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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note: I am herewith signing this segment in response to reminder (below). As some editors have noted, Mjpresson has furnished no proof of any "threats' from Tokerdesigner and even, it appears to me, attempted to deceive editors voting in this proceeding by adding his/her own boldfacing after the fact to a comment (cited below) which I did leave on the User:Mjpresson talk page. I have never threatened to "tag", delete or vandalize any article by Mj or anyone. To get an idea of what User:Mjpresson intends to do if User:Tokerdesigner is banned for a week (as proposed below) view recent edits to Cannabis smoking (photo of a "man smoking a joint" promoted to top of article) and my response thereto on Talk:Cannabis smoking. I will also, as time permits by tomorrow, because User:Mjpresson has objected to my defense argument (also below) as too long and even proposes deleting some of it, present my argument at the MP:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page with links to it inserted on this page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [1]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [2] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[3] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm placing a future time stamp here, to avoid premature archiving of this thread. Please remove when resolved. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I support this ban. This user causes a lot of cleanup work, and I've been archiving his nasty insults on my talk page for too long. Sorry for not providing more diffs, I just didn't know where to start, but I have begun the process. --Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Procedural oppose I can't see how this is an administrative issue. It appears to be a content and editor civility issue. While Tokerdesigner seems to be a bit uncivil in their arguments, and constantly points to how an admin (potentially) was banned that may or may not have been related to them, that isnt an attack (more annoying than anything else) they havn't done anything that warrants ban. I could not find the "lets meet in person" that Mjpresson claims happened and Mjpresson has failed to show a diff of it when asked by Atama and even went as far as being uncivil themselves in their response. I would remind both editors to knock off the personal attacks and use proper channels like WP:3O and WP:WQA in the future before ANI. SmartSE's have more strength in the argument than Mjpresson does, but explaining WP:V can be done without a block.--v/r - TP 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, attempts to inform Tokerdesigner of the requirements of the verifiability policy, including a prior indefinite block for violations, have all failed. Exactly how are persistent violations of a core content policy not "an administrative issue", unless admins are supposed to sit idly back while users disrupt Wikipedia, then punt the issues to arbcom? Doesn't the arbitration committee have enough on its plate already? Chester Markel (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of editors being very aggressive with this user. Why not try to get the user involved in Wiki guides or the adoptee program where he can be mentored by established editors? I have a procedural close because I haven't seen attempts to resolve this at WP:WQA or other non-admin venues. Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive - including the user himself. I would like to see everyone calm down, slow down, and try to come to some sort of agreement. Has anyone tried to personally engage this user like perhaps by email?--v/r - TP 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK requires that policies be explained to good-faith users before they are blocked for violations, under most circumstances. But it doesn't set bureaucratic requirements on what form the explanation might take. Discussions at WQA and via email aren't required, if the problems with a user's contributions have been explained to him an inordinate number of times on user and article talk pages. Ultimately, a user has to bring his editing within the basic requirements of core content policies, or he will be blocked. It might seem that "Everything involving this user has been agressive and overreactive" only because nice explanations, beginning two years ago, didn't work. We don't have to treat editors with kid gloves indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: going from a 20 hour block 18 months ago to a 6 month ban is overkill. Start with shorter blocks and escalate as necessary, per usual practice. -Atmoz (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - (non-administative comment). This is a riled up single-topic editor but I haven't seen any evidence that a 6-month bazooka should be used on him. (By the way, there is something screwed up with the sectional "Edit" links on this page at the moment...) Carrite (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose we should let him have more rope and let him to acknowledge better and change his ways. Switch to Support. He should know not to do that. Also, the 6 months would give hime time to change his ways. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner banned for one week

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of 7 days.

Support as an alternative, per rationale given for longer community ban, and concerns regarding appropriate block length. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tokerdesigner has been causing trouble at least as far back as 2008, but the trouble he's caused is relatively low-level. If this doesn't get his attention, then heavier penalties may be warranted. Frotz (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Please see [4].Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have provided some documentation on this issue here [5]. Mjpresson (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Thanks in part to the effort of Mjpresson in gathering the evidence, I will present my case day by day as library time permits.

As to alleged "threats from Tokerdesigner":

Revision as of 17:43, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Re: Cannabis smoking edits, and Block Warning)

Revision as of 15:20, 3 June 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (→Hash Oil)

Please note that Mjpresson, not Tokerdesigner, has added the substantial amount of boldfacing which may make the message appear more menacing than intended by Tokerdesigner. Am I entitled to suspect an intent to deceive editors who may be voting in this proceeding?

Then, in his compilation referenced above, you will note that Mjpresson has added on further quotes, all drawn from October-November 2009 in the period after User:Altenmann (now permanently banned from Wikipedia) had reduced the Kief article from over 4000 to 1000 bytes and Mjpresson had begun curtly reverting efforts by Tokerdesigner to restore (in revised form) a small part of the deleted information.

That is when I contributed small edits to several articles by Mjpresson, mainly by way of letting him know I was interested in learning of their nature. As he admits, none of my edits defaced, vandalized, deleted or "tagged" any of the articles in any way, nor as far as I can see "threatened" to do so. Yet his response to those edits, and to some messages in which I tried to use humor but was possibly missunderstood, was this:

Revision as of 18:23, 31 October 2009 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→A note regarding user "Tokerdesigner")

"... This user is totally stalking me, trying to ridicule my edits, and uses his own wiki-posts as references. This is a complete and utter loser. If you want to see the saga of an asshole, see his talk page. A complete antipolicy wank..." --Mjpresson (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the italics. What is a "wank"? As for policy, Tokerdesigner is not "anti-policy" (whatever a "wank" is). I affirm that in the vast majority of cases policy rules. (Or rules police.) But Jimmy Wales and partners instituted Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for a reason. Wikipedia/Wikimedia was intended to be a progressive project as indicated by the 2008 fund raising slogan, seen here above pages for several weeks: "Help Wikimedia change the world!" If readers want conventional strict encyclopedic rules and total neutrality they can go to Britannica. WP:IAR must be invoked in one particular situation: "SAFETY FIRST!" That means: SAFETY TRUMPS POLICY. Anyway, I henceforth abstained from any further edits to Mjpresson's articles, or messages to User:Mjpresson until this month when I felt I had to protest after he reduced the length of the Hashish article (which gets 6000 hits a day according to the Full Wiki rating service) by 40%, an unprecedented reduction, in 18 consecutive edits including this:

cur | prev) 03:12, 27 May 2011 Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (9,838 bytes) (Inappropriate catsUndid revision 431098491 by Tokerdesigner (talk)) (undo)

Revision as of 03:11, 27 May 2011 (edit)Mjpresson (talk | contribs)(→Preparation and methods of use: STOP ADDING HOW TO multiple warnings in past)

Revision as of 23:47, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tokerdesigner (talk | contribs) (move hash oil foto)

Revision as of 00:29, 26 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Mjpresson (talk | contribs) (→Tobacco: article isn't about tobacco, reference removed as was not allowable as ref)

Note that on 26 May Mjpresson deleted a paragraph covering the practice of mixing cannabis with tobacco, including a reference to the Australian Department of Health warning against that practice. What's "not allowable" about that ref? (In the interest of Safety First, and in the service of readers, including youngsters, who want to know about issues of safety regarding hