for what you see as a "bright-line" offence? Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because getting blocked for wheel warring to reblock myself would just be too weird. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the wierdness is that you don't realise that wheel-warring is when the blocking admin re-blocks you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And because Wehwalt was busy gasp writing and wasn't reading AN/I. I just finished the rough of another (I hope) future FA, Buffalo nickel. But since Malleus wants me here, I will refer him to the thread about YellowMonkey's questioned block and request Malleus's input.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that your position is not an entirely consistent one Wehwalt, not requesting your presence anywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How can my not noticing the thread while building the project be inconsistent with anything except laziness?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I will simply say that you have signally failed to accuse the unblocking admin of being a cowboy and leave it that. I'm sure you can work out the rest for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Judgment should be used. The reverts were correct, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that. Even further reverts for the same reason would be correct. Reverting the replacement of content with nonsense or fixing clearly incorrect statements is a good thing, and we don't want people to stop because of an arbitrary line. If that were the case, we would just use a bot to block all the 3RR violators and have them place unblock requests when they are ready to say "Sorry I violated 3RR. I won't do it again." NW (Talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your position is unsupportable for at least two reasons. First SarekOfVulcan himself regards 3RR as a "bright-line offence", hence the block request. Second, it seems plausible that at least some of the reverts were substituting SOV's point of view for that of a less well-connected editor. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is elevating admins above the janitor role to arbiters of content issues. Something which has long been the case they very much are not. Reverting nonsense would come under the current exceptions to 3RR. If "you" are the only person who believes a statement is incorrect such that "you" are the only one reverting, then perhaps the issue isn't quite as clear cut as "you" believe. We specifically state and decline many unblock requests on the basis that being right isn't an exception to the rule. If there is a large scale problem which can't easily be dealt with and discussion isn't immedidately gaining traction, short term protection (or semi-protection) is the way to settle things down. Any shift in this letting admins pick which side is right is just going to reinforce the regular cries of cabal. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The block was ridiculous. Even you want to be ultra-bureaucratic about strict 3RR enforcement, in a situation where 3RR took place but edit warring isn't actively going on, it's sufficient to say "hey cut that out", and possibly require the person to self-unrevert any reverts past the 3rr limit, undoing the 3RR (clearly not necessary in this case). Remember that blocking is supposed to be preventive. In this case there was nothing to prevent, unless you count his self-report to this thread as POINTy. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. I suppose I was trying to make a point, but I definitely wasn't trying to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a WP:POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you of all people should ask yourself. Is it logical for a Vulcan to get himself blocked for an honest mistake? ;) The Thing ^T/_C 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point

I just need to point out the shamefulness of certain admins "resolving" this thread without facing the most important point, or making Sarek answer the basic question: Is the film any good? C'mon now, surely this is the central issue to the thread. Well, to those like me, at any rate, who live hours from the nearest cinema that'll screen the film this side of Christmas. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is sarcasm ... and pretty good too :-) Good or not, the film is going to outsell the GDP of some small countries. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How can the film outsell something that isn't for sale? Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MacDonalds, the CIA and Coca Cola appear to operate on the basis that national GDP and all other assets of small to medium nations are purchasable - are they wrong? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was decent. :-) Not sure it was worth getting up at 2:00 to go see, but it was worth it for the "coolest parents in Greater Bangor" points. Judging from a quick scan of the audience, I was the oldest person there, and my 11-year-old the youngest.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the tent scenes dragged a little - and spent most of the film annoying my wife with "I killed Sirrius Black I killed Sirrius Black" but it was fairly good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek & SGGH for the responses; and a special thank you, SGGH, for getting rid ^(banhammer?) of the overly obnoxious Sirius ~ if you hadn't i probably would have done for him; my daughters love him, but.... Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

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

Let me start off by saying that this is not a content dispute. Yes, a content dispute is how this was started but no, this thread is on the behavior of another editor.

Just last week, this user was topic banned from 'inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting', with the threat of escalating blocks if they broke the terms of their topic ban.

However, instead of violating the ban, they chose to edit tendentiously by edit warring before discussing, and then, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA during the discussion, first starting off by directly insulting me in the section title, wrongly stating that I 'had an inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources', and in the section body,calling me irrational. I of course asked them to refactor that original post, in a polite way. Instead of assuming good faith, and attempting to discuss the matter in a civil tone, Dest decided to exclaim that I was 'obviously ignoring policies, and that I obviously do not understand them enough'. The crux in this last diff is that Dest is not me, and thus cannot claim 'I am obviously ignoring policies, etc. In response, I told him he doesn't know shit about what I understand, or what I am ignoring, and in response, he quotes me out of context, exclaiming wrongly that I have been the one who has been uncivil, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary.. Not to mention the entire paragraph could be construed as yelling, as it is entirely bold.

I have not once insulted or been uncivil to this user, yet they persist in insulting me, my knowledge, and acting like they know things about me they wouldn't know if they weren't me, such as if I was 'ignoring' policies or not.

To this end, I believe it is obvious that this user cannot be trusted to discuss content in a civil manner. As they are already slightly-topic banned from LGBT parenting and parenting articles, I request that this ban be extended with a complete ban from LGBT parenting articles and article talk pages for a period of no less than 3 months, or until such time they have shown they are able to discuss content in a civil manner without attacking the opposite, or same side in a dispute. Oh, and they've been notified of this discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this spat for days, somewhat confused about why two people are edit-warring over two words. Both of these editors are way out of line. Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him. The whole thing is an ugly mess with no "good guys". Dylan Flaherty 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How on earth am I baiting him? I'm not the one that chose to insult the other as the title for a discussion thread, I'm not the one that claimed to know things about the other I didn't, such as whether I know policy or for that matter, am ignoring specific policies. I've done nothing but ask them politely to retract their insults, only to see it thrown back in my face.. But given I was recently in dispute with you, I don't know why I should be surprised. You don't even notate this in your opinion here. It's expected of people to be transparent when commenting on a matter in which they are involved. It's expected in regards to any bias which may occur, and there is definitely bias here, as I have done no baiting. Dest began this by choosing to insult me, and instead of retracting those insults, he chose to continue with the incivilities and personal attacks. I have done no such baiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, when dealing with someone who tends to overreact, the right thing to do is to be especially calm, avoiding any possible insult. You did quite the opposite.

As for being involved, I don't even see the difference between "consensus" and "conclusion". I want nothing to do with this battle of egos wills that this has become.

Yes, we had some sort of dispute recently, but I don't even remember the details so I don't know what to say about it, except maybe you should try to assume good faith instead of blaming the messenger. Dylan Flaherty 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indented your reply to my post, directed at you, because that is obviously what it is in reply to. That aside, care to back up your accusations with diffs? As I quite clearly illustrated above, your accusations are unfounded.. and this doesn't come as a surprise due to your bias in this matter(and no, this bias comes from your previous interaction with me; it has nothing to do with the content).

Back on topic, I don't lend good faith to people who like to accuse me of stuff I haven't done, such as not responding in a calm manner; something I clearly did when I asked them politely to retract their insult. I don't lend good faith to people who only come to a dispute to only argue against someone they were previously in dispute with, instead of actually addressing the main issue at hand, which is Dest's unwarranted and unceasing incivility.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to offer original research about your behavior. Destinero complained about it after you baited him by saying "You don't really know shit...". I said from the start that he was out of line, but you're not one bit better. If anything, knowingly baiting someone who can be counted on to (over-)react is a cynical manipulation. Combined with your call for silencing him with a broad topic ban and blocks, I have great difficulty assuming good faith. This seems to be less about his behavior than yours, and more about winning a content war than trying to work amicably with other editors. Dylan Flaherty 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do, because that is not what I said. I said you don't know shit about me. Big difference there; there is no baiting. Do all of us a favor and actually read all relevant material before you comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your bias is really clear from your posting here: You quote me out of context(actual quote:You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'.), you refuse to backup your unsubstantiated accusations or even read all the relevant material, which was outlined in an easily readable fashion above. Dest started attacking me first, and then when I asked him to redact his attacks, he proceeded to do so again. The fact that you refuse to substantiate your own accusations, the fact that you refuse to read the relevant material, and the fact that right here say that 'Destinero complained about it after you baited him', despite the clear evidence that he attacked me way before that, just shows how much bias you have here, and thus, you should redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as it is clear you are unable to address this situation in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I used the exact quote Destinero brought up, so it was not my original research or synthesis. I was pointing out that he accused you of baiting him with incivility and he was right to do so. Whether you said "you don't know shit (full stop)" or "you don't know shit (about whatever)", you were being plainly rude. You wanted to anger him, and you succeeded. Then you come here and pretend to have clean hands as you throw him under the bus.

Sorry, but you can't blame your behavior on my alleged bias. Don't shoot the messenger; deal with the truth of the message. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, wrong again. Do you want me to outline the exact timeline with dates? First of all, I didn't 'want him to get mad'. You aren't telepathic, so you cannot act as if you know my reasons for doing anything. And again, for the third time, Dest was incivil far before I even said that. So given that you have failed yet again to address the actual facts of the issue, and in fact you have accused me of something else again: blaming your bias for 'my behavior'. I did nothing of the kind; what I did do is tell you to redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as your clear bias is clouding your judgement, and as such, you are unable to comment here in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you want me to essentially shut up and go away. I understand that, but I can't agree to do it. He was right to accuse you of baiting him, as you were complaining about his behavior while being rude. When you accuse someone of an offense, it's vital not to commit it yourself in the process, and that's where you failed. To be very clear, I am not defending his behavior, just pointing out that you played a significant role in creating it through your own incivility. You can't complain that he was rude when you spurred him on. Dylan Flaherty 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Except, that is where you are wrong. I created nothing. Again, do I need to outline you the specific timeline with timestamps and a bulleted list? I may have influenced his latest reply, but only his latest. I did nothing to deserve the incivility and personal attacks he sent at me before that. I was not rude at all before I said that post you quote so often; that was my second to last reply, after he had insulted me several times, after I had politely asked him to redact his insults, only to be insulted further in reply.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. You were in the middle of an ongoing, petty dispute, when you decided that he was being rude. So you naturally demanded a retraction rudely. See the problem? It doesn't matter who started the incivility; you continued it. And when it had escalated enough, you came here to report him as if you had no role in the whole thing. This bothers me. Dylan Flaherty 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What bothers me is that you didn't even read the linked diff, because I was clearly not even rude. Oh, and there is no 'I decided he was rude'; he was rude from the start, as he clearly insulted me several times. Do you or do you not want me to outline the timeline for you? You clearly are not reading the diffs or checking the timestamps. All you are doing is supporting his behavior, by trying to say that it is my fault, when he had clearly started off with the incivility and personal attacks before I even posted to the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I just pointed out how you were baiting an editor the other day[61], gloating about a 3RR report. You've been talked to about your incivility very recently by several editors. Please don't go there, as your hands are not clean right now at all. You should move onto something else, I think. Doc talk 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And no, I don't want you to 'shut up', don't put words in my mouth. What I want is for you to substantiate your so far unsubstantiated accusations, which as they remain so, qualify as personal attacks. If you are not going to substantiate them, then redact them. That is what I want you to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave a very simple example. As far as I understand it, your response is something along the lines of "yes, but he started it". Do you think that's a sufficient answer or do you have a better one? Dylan Flaherty 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My response is nothing of the kind; you imply that I was the cause of all of his incivility. If you read the diffs, you would know this is not the case.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See, you did it again. The issue isn't whether you did it first, but whether you egged him on before you came here. Dylan Flaherty 03:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. There was no 'egging on'. I told him that he didn't know shit about me when he claimed to know things about me. That is by no means 'egging him on'. That's telling him he shouldn't act like he knows things about others when he clearly doesn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have noticed the dispute, and agree with the report by Dædαlus. While arguing about "consensus" vs. "conclusion" is not edifying, Destinero is being far too belligerent (example). It is good to ensure that NPOV applies to LGBT issues, but Destinero is too strident in the discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage: yes, statements from the reliable sources will be used, but sociological studies conducted in the last decade are not anywhere near as conclusive as "the fact that evolution occurs" noted by Destinero, and while both are topics that can be studied scientifically, it is not reasonable to suggest that opponents are somehow similar to those that oppose evolution, particularly when the dispute seems to be about whether "consensus" or "conclusion" should be used. Fixating on the "shit" comment by Dædαlus seems to be a complete misunderstanding (see WP:COMPETENCE). What happened was that Destinero posted a level 2 heading claiming Dædαlus had a certain inability, with further claims of irrationality in the comment (see previous diff), and Dædαlus responded "You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'." (diff). Under the circumstances, that is a very reasonable response and Destinero should have withdrawn their attack. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've been quite clear about the fact that Destinero was out of line. But it wan't as if Destinero conducted an edit war over "consensus"/"conclusion" all by himself for days, or as if Daedalus' comments were lacking in hostility. Taking someone to WP:ANI without having the cleanest of hands is a recipe for suicide, and I'm trying to stop Daedalus from cutting his own throat. Dylan Flaherty 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment above was "Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him". The reference to baiting is not correct, and may I suggest that a clean way to talk to Dædαlus would be at User talk:Daedalus969. Comments here should involve evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that if Dylan Flaherty was attempting to help, he did absolutely the opposite: he clearly misunderstands some key policies, and has himself successfully baited/goaded Daedelus into further discussion. Kudos to Daedelus for not chomping on the bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be a personal attack to me; "obviously don't understand..." is hardly a PA and I would encourage anyone who feels it is grows a thicker skin and avoid raising DRAMA here. What admin action is requested? The reply from Daedalus969 was just as uncivil. So, both of you are chastised for being uncivil and non-constructive in your discussion. Please try to keep it polite and focus on issues without resorting to minor jibes at each other. You are arguing over a single word of relatively minor consequence in one article, find a way to work it out civilly without policy baiting at AN/I. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I generally concur with the assessment and recommendation of User:tmorton166 (signing Errant) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• As a editor previously involved with Destinero on a previous trip through the subject matter I recognize all the same hallmarks of their particular PoV and agenda. I would would endorse the topic wide ban to be followed by a civility parole as it took multiple editors trying different techniques and dispute resolution to get a agreement on how to move forward with the issue at hand. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please identify the alleged PoV and agenda. I am curious what this should mean. If it is effort to follow the Wikipedia NPOV and Undue weight policy as I clarify further, I don't see any reason to stop it just because PoV and agenda some editors are to lessen the facts supported by highly reliable sources just since they are at the odds with their unfounded beliefs. --Destinero (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As evidenced in the MFD discussion(and the FAQ), you are very adamantly Pro-LGBT Parenting and are vitriolically against any sociology study that does not suport your view.Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me briefly address this and how I feel about it. Firstly, I admit I am either fully or greatly responsible for the atmosphere of the discussion. At the beginning was reverts of the other editor, since I assumed WP:BURDEN mandate "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." My change was fully supported by the sources as I shown later in discussions. The other editor object he can change the text supported by sources simply just because he want and know better than two leading dictionaries based on large linguistic corpus research programmes what the word conclusion mean, but he was unable to provide any evidence for his point of view. Moreover, he object there is dispute in the issue because of religion. From this it is completely clear he is wrong since he either intentionally ignore or don't understand the sentence "This conclusion is beyond dispute in the (scientific) field (= developmental psychology). There is no other explanation imaginable. His approach implies Wikipedia should inform everywhere there are people objecting to the fact the Earth is round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and that this illustrate the dispute about the issue. I consider such approach inherently flawed. If some religious bodies or people thinks the children need mother and father to flourish (= the children of same-sex couples fare worse) they should be able to substantiate such serious claims. "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science." (According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics http://www.youtube.com/user/EqualityMaine#p/u/38/mwz4mlsBgU8) This is pretty strong answer, isn't it?. There even could not be any other conclusion since none research suggest otherwise as the leading expert bodies from the US and Canada state. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349). There could be no dispute that the "the quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption." (http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf). "The body of research that has examined children’s and adolescents’ adjustment in the specific context of same-sex parenting represents approximately 30 years of scholarship and includes more than 50 peer-reviewed empirical reports. The earliest reports from studies of same-sex parenting were published in the late 1970's, and research has continued to the present. More than 100 articles about same-sex parents and/or their offspring have been published in respected academic journals or as chapters in books for use by other professionals. These present both qualitative research (relying primarily on interviews and discussions with either the youths or with the parents) and quantitative research. Most of the studies appeared in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions." (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf) "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF) This leads me to ask Johnuniq why he thinks "sociological studies conducted in the last decade are not anywhere near as conclusive as "the fact that evolution occurs" noted by Destinero" and who he is and what is his educational and professional background to counteract the Florida Appeal Court evaluation of the evidence and the esteemed developmental psychologist Michal Lamb testimony to the court. I strongly emphasize what the reliable expert sources state and back by the evidence are relevant here rather than what the Wikipedia editors think.

After all my effort and conviction of reasonable use of the word "conclusion" I understand the dispute and suggested what I hope is widely acceptable compromise version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&diff=398119114&oldid=398116699 The attacked sentence with words conclusion/consensus is replaced by the fact "There is no evidence to the contrary." referenced by the two highly reliable sources.

I understand the emotion here and even my head finally calmed down. Thus, I want to apologize to the Daedalus969 for offensive words from me. I could not understand why he still revert my version at the time. I let him to instigate me. I admit I did several faults. I believe we can move beyond that. After all, we all are the people. And we all want to contribute usefully and improve the Wikipedia, don't we? --Destinero (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor, and do not illustrate what you think my point is, because not only is such an act uncivil, it is flat out wrong. The flat earth analogy is way off, as what I have been saying is nowhere near that. You act as if you are apologizing, but then go right ahead and throw more insults. Let me give you a tip, Dest; don't make analogies about people's posts and post on what you think they mean.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

His approach implies Wikipedia should inform everywhere there are people objecting to the fact the Earth is round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and that this illustrate the dispute about the issue.. This is a flat-out insult; so again with my earlier suggestion of not making analogies about people's posts, or for that matter.. From this it is completely clear he is wrong since he either intentionally ignore or don't understand the sentence; the only thing completely clear here, is that you do not understand why WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are core policies, and do not understand how to conduct yourself in a way which follows them and that to this end, your topic ban should be broadened until such time you do understand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not able to understand it is not sufficient to write "The flat earth analogy is way off, as what I have been saying is nowhere near that." Either you are able to show evidence to your beliefs or stop write such nonsense. Moreover, I don't see your attemt to appology for your "shit" nowhere. Thus do me a favor and stop trolling, since it is completely clear now you don't care about content and compromise, but for broad topic ban due to silly issue. Thanks. --Destinero (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of choosing to take Tm's warning to heart, you decided to throw it back in his face, insulting me by calling me a troll, my posts nonsense, and still clinging to me telling you you don't know shit about me. I stand by what I said, because you do not know shit about me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, let me be ultra clear on something; this thread, as stated quite clearly at the top, was never about content, but your behavior, and the way you are continuing to behave. I asked for an extension of your topic ban, as you are clearly unable to work alongside those that disagree with you, opting instead to be uncivil and to insult. And as evidenced above, this behavior isn't showing any signs of stopping, so obviously, something needs to be done about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the giant blob of text that few people are going to read because your argument is so convoluted there is no way (short of a even bigger blob of text) of going through and refuting each of your points. Brevity is a virtue here. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quit it both of you. Destinero, try and be a little less... wordy with your arguments and try to focus more on the content, avoid skirting civility. Daedalus969, I doubt you will get a topic ban for mild incivility; the best way to avoid that sort of conversation is simply to ignore it. I re-iterate; you are arguing about one single word. Grab some perspective, find a compromise and get on with it. Things are so much more collegial when that happens and it avoids threads such as this. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

I've undid N419BH's closing of this discussion because A. It is not a content dispute and B. It is a behavioral problem that is definitely actionable, per the continued and unrelenting violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It may have arisen because of a content dispute, but this thread is not about the content. It is about the behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

nb: here's the undo.

This is more of the perseveration,^ref isn't it? Jack Merridew 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC) stricken per discussion on my talk

Is there a reason you refer to a diff in the past, instead of the current version? And I'm not going to drop an issue that isn't fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya, because it seems pertinent, as does the current version, which states: Please also note that I have a problem with dropping things, but I am working on it, and have made progress. Have you? Really? Seems to me this, and a lot else, amounts to a serious pattern of not dropping the stick. All about quibbling over two words. Sheeesh. Jack Merridew 21:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about the content, is about the behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. ANI is known for addressing the behaviour of all parties to whatever issue, and I'll refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, too. You know that you have 1264 posts to ANI? Out of 19261 edits? That's one-in-fifteen posts. See also: WP:ANISUCKS. Jack Merridew 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved please close this thread with reference to WP:WQA rather than referring to WP:LAME. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the lame. I chastised both of these two for civility and an inability to work constructively. While Destinero is verging on uncivil there has certainly been no personal attacks, and xhe should now be aware they need to focus more on content and to try and be briefer. Daedalus969 should be less quick to play the NPA and other behavioural cards as well as avoid DRAMA such as this thread. One word has lead to an insane amount of text, that is lame. Both of you figure out a quick compromise and quit worrying about it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that calling someone irrational, guessing at their motives, acting like you know their understanding of policy, claiming that they are ignoring specific policies, calling their edits nonsense is not uncivil? How on earth do you figure that? It is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. He isn't 'verging' on anything. He clearly violated it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit uncivil (as I said), but it's hardly worth kicking up a fuss about. Not to the length of this thread. Seriously. If I started a thread here every time someone told me I didn't understand policy and was being irrational, well :) we'd be here all night! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that it is an ongoing problem that is not ceasing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All this "close discussion and carry on" talk is sending a very bad message to Destinero, and is doing them no long-term favors. At the very least an unambiguous warning about incivility is required so Destinero understands that a talk page header with "Due to Daedalus969's inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources I had to revert"(diff) is not acceptable. I can understand people's reluctance to engage with the issue, but some relief is needed from the TLDR and contemptuous style illustrated by Destinero above which attempts to conflate Daedalus969's use of "consensus" to describe some sociological studies as equivalent to promoting a flat-Earth view. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an indefinite block of User:Pfagerburg

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Further information: User_talk:AniMate § Pfagerburg

I indefblocked Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in September, because his account has been used almost entirely since its creation in 2006 in pursuit of Jeff Merkey, a banned user who edits occasionally as IPs. Pfagerburg has made 738 edits, incl. 272 to articles, probably 90 percent of which have been Merkey-related. I warned him in July that if he continued to post about Merkey I would consider an indefinite block, and when I noticed in September that it was continuing, I applied it.

Animate unblocked him five hours later, on condition that he confine his posts about Merkey to the various boards, and that he start to edit as a regular Wikipedian. He has violated the second of these conditions—after his unblock he made about 18 edits then started on the Merkey issue again. And in my view the first condition was unreasonable. Pfagerburg needs to stay away from Merkey completely, not confine his comments to particular boards.

He was indefblocked by El C in May 2007 for focusing on Merkey, but Hemblock Martinis unblocked him. Then he was banned for one year by ArbCom in July 2007 for harassment of Merkey. In June 2008 Merkey complained to Pfagerburg's employer that Pfagerburg was continuing the pursuit using his employer's computers or telephones. In 2009 there was legal action of some kind between them in relation to the stalking allegations; Pfagerburg posted on his talk page that he had filed a lawsuit against Merkey for harassment, but it was dismissed. And yet Pfagerburg is still using his account almost entirely to report Merkey socks, or have Merkey-related articles deleted.

Pfagerburg says he has no other account. If that's true, then his sole purpose at Wikipedia is to continue this unhealthy interaction with Merkey, and I don't think we should be facilitating it. I'm therefore seeking consensus to re-apply the indefinite block, which I hope if agreed will stick this time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, as proposer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't seem like this user benefits wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I unblocked Pfagerburg on September 21, with the understanding that he would no longer pursue Jeff Merkey's edits. Since then, he has done some editing but has also removed a series of tags left by Jeff Merkey accusing 24.37.221.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Long Time Lurker (talk · contribs) of being Pfagerburg's socks. He then reported the IPs to WP:SPI. This doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Previously, Pfagerburg had been going through every single article Merkey had ever edited as an IP and undoing extremely old edits. He hasn't resumed that behavior and I don't think removing tags left by a banned user accusing you of being a sock master is particularly troublesome behavior. AniMate 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per SlimVirgin. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Slim, are you seeking a regular indefinite block or a community ban? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference it would make in this case, HJ. I'm seeking a block of this account and with it an understanding that any other account doing the same that appears to belong to Pfagerburg would be blocked too. But he were to create an account to edit about butterflies no one would know it was him, so there wouldn't be any problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you provide diffs showing he has resumed his previous behavior? AniMate 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See his contribs since you unblocked him. It's the same story: most of his edits are about Merkey, including the deleted ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can see is that since the unblock he made a single report to WP:SPI and another WP:AE reporting 6 socks that had repeatedly tagged two accounts as his sockpuppets. Under the terms of his unblock, he is allowed to make reports to the appropriate venue. The only other edits about Merkey I can see were alerting the six IPs he had reported them, which is required by both forums. AniMate 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also deleted edits, and the point is that he's made almost no edits that are not about Merkey. Please take that point. Look, if someone is harassing someone (if), then all interaction should be avoided. Merkey says Pfagerburg is harassing him. Pfagerburg says Merkey is harassing him. We don't need to know who is right. All we have to do is require that they stay away from each other on Wikipedia. Pfagerburg has refused to do that for almost four years. This idea of allowing him to use the account to make SPI reports about Merkey is just feeding what looks like an unhealthy obsession. That's why I'm requesting the indefblock be reinstated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the four deleted edits, one was an attempt to notify an IP about the SPI and the edit after that was to remove the message because he got the IP address wrong. I can only see two others which were o an SPI case he initiated in an attempt to clear himself from the sockpuppet allegations Merkey had leveled against him. However, he blanked that as well. I still see no reason for him not to defend himself against spurious sockpuppet allegations. AniMate 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per AniMate. I cannot see that Pfagerburg has done anything problematic or in violation of his editing restrictions since he was unblocked, and has actually done quite a few low-key but benficial edits. I'm not seeing how banning this user will improve Wikipedia. If someone can point out diffs that show how Pfagerburg has acted poorly I will reconsider my opinion. Reyk _YO! 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There are WP-skillful wiki-hounders that know how to play the WP game. Usually hounding via "just enforcing the rules". It's apparent that Pfagerburg is still focusing on Merkey. There are plenty of other people in WP besides Pfagerburg who can watch / report on Merkey... As a minimum, this needs an order to avoid all initiatives to be involved with Merkey. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this some what. Pfagerburg was blocked last time for this kind of hounding, but he was going through every IP Merkey had ever used and undoing their edits. That is harassment, and I unblocked when he gave his word that he would not continue that behavior. However, responding to someone who is labeling other accounts as your socks isn't hounding. AniMate 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order SlimVirgin left out the latest discussion, wherein it becomes very clear that she is failing to AGF. I pointed out an AN/I, and the only thing she appeared to have read is that I started an AN/I three months after a harassing phone call, completely neglecting the section where I noted why it took three months to bring the matter to an AN/I. There's also the minor issue of 14 edits != 23 edits. And the insinuation that I can't possibly be a "regular Wikipedian" and I must be a sockpuppet instead. And I'm still waiting on that Checkuser. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but "have Merkey-related articles deleted" constitutes a subtle - and insidious - distortion of the truth, and I think this comment should immediately follow the distortion in order to clear it up immediately. This is important, because together with the discussion on AniMate's talk page (9 != 23 [62]), it shows SV's pattern of repeatedly distorting what the record clearly says in order to make me look worse than I am.

I can't see my own deleted edits, so I am not 100% certain, but I believe that I CSD'ed one article (not articles, plural), and I did so only because it was Merkey-created. That it happened to be Merkey-related is what made it so easy to detect the sock master behind the article. Check the deletion log for MDB (Linux). I didn't even start the first deletion discussion. I'm not sure where to find the creation log, but the various accounts that repeatedly created it were confirmed as Merkey sockpuppets. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block, per Slim Virgin and Crossmer. North8000 has a good point, but I think an interaction ban is unlikely to work in this case, and would just end up in a block anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Clarify: Are you recommending an editor be blocked for tirelessly reverting a block-evading editor's edits? GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. All he did this time was report the socks and notify them about the reports. AniMate 04:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, his "policy-mandated notifications". [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] His creation of an SPI page. [68] His tagging a Merkey-related article for deletion. [69] And is User:24.37.221.6 Pfagerburg too? [70] You said yourself just days ago that he had perhaps violated the spirit of the unblock, and that you wouldn't oppose a total interaction ban. [71] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• What does the article he tagged for deletion have to do with anything? The tagging occurred 13 days before your original block. AniMate 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; one was in September. But the rest are from this month. Can you say why you said you'd support a total interaction ban if you feel the edits are harmless? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In that same edit, I said I wasn't sure what if anything needed to be done about it. After thinking about it, I solidified my position. I changed my mind. It's not unheard of. AniMate 06:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. This user has caused more than enough trouble for us users and admins at Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block. Reporting socks of a banned editor is just not all that heinous. Granted, Plagerburg should leave years - old edits alone unless he can point to somethng specifically wrong with their content, and it would be a good idea to work on reducing his percentage of Merkey-related edits. Cardamon (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pfagerburg's actions do not seem to be aimed at perpetuating the dispute, intended to bait the banned user, or at all harmful to the encyclopedia. Disclosure: I had a series of unfortunate interactions with the banned user in question a number of years ago on-wiki. Despite this, I agreed with the original ban of Pfagerburg too, but at the present time cannot see evidence that Pfagerburg is trying to drive the dispute further -- merely trying to defend himself with minimal drama. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I don't think Pfagerburg's recent activity has been willfully disruptive, if it's even to be considered disruptive. But Pfagerburg, your pattern of edits must change. That Merkey is banned does not make the outward appearance of your behavior any better. I would strongly suggest that you take up an activity such as recent changes patrol or new pages patrol if you are genuinely interested in combating nonconstructive edits as opposed to Merkey edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, could you make clear what you think ought to happen if the pattern of edits doesn't change? I'm asking because it almost certainly won't. There's a long-term issue here that I don't think anyone on Wikipedia can change, so it would be good to know what the consensus about it is, should it continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if Pfagerburg's behavior does not start to show a significant pattern of progressive improvement, a community ban would be in order. Exactly what has to change and how much time has to pass is out of my experience. I would like to see Pfagerburg participate in other community activities, and suggested the above (RCP and NPP) because I think the transition would be easiest; he does seem to have the inclination for these sorts of tasks. Moreover, this would help substantiate the claim that Pfagerburg's interest is in enforcing the community's policies generally rather than in perpetuating an off-wiki vendetta.

I am reluctant to support an interaction ban at this point because it may raise more questions than it answers. For instance, should we consider instigated incidents of interaction violations? There is evidence that some prior incidents were the result of intolerable instigation. Moreover, if Pfagerburg chooses to engage in recent changes patrol under such an interaction ban, he would need to avoid reverting any of Merkey's edits, just to avoid the risk of an investigation. This may have the effect of hamstringing any such efforts. Reverting the edits of a banned user is not something we should be punishing. Finally, this sort of arbitrary solution does not give room for progressive improvement; rather, it requires immediate improvement. Rome was not built in a day. I'm not saying we should tolerate an ongoing focus on Merkey's edits, but I think we should be prepared for the occasional questioned edit.

In summary, let him edit. If there's ongoing evidence of an unchanged editing fixation on Merkey, we should ban and block indef. If there's evidence of progressive improvement, existing restrictions should be gradually eased, and we can celebrate the cultivation of another committed Wikipedia editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what was suggested the last time he was on AN/I in September. The problem is that no matter what he's asked to do, and no matter what he says he will do, he continues to pursue Merkey and does no other editing to speak of. Normally, legal action between people results in them being asked to stay away from each other on Wikipedia, and not to edit articles related to each other. I'm very concerned that an exception is being made for Pfagerburg. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the thread in ANI archive 639, the one linked above? The result of that was an agreement to an interaction ban, with the evident understanding that violation of it would result in a long block. However, reading the thread itself, I'm not sure there was community consensus to impose such an outcome, or even that the reverts that lead to that outcome were necessarily bad. Given a lot of the same opinions are being expressed now, I feel even less sure that the resolution was based on the community's consensus, rather than just an agreement making further discussion seem moot.

I'll agree with the assessment that an adverse history such as litigation usually results in the parties being told to avoid one another on Wikipedia. However, the extent of the background in this case and the ongoing activity by the other party indicates that we should not expect rapid or incident-free improvement in Pfagerburg's behavior. And honestly, looking at the handful of Pfagerburg's contribs since the September incident, I don't think there's a large enough sample of contribs to really evaluate his behavior. I don't think we can fairly interpret the recent SPI/AE activity as a refusal to change.

But if there's no real response to the recommendations stemming from this current thread, including the suggested areas of interest mentioned here and on his user talk page, then I'd be willing to consider this a ban situation, reversible by meeting the conditions of WP:SO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest a total interaction ban on Pfagerburg. He noted in his last WP:AE report Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that he is already banned for any other form of interaction, but for sock reporting. He should let other people deal with suspected sockpuppets of the fabled banned user, including sleuthing them for a report. I think that ArbCom has been clear in a similar case (involving Scibaby) that a small set of editors pursuing suspected socks of a banned user can sometimes become an problematic issue in itself, despite the "shoot on sight" allowance in policy. Also, I suggest Pfagerburg start using a new account, whose name should be communicated only to ArbCom, but not posted on wiki, in order to avoid being himself continuously harassed by IP editors assumed to have a beef with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, creating a new account is an interesting idea, and one that I will give serious consideration.

However, I doubt such an action will stop the harassment. Witness the Canada IP, which has been falsely tagged as a sock of me, despite the fact that I haven't been in Canada since I was in grade school. I doubt there is anything that could be done to my account - an interaction ban (with edit history to prove adherence), a block, or even a complete vanishing (damnatio memoriae-style, which I know is not really possible) - that would prevent the banned user from claiming that I'm behind any account or IP that reports his socking.

Let's discuss further. I create a new account, inform Arbcom of the account name (presumably so they can monitor for naughtiness), and some time later, somebody (who is not me) tags a new Merkey sock. Merkey bounces his DSL modem to grab a new IP, and posts a sockpuppet|Pfagerburg on that person's user page. It's false, and without evidence. Please describe what steps you would see happening next. Pfagerburg (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone other than you will hopefully revert, block, ignore. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, since Pfagerburg appears named after a real life person name, the Pfagerburg account should also be renamed, so that further vandalism against it will be less of a WP:BLP concern. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my account name is based on my legal name. Renaming the account won't change a thing; every time a sock is spotted, tagged, and blocked, he will claim (as he did for the Canada IP) that it's me behind the reporting account or IP. I'm still waiting on the checkuser since SlimVirgin keeps insinuating that I'm behind the Canada IP. I can't speak for the person who uses that IP, but if you look at that IP's edits, there were plenty of reverts of non-Merkey vandalism. Then Merkey (we presume) tagged that IP as being a sockpuppet, and the result was that the presumed Merkey IP was blocked for 24 hours and the Canada IP was blocked for 48 hours. What would you do if you got blocked for being falsely accused? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, I've had a look at the user's recent edits, and while I agree that a large portion of them concern Merkey in some way or another, there's nothing particularly heinous there that I think justifies a community ban or indef block. I would strongly advise Pfagerburg to drop the whole matter and focus on something else, but I can't in good conscience agree to banning someone for following the rules. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
• Support I do not see the evidence under which Pfagerburg was unblocked, which was to disengage with regard to Merkey; therefore the block needs to be re-instated. Yes, discovered edits by socks of banned editors should be reverted (or adopted) but there is no necessity it need be done by Pfagerburg - and it is this type of wikilawyering, and the effort expended in investigating and discussing it, that is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked a question at User talk:Pfagerburg#So ..., Pfagerburg's answer to which might inform people's decisions in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Reverting edits made by banned editors while that editor was banned is inherently a good thing, and should not be discouraged. If people can demonstrate that the reverts are being made for edits performed while the editor wasn't banned, I could be persuaded to switch sides.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, only the ones made in violation of a block or ban. [72] Pfagerburg (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. -Atmoz (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Grump - I appreciate Pfagerburg's notifications, but it would help if it was not him doing them, given the history. At the very least, any on-wiki notifications. Merkey is banned and P has the best eye for Merkey contributions, but there is a real problem here. Perhaps an on-wiki complete interaction ban, with Pfagerburg encouraged to email functionaries or checkusers if he detects a sock, to keep it all off-wiki? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this may have the best chance of working, and will flesh out a proposal below. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe ive had occasion to occasionally work with this persons acquaintance and he has seemed like a dedicated and hardowrking Wikipedian editor. While I do find his focus on Jeffrey Merkey to be unhealthy for the purposes of editing, there are better remedies than a permanent ban over such a relatively easier remedied mistake that he had made in the past. Has anyone actually spoken to him and talked to him to see if hes alright? he doesn't have to be treated as bad as he can be contemplated!! User:Smith Jones 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's nothing wrong was reverting edits made by a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Mostly what Georgewilliamherbet said - when I spot a sock, I will not write about it on-wiki, but will e-mail an admin (TBD) to point out socks. Details forthcoming after I respond to some individual comments above. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New account

If I accept Tijfo098's proposal of creating a new account, the new account name will be communicated to Arbcom, who will presumably monitor for any violations of what I'm proposing.

Handling of sockpuppets

When I spot suspected Merkey sockpuppets:

• If the sock posts something on my user or talk page (or any sub-pages), I will remove the edit.
• In all other cases, I will not revert edits made by those socks, whether that's on articles, user pages, or WP pages.
• I will communicate information about the sock to an administrator (to be named) via e-mail, and not on-wiki.

Participation in RCP or NPP does not override the "only report it by e-mail and take no other action" condition just elaborated.

Don't expect many edits in the next few weeks

Please understand that I'm busy, per the notice on my talk page.

I finished the final project for a class this last weekend, and so I had a little time to pop onto WP. Unfortunately, that time got wasted because yet another IP from New Mexico was harassing me, and SV was again threatening to ban me, even though I had followed the conditions of my unblock by only reporting sockpuppets, not even reverting the socks' bad-faith accusations.

I've got a presentation to finish for class next Monday, and at work I have a customer demo on 15 Dec which will include the system firing the weapon. Those of you who are expecting me to make any substantial contribution in the very near future are going to be bitterly disappointed. Once the semester is over and the demo is done, I will have a little time to donate to improving the 'pedia, as opposed to defending myself against harassment and false sockpuppet accusations.

Setting SlimVirgin's record straight

There were subtle distortions that made the situation look worse than I think it is:

1. I CSD'ed one article, not multiple articles, and I CSD'ed it because it was created by a banned user, not because it was about his work. I didn't even start the first CSD.
2. I made 23 edits about something other than Merkey socks between unblock and SV's complaint on AniMate's talk page, not 9 edits as SV stated.
3. SV still won't get the count right, and says 18 edits above. Count them: 23, even if some of them are minor edits, and properly marked as such.
4. When it takes several edits to open an SPI about 6 IP socks (including notifications that are required by WP policy), it is grossly unfair to treat all of those highly-related edits as if they were separate and distinct. Next, she'll count the edits I made in the discussion on AniMate's talk page and here in this AN/I and say that I've made too many Merkey-related edits. So I guess I only get one edit per accusation. Clarifying anything is verboten, because it will increase my non-"genuine" edit count.

Points to ponder

Damn I wish I had thought of these earlier. Oh well. I'll present them now for any fence-sitters to evaluate.

When Merkey's BLP came up for deletion, I voted to delete it [73]. Would someone with an "unhealthy fascination" with Merkey want such a juicy target to be taken away?

When "Gaylynn Mitchell" (believed to be a Merkey sock) use several IP's in Utah to have Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeff V. Merkey/1 and Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/Jeff_Merkey blanked, I participated in the discussion. I opposed the edits due their sockpuppet-of-a-banned-user nature, but I listened to SV's reasoning, and then agreed with her [74]. I later suggested page protection to prevent a courtesy-blank being undone [75] and [76]. Does that sound like someone who is on a vendetta against Merkey?

Careful evaluation of an informal sockpuppet report [77], with plenty of WP:AGF.

Pfagerburg (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden blocked

I have blocked User:Colonel Warden indefinitely (see below) for disruptive editing.

• This offense: Moving tags from the top of an article to the bottom, in defiance of convention codified at WP:TC, here. I asked him to explain himself four and a half hours ago, and have received no reply.
  • His prior warning, for a similar incident less than two weeks ago (Nov 10th), as discussed previously at ANI, is here.
• Other recent and relevant incidents that contribute to this outcome:
  • Moving articles during AfD in a manner that disrupted the AfD outcome. The discussion was held less than a week ago, on November 16th. A topic ban proposal I authored but opposed received less than 50% support.
  • Omitting the un-redirecting of an article in an edit summary, as raised by User:Kww on my talk page on November 15th, at which point I again warned him. Note that Colonel Warden has been reprimanded for such edit summary omissions as early as December, 2008 here at ANI.
  • Improperly non-administratively closing an AfD discussion to which no speedy keep criterion applied, on October 14th, less than six weeks ago.

Sadly, Colonel Warden's involvement at ANI goes back years. While there is no doubt he contributes meaningfully to the encyclopedia. His conduct has been deficient in so many ways, despite multiple warnings and ANI threads, that the disruption is unconscionable; as a long-time contributor, his competence has not been questioned, so attributing ever-shifting deviations from editing expectations to simple mistakes strains credulity.

Unblocking terms

I do not believe in punitive or hand-slapping blocks, so I've blocked Colonel Warden indefinitely. Not infinitely, but until such time as the community and Colonel Warden are able to come to a mutual agreement about the conditions under which he may positively and productively participate in Wikipedia. While the community may feel free to support additional outcomes, I recommend one of the following:

• Unblock immediately the block itself will serve as a warning against Colonel Warden taking disruptive actions in the future, and waiting for him to apologize and/or promise not to do it again might be construed as punitive and/or coercing crocodile tears from him.
• Craft a community restriction as a condition of unblocking, akin to the one I proposed last week which failed to achieve consensus. I leave the specifics to someone else.

It's my hope that Colonel Warden will choose to edit with appropriate caution and respect for the deletion process, and I encourage the community's input on how we can best accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make sure I understand the timeline:
  • he makes that edit at 12:46 yesterday
  • he stops editing at 16:something today
  • you warn him about the edit at 18:58 today
  • he does not log in
  • you block him at 23:something today

Is that about right? I guess my suggestion then would be to unblock immediately and wait for him to answer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Colonel Warden was warned on November 15 about his behavior. He continued anyway. I say let the block stand until conditions for his unblock can be agreed upon. AniMate 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As the question was put to me: is there anything Colonel Warden would have said in explanation that would have altered the situation, given the spate of recent warnings he's received? I'm not opposed to unblocking him and admitting my error if he managed to convince me he was wrong, but that seems sufficiently unlikely to make delaying the response unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See: User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again, where much of this was initially discussed.

Someone craft some sort of restriction, such as last week's, plus a general restriction re disruption. The block should stand, in the meantime.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support open-ended block until he agrees to conditions such as...

1. No editing of article maintenance and/or cleanup tags (ie. adding them is fine, but moving and/or deleting is not);
2. No moving of articles currently at any stage in the deletion process;
3. No actions regarding the deletion process other than nomination and participation in discussions (ie. no removing PROD-tags, no closing XfDs etc.);
4. All edits to be accompanied by a comprehensive summary to the extent that a reasonable person would expect;

I tend to think that this would make all our lives a bit easier. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific on the edit summaries: "not undo or modify any redirects without explicitly stating in his edit summary that he is undoing a redirect and explaining the policy or guideline which justifies his change."—Kww(talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really object to that, though it would absolutely have been covered by a requirement for comprehensive edit-summaries as construed by the man on the Clapham omnibus... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd question whether forbidding the removal of PROD tags is necessarily appropriate. My understanding is that any deprod is considered valid, even if done in bad faith. I would not question, however, requiring strict compliance with WP:CONTESTED, especially requiring the use of {{deprod}} if it's felt there's substantial disruption of the PROD process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has the habit of adding extremely dodgy sources to articles in order to removed PROD tags. It's apparent to me that the tag shouldn't be removed until a second editor has had a chance to review.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think TT has hit on all the relevant points of CW's disruptive behavior. Thanks to JClemens for accurately reading the situation taking the necessary action. SnottyWong ^gab 23:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support TreasuryTag's restrictions. AniMate 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — This is good stuff, but it's missing:

  "Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months." (from Jclemens' thread in the prior ANI)

  This is the crux of his disruption. And, ya, I see that this could break the proposal.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Let's go with restricting the behavior first. If he acts up, we can always remove him from AfDs at a later time. AniMate 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sigh. I do support this, but maintain that more is necessary and hope others will nudge things further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm being a pragmatist. There's no way the Keep Squad will let him be blocked from AfDs. I do hope that consensus is reached for these restrictions, but I also think this block should stand for a couple of days. I can see no good faith reason for him to move those tags. AniMate 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I see that; and that, too. Does teh {{rescue}} template work on ANI threads? ;) The 'necessary' can be layered-on per subsequent discussion. I have significant experience with the "You're blocked" message, mostly when I tried, I was actually focused on 'viewing source', here, for efforts related to other projects. It's damned-effective at conveying the community's ire, so I agree that it should stand for days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I am often offended, but never surprised at the things you two say. Thank you for your kind comments, Deletionist Cabal. (/sarcasm, but not) Silverseren^C 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block and Support proposed restrictions/conditions for unblock. Not sure about the ban from AfD, OK either way. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, Support TT's unblock requirements proposal, Oppose AfD topic ban. CW's behavior is clearly disruptive, but topic ban is probably too much at this point, and as AniMate says, it can always be done later if needed. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Confused - Warning on 15th was for removing a citation needed tag; not moving one (for which no warning seems to have been issued). There seems to be one and only one article this was done to (I didn't find a second in the edit history, and only one diff on his talk page). Is this a disruption block or a community patience exhausted block? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's both. Colonel Warden has been behaving in a disruptive manner and people are tired of it. AniMate 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• And This ANI gives more background to the maintenance tags disruption issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• My comments at User talk:Colonel Warden#Explain yourself. in response to his comments there may be illuminating. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's evident to ANI participants that CW has not been making friends and influencing people, yet I don't see a pattern of serious disruption. Pops up, is resolved, something else pops up a month later, seems resolved, something else a month after that...

I don't know what that pattern makes; I would think "User conduct RFC" on first impression, not an indef for disruption.

Usually, I notice if people here are actually reaching the edge of truly exhausted community patience. I never got the sense of that here, with CW. I have no pretention that I couldn't just be missing the pattern - there's godawful much more stuff going on around here than any one human can coherently drink from the firehose. But I'm surprised.

Surprise is making me want evidence. There's A (singular) diff for the current block. There has been a tendency for there to be large ANI threads in the past with one or two diffs, and not a good pattern shown there either. I haven't seen a fully developed history of ANI incidents, etc.

In the name of fairness and reasonable information - I would like to request that someone pull together a reasonable evidence section for this request, so that people not closely following the CW saga can get a better picture of the events which are being argued warrant relatively significant enforcement.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap: Colonel Warden was first discussed at ANI for a clear pattern of inappropriately removing cleanup tags, and continuing this behavior after ignoring a warning on his talk page. See the original thread here and the following diffs: [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]. He was given a clear warning in that ANI thread that he should not continue this behavior. Four days later he continued his behavior, as can be seen here. He was again given another warning on his talk page (by Jclemens), and was discussed at length at User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. Despite the knowledge that he is skating on thin ice with regard to cleanup tags, he made yet another disruptive edit only a week after his second warning, where instead of deleting cleanup tags, he moved them to the bottom of the page. Technically, moving them to the bottom of the page isn't the same as deleting them, but it accomplishes the same thing and shouldn't be viewed any differently (lest we play into CW's thinly veiled attempt to game the system and avoid a block on a technicality). Hopefully this recap puts the pattern in perspective. SnottyWong ^communicate 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block, Support unblock requirement, but no topic-ban from AfD yet unless CW repeats anything like the moving of articles or closing AfDs wrongly (per above). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• #2 is unnecessary, as explained at length before. AFD is designed to accommodate this. You're going with the pile-on-everything-and-anything approach to this sort of thing, which is never good, as experience should have taught at least some of the people in this discussion. Stick to just the things that are actually problems. Read the prior discussion about page moves, don't just blindly hyperlink to it, to see what Colonel Warden said on the subject, including what xe said xe would do in the future. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that assessment. #2 does seem to be somewhat tangential to the immediate issue at hand. The pattern of disruptively moving articles during AfD is not as clear as the cleanup tag problem, and so it is plausible to AGF in that case and assume it was an isolated mistake. In addition, CW seems to have actually made an effort to correct that behavior. SnottyWong ^chat 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Support a topic ban preventing him from editing AfDs and articles that are the subjects of AfDs for a reasonable period or until he agrees not to act disruptively by moving articles, citing "sources" that he presumably knows are not relevant to establishing the notability of topics, and all the other tricks he's developed. (Ventriloquizing A Nobody seems a particularly poor choice of tactic, given that editor's ultimate fate.) Deor (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse two week block with topic ban I think changing the block to two weeks and after the block is up an indefinite topic ban to prevent further disruption. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse To some extent I feel this is building a mountain out of a molehill, but I agree his actions seem designed to disrupt and/or annoy other users. I'd really like to have a just "don't be disruptive" clause and move along, but I don't know that will work. So: Endorse 4 for certain, 3 assuming that doesn't mean he can't work to improve an article (though I think removing prods should be fine) and 1 assuming it doesn't mean he can't ask others to check an article and remove the tags if they think they should go (otherwise we end up with tags where they need to be removed and we are worse off). Weakly oppose 2 per Uncle G. I'd like to see a time limit on all this (say 6 months) at least #1. Oh, oppose other bans/blocks/etc. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and support some form of restrictions: I felt that the AFD mess was a genuine mistake, and the article was dramatically improved. But I talked to Colonel several weeks ago about moving maintenance templates and deleting them without addressing the issues - the excuse being that they were cosmetically not very nice. This is a recurring issue and CW is definitely aware of community views on the matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the community is aware of the views of the editorship at large and in practice on the matter, though. There's a reason that Wikipedia:Perennial proposals includes this. I can name several prominent editors — SimonP, David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Philip Baird Shearer spring immediately to mind — who have over the years expressed their dislike of the festivals of coloured boxes that some articles become, or who have objected to the notion that all tags should go at the top of an article in a big banner blindness lump. Even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags it has already been mentioned that not all maintenance tags create boxes, let alone go at the top of the article, even now. The community is not nearly as unanimous on this subject in practice as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup would lead one to think. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and support topic ban. Colonel Warden should be banned from dicking around with maintenance tags, editing in any way articles under discussion at AfD and using deceptive edit summaries. These are the three major ways his behaviour has been disruptive. I would have recommended an unblock as well, but since he's now wringing his hands and moaning about how hard done by he is (as though he doesn't know full well that his behaviour has been dodgier than the Average Joes buying a second-hand Dodge Charger in Dodge City), I support about a week-long block. I do not support banning him from commenting in AfD discussions. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever. Seems unlikely that giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is going to improve the encyclopaedia if next to no one with real talent wants to editor here anymore. Unless the Colonel is set free, there certainly wont be anymore of my hauntingly beautiful literary articles or very expert work on the interplay between international finance, politics and economic affairs. But maybe you guys know what youre doing... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is a deliberate misreading of the situation, as you well know. Why would you even bother? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Favor Unblock: No doubt CW is ruffling some feathers intentionally here, but I say let the block expire in a typical amount of time (24/48 hours?) like a normal block punishment. Going directly to an indefinite block does not seem to fit this "crime" if it indeed was a crime. Now, I know its quite horrible that CW gets upset in AfD when notable topic articles are nominated for deletion when the articles are in bad shape, but could be improved. Perhaps if CW was an admin and, say, deleted a slew of unreferenced BLPs along with eyebrow raising declarations and caused mayhem by it he would be rewarded for it, but instead he chooses to try to improve articles. Punish behavior that violates rules when we must, but don't punish his good goals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• But no block is meant to be a punishment ever. Blocks are preventative not punitive. In other words there is no such thing as a punishment that fits the crime. There are preventative measures that fit the disruption and indefinite blocks followed by discussions of long term solutions prior to unblock certainly fit this current disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block until this user demonstrates that he gets it, and ceases the annoyingly disruptive behavior that leads us to An/I week after week after week. I'm also concerned about DGG's willingness to unblock a fellow ARS comrade, as this is similarly protective/enabling behavior shown for menaces like "A Nobody". This is not a healthy mentality, and certainly not what one would expect from an admin. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Hopefully the RFC/U will bring desired results, if it can avoid being hijacked by the fan club. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews from uninvolved users

Can we get more uninvolved administrator comments here? Please use this section for admin comments, community members use the general section above. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can repeat or move what I said above, if you like: I have no prior involvement with CW and I endorse the block and support the restrictions/conditions for an unblock. I suspect I am not the only uninvolved admin who posted above. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not 100% sure I like the admin/nonadmin dichotomy (although the involved/uninvolved distinction might be useful), but I won't fight it right now. I'm a little uncomfortable with how this played out, and for a long term editor editing in good faith and no emergency, I would have preferred an RFCU before a block. It's quite possible that CW will need to modify his behavior some, but I don't think the long term pattern of disruption is nearly as clear cut as has been implied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well you should; the Community consists of uninvolved users - not simply uninvolved administrators, so the unsubtle/subtle attempts to change this set up is not acceptable. ANI is not an AE board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin response: I find this entire thing to be utterly ridiculous. The recent AfD thing was, as I raised my opinion there, not an important issue and a mistake on CW's part, which left an improved article all in all. Furthermore, why the heck does someone get indefinitely banned when they move some tags on an article to the bottom of an article? I've seen this done a number of times by various users and i've never heard of WP:TC before this discussion. The edit summary thing from the 16th not really an issue at all. If it was being used to cover up vandalism or perpetuate a edit war, that would be one thing. And then, bringing up something from six weeks ago that is on a subject that has nothing to do with this is strange. Again, this seems like an over-reaction. Silverseren^C 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • How many mistakes does Colonel Warden get in his participation in AfD's and article rescue? Is he incompetent or gaming the system? You tell me; either way, his actual conduct has been consistently below that we expect of editors. Warnings haven't worked--I've given him two recently. You tell me what it will take to get Colonel Warden to participate in a forthright manner, and I'll back it 100%. If there's consensus on the circumstances under which he can be unblocked and contribute, I'll be happy to either do it myself or have any handy administrator do it. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you're not really that dumb, Seren. If you're told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that persistently removing maintenance tags is disruptive, do you think "OK I will stop doing that", or as CW has, do you think "well, I'm going to ignore all those people, but if I delete the tags I'll get blocked - so how can I get rid of them without actually deleting them ... oh I know, I'll move them to the bottom of the page where no-one can see them!". The former is what most editors would do, the latter is deliberate disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the tags down, following all that, was blockworthy disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • I am not making any assumptions on CW's motives. I'm pointing out that numerous people put or move tags related to references or categories to the associated sections near the bottom. If you wish to assume bad faith about CW, feel free to do so, but i'm not that type of person. Silverseren^C 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Really? How prevalent are {{Article issues}} tags at the bottom of articles? How many other editors move tags there during AfD discussions? How many editors do so when they've been warned multiple times in the past couple of weeks for odd and unusual editing patterns that have disrupted AfDs? Go read his latest response and tell me what you see: a user acknowledging that his editing style has consistently been held to be not up to expectations? A user who admits he should have known better? What do you see? Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I've read thousands upon thousands of articles on en.WP and cannot recall ever once seeing those colour-banded worry tags at the bottom of an article, until I saw the CW diff. I guess they get put down there now and then but I think it's fair to say, it almost never happens. Ss says, "numerous people put or move tags [...] near the bottom." I'd truly like to see some diffs showing this, because putting them at the bottom utterly thwarts what they're meant to do, which is to make a reader aware of any editorial worries before they begin reading. I also think this is why CW put them at the bottom, he was hiding them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The only cleanup tags that routinely goes at the bottom of the page are ones that pertain to categories. Also, if a user is not familiar with (or has "never heard of") WP:TC, then they really shouldn't be touching cleanup tags at all. That's like an admin who is unaware of WP:BLOCK going around blocking people for no reason. SnottyWong ^babble 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • You are correct that the Article issues tag is not likely to be moved down, but i'm willing to believe that that was an accident or mistake on CW's part, as he did also move down the reference list and categories tags. I really don't see the harm in doing so, however, which is why I still believe that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The tags have little to do with an AfD discussion, since its supposed to be about the notability of the article subject, not the number of tags slapped on the article. And I did read his latest response and I thought it well-thought out and it addressed the various points that you have raised, especially on pointing out that WP:TC is neither a policy or a guideline. And he has a good point in the fact that you have been rather negative toward him in the past few weeks. Silverseren^C 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to each of CW's points on his talk page. You're right that WP:TC is neither a policy nor a guideline. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes) clearly is a relevant, long-standing guideline which states that such templates "go at the top of articles/sections, and identify problems or issues with the article." The argument that there is no consensus for the proper location of cleanup tags is pretty tenuous. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And you expect him to know about every aspect of the manual of style? I know very little about it myself and certainly nothing about individual pages of it. Silverseren^C 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. Yes, I expect a user with 20,000+ edits to be familiar with the MOS. Is that too much to ask? Even if he's not familiar with that particular page of the MOS, I would expect any editor who has looked at tens of thousands of articles to be capable of recognizing the pattern that everyone puts cleanup tags at the top of the article. Everyone. I would bet the farm that if we programmed a bot to look at every article on Wikipedia that has a cleanup tag (with the exception of category-related tags, or tags that only refer to a section and not the whole article), at least 99.99% of the articles would have the cleanup tags at the top of the article. I only have made less than a third of the edits that CW does, and I am familiar with the convention and have no problem understanding it. This is wikilawyering at its best. As many have said already: if he doesn't understand the conventions and guidelines for cleanup tags by this point, then he is completely incompetent. If he does understand them, then he is purposely disrupting. Either way, we don't need completely incompetent people nor do we need intentionally disruptive people on WP. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think almost experienced editor is bound to understand that the tags are wholly thwarted if they're not at the top, where a reader will see them before they begin reading the text. Why else would CW have put them at the bottom? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, and support an unblock once an RFC/U is opened, as per above by Floquenbeam. Nakon 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unless he gives an indication of what he'll stop doing, or understands what he should avoid doing, I think in this case (right at this point in time), formal restrictions would prolong the agony of it all. Endorse RfC/U by involved parties. But note, in an RfC/U, the only place he would be able to respond is in his response section, and on the RfC/U talk page. No comment on the block or potential unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as strongly as I possibly can. As I see there is not unanimous support for JC, I am willing to unblock, though I like to avoid conflict and would prefer if someone else did it, and to oppose any topic ban. This is a ridiculous attack on an excellent editor and one of the most helpful contributors to AfD-- based on what are trivial misdemeanors. (I am not being uncritical: there was a short burst of what looked like WP:POINt in the past, which did need attention, and received it. Had he continued on large scale detagging U would not be supporting him, but these are individual articles.) The additional events are as minor as can reasonably be imagined. Removing a single citation needed tag is cause for a talk page discussion not a block. I have removed many unnnecessary and disruptive such citation needed tags, (along, of course, with adding others when they are needed). If someone removes a tag I've placed, And if the matter is moving a tag, that's about as trivial an offense as can be imagined. Seizing on this as a attack for a block must have am motive, and I cannot think of a good one. I do not try to block them. What else is there, Jclemens? You've never to my knowledge been this unreasonable before, and there must be some reason--do you think perhaps he is personally out to spite you in particular--if so, you should not be blocking. If an RfC is needed, open one, but remember that such action tend to lead to the comments about everyone concerned. The idea of blocking until an RfC is opened is total nonsense--what purpose is supposed to be served by that? Punish first, and discuss afterwards? DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since the consensus here is very clearly that some sort of block is appropriate, I would suggest unblocking before the community has decided on a plan going forward would be extremely unwise. Incidentally, how would an RFC on Colonel Warden involve the actions of anyone else? Who else has been disrupting AfD, screwing around with maintenance tags until they got blocked, and using deceptive edit summaries here? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• How disruptive does an editor that is trying to "save articles" have to get before you would act, DGG? You defended Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles well past any sane point, and Colonel Warden has always been a similar problem editor. It is apparent that Colonel Warden has determined that the most effective way to "save articles" is to disrupt the deletion process. We can't afford to have editors around that intentionally disrupt processes.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• DGG, this is exactly the type of sentiment that enables CW to continue his disruptive behavior. There has never been an acknowledgement of, apology for, or promise to cease CW's cleanup tag jihad. Unblocking him now (before we have seen that acknowledgement, or decided on a topic ban) would send him the message that what he did wasn't really disruptive, and he can continue to find ways to push his POV about how cleanup tags should be used. Also, if I might add, a wheel war unblock coming from someone who is a good friend of CW could be interpreted as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. To this point, no one other than friends of CW have opposed these actions. SnottyWong ^chat 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SW, reverting another admins block is not wheel warring. Reimposing it would be. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. Struck through. SnottyWong ^converse 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, but only pending the filing of an RfC/U. Despite the problems I've had with this user in the past, the blocking does seem a little harsh given the rather quick turnaround time after the final warning. With that said, the community definitely does not approve of the good Colonel's behaviour, and examining the issues rationally in a less heated environment than ANI might be helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
• Neutral comment I understand Jclemens' thinking behind the block. I would have thought a short block for disruption followed by discussion, maybe or maybe not leading to an RfCU, would have been more fitting. Now that this has happened, an unblock (as in "shortened to time already blocked") followed by talking with CW about these worries is most likely the way to go from here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at CW's talk page, I no longer think an unblock will help much. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• endorse block Several threads have been started to talk with Colonel Warden and yet he carries on from one disruptive activity to the next, barely escaping blocks each time. It finally caught up with him and this really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Colonel Warden has been a pain in the side to the AFD crew, Some type of further action needs to be discussed. I think an RFC/U is best course right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose the block because no disruptive editing has been cited. It's only convention that places tags at the top--the bottom may well work better for all I know. It is quite in order to move articles during AfD, especially if in doing so one resolves issues that would otherwise lead to deletion of the article. So let's see some actual evidence of disruption, please. He should be unblocked if none is forthcoming. --TS 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, CW is a long-term disruptive editor: as noted in Jclemens's summary above, he's been using false edit summaries for years despite complaints. Snottywong provided a good recap of the most recent troubles here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a content dispute. There is absolutely no requirement to place cleanup tags according to some preset formula. If JClemens has been harassing this editor because he's doing it differently, he's doing it wrong. That isn't how Wikipedia works, and JClemens and all others should know it. --TS 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The MoS guideline about it says they go at the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the entire thread and/or the previous ones linked above. When an editor is told by multiple uninvolved editors at their umpteenth visit to ANI that they are being disruptive by removing clearly valid maintenance tags from articles at AfD with deceptive edit summaries (and this after previous disruptions of the AfD process), then would you not suggest to them that deliberately yanking the communities' chain by instead moving the maintenance tags at an article at AfD to the bottom of the article (where they won't be seen) isn't a good idea?. Wouldn't you? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse good grief. Been using misleading edit summaries for years, stating stuff exists in sources that, when examined, is not found there, refuses to be straigthforward about his behavior, uses manifestly bad sources and refuses to correct that behavior and, yes, continues to seek to remove tags after repeated warnings to stop doing so. Only unblock if you get a promise to change the behavior (which would require an acknowledgement that he's been refusing to heed advice from multiple editors for a long period of time). If he continue to insist that he doesn't understand what's going on, then leave him indeffed. Taking him at his word (that he really hasn't understood all this communication) that's a competence problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and unblock length reduction with suitable conditions. By convention tags are placed the top (with very few exceptions, and {{article issues}} is not one of them). As an experienced user, CW knows or should have known that, especially given that they left the {{rescue}} tag, which they added in the same edit, at the top. With them having been previously warned for disruptive removal of tags, I do not see how it is possible to interpret this edit as anything other than intentional disruption. The incident itself may be minor, but the disruptive intent is evident, and it is the latter that matters. T. Canens (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • After reading their bizarre interpretation of WP:DE on their talk page (as far as I can follow it, the argument goes that, because it is disruption to "disrupt[] progress toward improving an article", and because their edit, in part, "improved the article" by adding references, questioning that edit - even if unrelated to the references - is disruption). Either they are intentionally wikilawyering, or they are totally clueless. I think a reduction is appropriate once the conditions/restrictions are worked out, but I am no longer convinced that time served is a good option here. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not really involved in the current dispute, but I've had run-ins with Colonel Warden in the past (in particular, on bus route AFDs). I'm seeing an editor who perhaps had good intentions at one point, but now seems to have gone past disruption point. There's a reason we're called editors, and Colonel doesn't seem to understand that. Editing involves removing as well as adding material. I endorse the block and the restrictions mentioned. A ban on AFDs is a good idea, perhaps for the future, as this is where most of his disruption originates. AD 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm amazed by this. Or perhaps I should not be . This is a classic example of piling on when someone whose has a position one does not like has made some trivial errors. It's the sort of bullying which remains present at Wikipedia. The way of resolving disputes, especially content disputes, here has tended to be to wait until the opposing party has done something wrong, and then seize on it to get rid of them, without the need to address the real issue. It'a a manner of proceeding which does us the highest degree of discredit. This is one of the most absurdly exaggerated examples I have seen here. In this case, it's based not about a specific content issue, but an general one about the way of improving Wikipedia. The people opposing the Col are, for the most part, people who have dedicated themselves to improving Wikipedia by removing articles, some in a less reasonable manner than others. The Col takes the other approach entirely--of rescuing whatever can possibly be rescued, and he does it by rewriting and sourcing articles. This method of preventing deletion is indeed impossible to answer,for if one fixes an article enough, neutral people almost always !vote to keep it. It therefore should not surprise me that those who are frustrated by his success might seek to stop him.

with regards to some comments above: I supported A Nobody because I basically agreed with what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, he adopted for some reason I have never understood a very peculiar way of discussing things at inordinate length, with excessive repetition, and an affected style. This style not unreasonable annoyed a great many people of all persuasions and eventually made it impossible to defend him,and, beyond a certain point, I did not do so. The col, however, works for the most part in an entirely beneficial manner, and will be much easier to defend. There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him. He is not perfect, and the one charge against him that is correct is misleading edit summaries. I do not know why he does it, for I doubt they actually mislead anybody. It is not reason for a block, and if sentiment is otherwise, it's reason for a very short one, in order to give the earliest possible opportunity to show improvement. I therefore suggest shortening the block to time served. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nothing to do with disagreeing with a user's opinion. It's how the opinion is presented and forced into articles in a disruptive manner. It's nothing about bullying - victims of bullying do nothing to attract the bully, and yet Colonel Warden frequents AFDs and votes to keep pretty much everything, and has on several occasion made several disruptive actions which cannot be seen as good faith. That is not a sign of innocence. It's easy to play the bully card, but your understanding of what bullying is, is flawed. I'ts nothing at all to do with stopping his "success" - it's stopping his disruptive editing. It does not surprise me to see inclusionists supporting his disruptive behaviour. As I don't believe in having agendas on Wikipedia, I look at every article objectively so I cannot be considered a deletionist - or as you might believe, an "enemy" of Colonel - so it's not like it's people getting their revenge. Really he has had numerous opportunities to show improvement and has completely failed to, so what makes him so special that he is above the rules? AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to press one or two admins of my acquaintance to consider whether they would unblock this editor on the condition that he await the outcome of an RFC on his conduct before resuming his contributions at AfD, his work on redirects, and his use of tags on articles. To my mind none of this conduct is actually disruptive, but I recognize that it is widely considered (at least in this discussion) to be "the wrong way to act." If this fellow is really so disruptive, perhaps it should be made more apparent to those of us who would otherwise actually think the chap might be making legitimate and even beneficial edits. --TS 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked, RFC/U to start

In light of multiple, reasoned opinions that an RFC/U is the proper place to establish patterns of editing and appropriate expectations and restrictions, I have unblocked Colonel Warden. While the consensus is clear here that blocking was not incorrect, I do not believe that leaving Colonel Warden blocked for the duration of a drawn-out discussion is warranted. An RFC/U, incorporating the discussion from this ANI thread so far, seems to be the proper venue going forward.
At the same time, I'm interested in stepping out of this particular case. I would rather that someone else could start the RFC/U and proceed from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens. You've done a good job here to get the ball rolling. AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. It's pretty clear from CW's talk page that he does not understand how wrong his behaviour is. If that's willful, that's one problem, if it's due to real lack of comprehension, it's another. I don't see anything that happened between the block being made and the block being lifted that signals that any meaningful change will occur.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you unblocked, but at the same time I'm disappointed to see that CW's regular tactic of just waiting it out and letting the pressure build has worked. Throughout all of the warnings and ANI threads, we still have not seen an acknowledgement from CW that there is a problem, or that he is aware that he's doing something wrong. I would have hoped for that to be a minimum prerequisite for an unblock. If anything, the comments on his talk page have shown that he believes there is no problem at all. While I tire of the drama related to this, I am not ready to let this go. I will start a draft RFC/U on a user subpage. Anyone is free to edit it before I post it. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you've got supposedly reliable admins like DGG verging on personal attacks with "There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him", what else do you expect? I hope this - which is effectively enabling disruption - will certainly be brought up in the RFCU. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I weighed that, Snottywong. If Colonel Warden edits in a manner inconsistent with best practices at this point, someone else can block him. I'm pretty thick skinned, and I'm OK with the abuse I've taken to date, but it's really time for someone else to take over. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is expected; I outlined this on your talk page, yesterday. I do thank you for your overall approach. I expect to certify or endorse whatever emerges; TBD, of course, and I'll certainly opine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban request for Cloudkade11

Resolved

I want this guy CloudKade11 banned from Wikipedia, he claims that the One Life to Live Comings and Goings section has been changed to fit the characters not the actors, and says that it was wrong the whole time, but the truth is I never seen any evidence of this change, he also claimed that he reported me but I didn't do anything worth to be reported for, he was also rude to other editors on here claiming that they were being rude to him, he thinks he is Mr. Bigshot and wants to control people how they do stuff on here. YoungAndWise (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is a sock of User:Onelifefreak2007. The run on sentences are kind of a dead giveaway, plus the need to control all pages related to One Life to Live. AniMate 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This I will have you blocked permanently, notice the cast is first and characters are last, and Wikipedia also has a character page, so I don't know who the hell you think you are but I'm here now and things go my way on here, do you understand me? so change it or you're editing days on here are over for good. Trust me dude, don't fuck with me cuz you don't want the outcome, I always come out on top always, so my suggestion to you is, either change it or suffer the consequence, is a bit of a give away. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This account is really being shared by PBML and Onelifefreak2007. Have fun. YoungAndWise (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's now blocked. AniMate 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting song articles

Resolved

 – Edits are well within policy, editor has explained rationale and supporting policy on OE's talk. N419BH 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[87] Looks like we've got an editor taking it upon himself to redirect dozens of song articles and blanking their talk pages. Not sure if there was a discussion about this somewhere to establish that there is consensus for this but I'm of the opinion that many of these article's content could still be salvaged, and even those that should be redirected that's still no reason to blank the talk pages, especially if they have discussions on them, and any WikiProject tags should have their class= parameter set to say "redirect" or "NA" class, which would at least categorize them as being former articles which were redirected. Anyways, I was about to just revert all the talk page blankings but thought I'd bring that matter up to the community for a some other opinions. Will notify user of thread. -- œ^™ 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• BRD. The claim is that those songs are not notable, and many I think should be redirect (but have their talk pages redirected too, of course), but for those that had a lot of good content, maybe revert the redirection/blanking and work on them? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I totally disagree that talk pages of redirected articles should be blanked OR redirected. They should remain as is, their wikiproject templates changed to redirect-class, and if content was merged, a {{mergedto}} template should be placed. I don't know why editors think that redirects don't deserve talk pages anyway. But what irks me the most is this one editor unilaterally making the decision that some 50 or so stubs, other editor's work, is not notable enough, and not even worth merging. Once again, if there was indeed discussion beforehand about this I apologize. In fact I'm just going to drop this. I'm used to others wondering why I rant and frustrate over minor details. -- œ^™ 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, no, I don't think it was the best idea for anyone to mass redirect articles without discussion, nor do I know of any discussion about this. I'm reasonably sure that had many of the stubby ones been at AfD, they would have been redirected, too, but some can be saved, although I would still ask the redirecting user about this, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NSONGS (which I linked to and quoted in my edit summaries), specifically the following part:

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The reason I did not start a discussion before reverting these, was that these articles rarely ever had more than a line or two, information which was redundant to the album articles anyway (see: [88], [89], [90]). I thought the redirects would be uncontroversial. If any article had as much as a paragraph or two of reasonably well-cited information, I did not redirect. In any case, I do not see this as a case for AN/I, shall we continue this discussion on our talk pages?—indopug (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes we shall continue on my talk page. -- œ^™ 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly inappropriate canvassing concerning currently open MfD

An MfD was opened here for the very short essay Wikipedia:Civility police. At the time, the author of the essay, User:Christopher Connor, was blocked for "inappropriate use of Nazi imagery despite warnings". (Coincidentally, User:Christopher Connor had also made similar use [91] of Nazi imagery in the Civility Police essay itself, but this had been removed by another user before the MfD was issued.)

The first four !votes in the deletion discussion were Delete [92]. Then, while Christopher Connor was still blocked, an IP address 184.168.193.22 appeared [93] on the talk page of Malleus Fatuorum, who is well known for his negative opinions about "civility warriors" and similar, and also happens to have one of the most watched user talk pages on Wikipedia. (One might presume a fair number of the watchers share his views.) The IP address suggested Malleus may have an interest in the MfD as "An attempt by the civility police to obfuscate their shady activities and stifle documentation of their character".

Malleus did not participate in the deletion discussion, but, within 12 hours of the IP address post on his page, the situation in the MfD had been effectively reversed [94].

Special:Contributions/184.168.193.22 shows that this canvassing was the only edit ever made by this IP. In addition, IP address lookup sites (example [95]) describe this IP address as "Suspected network sharing device" - in other words, it's likely to be a proxy.

I'm not sure where exactly this falls in terms of seriousness, especially given that only one message was posted in total as far as I know, but I would suggest under WP:CANVASS it would meet votestacking as being aimed at a partisan audience, and stealth canvassing as being completely lacking in transparency. Nor do I have any idea of what action is practical.

(I'm about to go and notify the two accounts and one IP address that I've mentioned above.)

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Popcorn?

Pass the popcorn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrections: at the time the IP posted their message, there was the nominator and two others in favor of deletion, and one comment by someone questioning the validity of the nomination. While I can't be sure, it appears from the timeline like the next delete opinion was expressed by someone likely led to the discussion from seeing it on MF's page. Indeed, MF's page is watched by a wide variety of people, not all of them sharing his general outlook; some probably consider themselves nemeses.

In other words, I'm not entirely sure it meets any of the conditions for canvassing, and even if it meets one of them, it seems to be a tempest in a teacup. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that a very significant number of my talk page watchers do not share my views on the civility police, or indeed my outlook in general, as you say, so at the worst this is reverse-canvassing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the one place more likely than any other to have a high concentration of people who think that page should be deleted is..... ANI! --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that never occurred to Demiurge1000. Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Mr. Connor are we seriously here again over another Nazi Page? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That IP goes to an address in Scottsdale in the US, whereas I live in the UK. I also don't appreciate this issue being repeatedly raised. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its where Go Daddy's and Sprint Nextel's Severs are so the Geolocation means nothing. On a side note What other essays have you written or contributed to? I dont think we can technically do anything about this one since it was created long before your last block. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As I pointed out, the IP is probably a proxy. That would allow a user in the UK to make edits from it despite not living in the USA. It would also allow a blocked user to make edits from it. (That said, it's also possible that someone trying to make CC look bad, made the edit - apparently that sort of thing happens occasionally.) And yes, the original creation of this essay predated all the later excitement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec with self) I don't think posting this on Malleus's talk page will change the effect of the mfd. It'll only give the MfD more attention.

• Malleus' talk is heavily watched, mostly by ive groups of people:

1. People who share his opinion on civility police
2. Active FAC reviewers
3. "Civility police" chomping at the bit for a chance to block him for the umpteenth time
4. Random passersby
5. Editors working on GA's/FA's making copy-edit requests

Access Denied 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Fcsuper

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard § Timeline_of_the_burrito

Fcsuper (talk · contribs) has been engaging in obsessive and tendentious editing on Timeline of the burrito and Talk:Timeline of the burrito for more than a week now. As a means of improving the atmosphere of harmonious discussion and raising the tenor of debate, I proposed a merge as a compromise, hoping that in the process, I could bring Fcsuper to the table of reasonable discourse. I was surprised to find that my proposal had the opposite effect: Fcsuper began edit warring over content that was discussed on talk, and began to engage in tag bombing.[96][97] Multiple attempts to discuss this behavior with the editor have failed, and I have documented at least three instances where Fcsuper has asked a question about the content, received a response, ignored the response,[98][99][100] and then proceeded to ask the same questions over and over again, going so far as to copy and paste them into new threads, three more times.[101][102][103] In order to put a stop to this behavior, I've asked Fcsuper to go back and respond to the points I've already made to his questions; he has refused to do so, preferring to ask the same question about the content, over and over again. I am currently involved in merging salvageable information into the history of the burrito article[104] per my original merge proposal.[105] Although there are several routes administrators could go down to help diffuse this situation (blocking, protection) it would be most helpful if Fcsuper could be asked to slow down and address the points that have already been made instead of continuing to ask the same question over and over again, pretending the answers have never been given. Discussion with the user on his talk page[106] and on the article talk page has come to a dead end. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas is engaged in protectionsim of an article that has multiple WP violation. This is that person's effort to redirect the problem with the content of that article. It is in the interest of Wikipedians to improve the content of the Timeline of the Burrito article prior to merger due to its poor content. Viriditas is trying to game the system to introduce this poor content into a main article. When I first brought up issues with the article, Viriditas was responsive (though a bit delayed). But when it came time to redact WP violations from the article, Viriditas reacted with unqualified and unexplained reverts. He is already come close to a 3RR violation, which I have been more than gratious to ignore. I have nothing further to add since I am editing and reacting in good faith. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem here beyond Viriditas' difficulties in focusing on content on the article talk page, at NPOVN, and at Fcsuper's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:4chan_front_page_2010.png

Can some administrator please delete the version of this image that I've just reverted away from? It is being used for 4chan-related lameness. Also, it would be nice to protect the non-lame version, since otherwise this is going to recur. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? It was recently changed by a user who has been here for 6 months, and has had nothing but good-faith edits. Have you tried conversing with that user and asking them why they changed the picture? WP:AGF could be used here. --Jayron32 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundraiser banner seems to be in the image. --Bsadowski1 07:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you notify AndrewN of this section? It appears not. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have carefully not implied that there is any problem with the user who uploaded the image. However, the image in question deliberately misuses WMF imagery, and regardless of the uploader's intentions 4chan itself is currently full of posters chortling gleefully at the prospects implied by the image. I will notify the uploader, but that image is a terrible idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected the image for 3 months. There is a reason why we have a neutral picture of that image on the 4chan page. I know it sounds COI-ish, but having Jimbo's picture on the 4chan article brings forth more issues as far as WP:BLP issues on the Jimmy Wales article; the inclusion of that is clearly intended to slam him in light of the current WMF fundraising campaign. –MuZemike 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad block due to excessive length (it needs immediate protection to prevent the drama llama coming to town, and to allow for content discussion to occur), and subverts the possibility consensus discussion on the File:'s talk page, a page which could be well used by most of the people here as this appears to be a content dispute, see the characterisation of the File upload as "vandalism". Fifelfoo (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it being lifted at any time, provided there is a consensus to do so. I do not want a revert-war over images to occur, which it was clear to me that this was imminent. There is no talk page discussion being prohibited, unless you think the lack of drama is prohibitiing that. –MuZemike 08:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: I think User:AndrewN acted in good faith - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I admittedly did originally think it was vandalism, although after looking at the uploader I no longer think so. I'm afraid I can't change the edit summary, so you'll have to take my word for it. Meanwhile, however, it is not a "content dispute" - the image version that was uploaded recently has content directly aimed at Wikipedia in it, and the previous, neutral version does not. The recent screenshot is, again, just a really bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to MuZemike: no worries, I'll contact you if any changes occurs. My main concern is the licensing status of the banner image, as to whether the banner's use on 4chan is licensed or simply parody fair use. I think the variance between the prior and current versions displays something previously not displayed in the fair use image: server level enforced parody structures, such as text filters or "party hats". In reply to Gavia immer, that sounds like a desire to censor external content because you don't like it. As regards the image's neutral depiction of its subject, see the content point immediately prior. Can you point to policy reasons for your belief this isn't a content dispute? "An external party is critical of wikipedia by parody" does not seem to be adequate to describe this as anything more than a disagreement over content. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "neutral depiction of its subject", is my point - we had one of those. The problem image was uploaded specifically to show the subject taking a jab at Jimbo etc., and is not neutral. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint is a content complaint. Your belief is that an image of 4chan does not neutrally depict 4chan because it does not neutrally depict Jimbo. I would suggest that there is a flaw in your argument. I suggest you take your content argument to the file's talk page and seek to build consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend following Fifelfoo's recommendation there, which is the main rationale behind the protection. (We do have a content dispute here, which needs to be handled.) Please discuss there or, if absolutely need be, on Talk:4chan, whichever is the best place. –MuZemike 08:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Koreas

There's some saber-rattling currently going on between the two Koreas. Extra eyes needed on Korea-related articles; in particular keep an eye out for unsourced POV edits. N419BH 09:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the present age eligibility rules in women's figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics

I am the original creator of this article. A user called Rjanag keeps on moving on it. Please would it be possible to suspend this persons account and prevent them from undermining the article. Indeed, I've decided to transfer the article to my own website and requested that Wikipedia delete it Thanks sportmania7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmania7 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sportmania7, I have undone your change for now. Please do not take this as a comment on the eventual title, but as intended - a necessary step to preserve the article's contribution history. When you copy-and-paste the contents, as you did when moving it back, the page you paste your text into does not keep the record of who added what and when. It is essential that such details are maintained for the purposes of Wikipedia's licence. Please do not repeat the action; whatever the final title is, the page can be properly moved by an administrator while keeping the history intact. Please ask if you have questions about this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This user doesn't get WP:OWN and keeps leaving me complaints about how any changes to the article will make it different than what he intended it to be (he intended it to be a personal essay). Given that it's clearly a single-purpose account that doesn't intend on contributing to the project in any other way anyway, is it really worth the trouble to deal with him? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake

User talk:Meco#Shelling of Yeonpyeong talk details an exchange between myself and Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which began after I had posted a user warning, {{uw-tpv3}}, on their talk page. This diff is the incident which started this. Now, as I write in the follow-up thread, this is really no big issue, but having uncovered the misapprehension on the user's part and explained it to Mztourist, and they refuse to acknowledge obvious facts I wish to bring the case here so that the user will not simply go on doing the same transgression and blaming faulty software for destructive editing that is his/her mistake. __meco (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified this user, as you bold lettering asked you to? Basket of Puppies 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. __meco (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is 95% likely to be a glitch in the edit conflict handling software, and 5% likely to have been an innocent mistake. Something similar happened to me just last night at ANI; I quietly reinstated my edit and moved on. Your template on his talk page, and your tone with him, seem a big over-reaction. Has this really not happened to you? The edit conflict handler seems to suck even worse than usual the last few months. There's really nothing to do here, except ask you to review the situation again, and perhaps apologize to Mztourist for the tone if you think it appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I agree that my tone is too stern. However, in the discussion on my talk page Mztourist confirms seeing the same edit diff as me. That edit diff unequivocally reveals that text by me is about to be removed. I do realize that there are problems with the software handling edit conflicts, but in this case the edit diff clearly shows that damage is about to be done, the user acknowledges having seen it, however misinterpreted it, and then ignored it. Then I point this out and I'm basically being told off because the user has more important things to do than discuss something that wasn't their fault. With that attitude it is likely that even the little safeguarding which the diffs provide us with isn't going to protect other users in the future from having their edits carelessly removed by Mztourist. __meco (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Something similar happened to you, too, yesterday: [107]. What do you suppose Mztourist's response would have been if you had been as polite on his talk page as Yakushima was to you on yours? Are you saying that you saw that you were about to undo Yakushima's edit, misinterpreted it, and the ignored it? Please don't be snippy with people, and then run to ANI when they're snippy back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something similar happened to me, and I do concede my tone was too harsh. The issue does however not seem to be with Mztourist balking and becoming uncooperative over this. There is nothing to suggest that. See also what I just wrote to Msnicki below. __meco (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would have let it go here and offered an apology to avoid hard feelings. But that's just me. Msnicki (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I made this report was not over hard feelings but over the fact that the user appears not to acknowledge that they had any part in what happened – whatsoever. In fact, in the post in the link which you provide Mztourist asserts that no edit was even saved by them. I have never heard of that happening to anyone, i.e. someone attempting to save an edit but getting an edit conflict error, then instead of saving again loading another page, but the aborted edit is still being saved. Either Mztourist is confused or mistaken about their actual actions, or we are dealing here with a technical problem much more serious than the faulty edit conflict handling. But it is the complete renunciation of any connection to the problem from Mztourist which I find frightening. That does not convey, "hey, I'm unsure what really happened there, I don't think I did anything wrong, but I'm going to keep an alert eye out so that it doesn't happen in the future!". Instead we're seeing: "I didn't do that. It must be something the software did on its own." __meco (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an unlikely response to a level-3 warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you read up on the ensuing dialog bwtween Mztourist and myself there is nothing to suggest that Mztourist was ostensibly offended by my taking a possibly too harsh initial approach. The reason I did use a level 3 warning was the edit diff. It is so clearcut and easy to decipher that I basically couldn't believe Mztourist could have missed seeing what was about to happen. __meco (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What you do not seem to understand is that Mztourist's description of what happened is quite likely true. It is very likely that the software messed up, and that he did not try to save the page again, and that the software removed your edit and declined his edit at the same time that it gave him the edit conflict message. This has happened to me before; I suspect it's happened to a lot of people. He wouldn't have seen the diff that you're referencing when he hit "save" the first time. The first he knew of it was when you threatened to have him blocked if he kept being disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I have acknowledged the possibility of Mztourist's description of what happened being correct, however as a remote chance. I have also stated that if that is the case, then this incident uncovers a very serious technical glitch in the MediaWiki software which I have up until now been unaware of. If, as you are suggesting, this technical issue is so severe, then for whatever incorrect angle this thread may have started on, I find this incident even more important to bring to the attention of the appropriate forum. Now, that forum may not be WP:ANI, but I would certainly not leave this matter alone before I got a confirmation that the problem has been acknowledged and is being addressed by the software developers. __meco (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration. But it seems unlikely you'd get the admission you're seeking. What does seem likely is that you'd get an escalation, which is just what happened. I think all you needed out of the exchange was that (a) he knew you didn't want your comments deleted and (b) you'd warned him, which you would need if it's a pattern that continues. I don't think your life gets a lot better if he admits his explanation was just an excuse. That's why I would have let it go pretty quickly. But again, that's just me. Msnicki (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that would be a show of bad faith. Since my position is one of good faith, Mztourist's absent display of taking any responsibility, even theoretical, for the situation, dictates that I simply must take the issue further. But not to teach Mztourist a lesson, simply to do what I can so that the encyclopedia isn't continuously being corrupted by an inadvertent vandal with a blindspot. __meco (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Mztourist. I really can't believe that Meco considers this is such a big issue that it needs to be elevated to this forum. Two words from Meco: "go ahead" were lost. I have told Meco repeatedly that I did not delete them, so yes I deny any responsibility. I wasn't editing that section and so the only explanation I can come up with is a problem in the Edit Conflict software. Floquenbeam thank you for confirming that a software glitch is a possibility. I attempted to explain this repeatedly (an politely) to Meco, but was met with obvious scepticism and so eventually just decided to move on, so I am amazed that Meco thought it was so important that it needed to be brought here. Meco is making a mountain out of a molehill here, look at how much time he and I spent discussing this and now how much time has been spent on this forum and I am getting all these rude comments thrown at me by Meco so he can prove what exactly?Mztourist (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the issue were the importance of my post which got removed in an edit by you (or if your and Floquenbeam's description is accurate, by the MediaWiki software), then yes, any and all of my posts on this issue would be a blatant over-reaction. In my 40,000 edits experience however, this being an edit made solely and autonomously by the MediaWiki software is so astounding, and up until this point unbelievable, that should that be the case, I would certainly make a special effort to make sure it is being acknowledged by the software development team. That is the issue here now. That scope seems quite lost on you, and I regret to realize that you and another editor see this only as me seeking petty retribution.. __meco (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see I've been called a vandal, accused of bad faith, unwilling to discuss issues, things are lost on me... whatever... Meco as I said before, I have spent enough time discussing this issue with you. An apology would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. Administrators thank you, I am assuming that you will decide whether any of this warrants further discussion with Meco. Mztourist (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My gosh! All of this because a user edited their own comment on a talk page?! The edit Mztourist made served to better state a thought and was done within minutes of the original post. The only intervening edit was a page tag, and Mztourist's edit did nothing to change the circumstances for the tag. WP:REDACT does not prohibit self comment edits. What is really astounding is that Mztourist is expected to apologize for a "theoretical" transgression. (Is Political correctness behind this expectation?) It's time for this line of nonsense to stop.--S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the basic facts wrong. The user did not edit their own comment, they removed the post of another editor. __meco (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Meco is correct. I thought he was objecting to an edit that Mztourist did to their own comment. And I apologize to Meco for my error. IAE, let's put an end to this fruitless discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious software glitch–MediaWiki making autonomous edits?

Just so that more editors won't jump into the preceding discussion at points which really are neither important nor constructive, in my assessment, where the information has taken us thus far is that this may be a technical issue of unrecognized proportions. Now, I have stated that I want to assure myself that this is being acknowledged and adequately addressed before I leave this matter to rest. I would appreciate some competent response to this particular angle. __meco (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody find the bugzilla report - this has been a problem for months. I have raised it more than once. What happens is that if the conflicted editor attempts to reinstate their post in the upper window, the results are unpredictable. You have to back out completly and open a fresh edit window to guarantee that you don't affect the post that conflicted yours. Hence I think the guy is saying that he could see your post (in the upper window) but thought his action would not affect it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor who does not sign posts correctly

Resolved

 – User seems to have figured it out now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor Richrakh (talk · contribs) does not sign his/her talk page posts correctly. They seem to be typing their name and then adding 4 apostrophes afterwards and there is no link back to their talk page as required by Wikipedia:SIGLINK. For some reason, SineBot isn't adding the "unsigned" template afterwards. It's also screwing up MiszaBot's auto archiving. I mentioned this on his/her talk page [108], however he/she has not responded to that, and instead signed incorrectly again at Talk:Political scandals of the United States. The editor seems otherwise ok, but the signature thing is quite disruptive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified Richrakh of this thread? In the 15 minutes since you posted this I haven't seen a notification on his talk page. Just curious. Basket of Puppies 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be this, no? Mr Stephen (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Glad to see it. Basket of Puppies 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the signature issue, this was extensively discussed with DocU. The consensus was overwhelming and very clear- a signature must contain wikilinks to the userpage. Basket of Puppies 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhh! You have to SHIFT before hitting that little button! My apologies. Seriously. I didn't know. Is this better? richrakhRichrakh (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW!!! Is that ever better!!!! I wondered why it never worked right before. But I didn't know anyone else really cared either. richrakhRichrakh (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have it now. I guess this is resolved. FYI, you don't have to physically type your username, just Shift+4 tildes, the software will insert your username automatically. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Plasmodium article

An editor, User:DrMicro has contributed a number of articles on obscure species of microorganisms--very useful. It now appears there may be a lot of WP:OR in these articles, which will have to be checked.

Right now, though, he insists that the Plasmodium article's taxobox must include a list of 274 species. Other editors, including myself, have tried to remove this list and put it in the article, but, for various, endless arguments, DrMicro insists the list can only be in the taxobox, not in the article, not in another article, nowhere but the taxobox.[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] We have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page.[121]

He is now engaged in battles on OR, admitting his subgenus assignments are OR, which means they must be checked (see talk page link).[122]

This is not just a 3RR issue, it includes time needed to research and edit the list elsewhere without being accused by DrMicro of vandalism for moving the list from taxobox.[123][124][125][126][127] (It appears that 3 of these are not accusations, but mistakes, so this long list here might include only 1 or 2 actual such accusations, but also the accusations in edit summaries on the article as linked above.)

Can one level headed administrator assist in this matter? Protecting the article with the 274 species in the taxobox will not be helpful, as long lists of 100s of items are not the purpose of an information box on wikipedia. What would be helpful would be an attempt to ask DrMicro to simply stop editing the article for long enough for other editors to create a list in the article or elsewhere and investigate his OR on subgenera. The latter will require access to a research library. I am glad to do it, but not in the midst of being accused of vandalism for trying to make the taxobox readable. I think if he backed off for long enough for others to do any work, he would see that the list of 274 species can be located in a useful manner without being in the taxobox. However, this can't be demonstrated against his single-mindedness to maintain it only in the taxobox.

If it is reasonable to request the intervention of a single level headed administrator and one such person volunteers, please work on the article talk page or the user talk page as appropriate. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning to DrMicro, and I am now watching the page. Since it is clear that the issue has been extensively discussed and DrMicro's position is isolated (as well as unreasonable), I will respond to any further revert-warring with a suitable block. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest protecting the page for say 2 weeks without fear for the wrong version, and have people work it out. I am willing to assist with this discussion. I think the Drosophila article is an good example of how it can be solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Help the New Editor

User talk:184.74.22.161 is not careful with WP:V or WP:UNDUE. Adds material from sites like www.lifesitenews.com and catholic.com [128], quotes bunch of people without specifying why they are significant (same diff), gives too much space to a non-significant person disagreeing with entire scientific organizations [129]. This behaviour repeats itself in articles like Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage and the family.Phoenix of9 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to warrant an AN/I discussion; furthermore, note that the IP is engaging in discussion and is attempting to address your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Rsload2010

Resolved

User:Rsload2010 is continuing to add spam to his talk page after being blocked. Can the block be extended to the talk page? . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked with talk page access disabled, and removed the spam. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen Vandalisms in one day

Thirteen vandalisms in one day to SS Edmund Fitzgeraldarticle, probably by the same person from this block:

199.104.209.196

199.104.208.119

199.104.210.158

199.104.213.42

We posted notes on all of those talk pages, and it continues.

Presumably dynamically assigned IP's of a service provider, presumably all by same person. Is there anything that can be done? (a 1-2 day range block?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply requesting page protection would probably be the best option. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

199.104.208.0/21 blocked 55 hours for vandalism. –MuZemike 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)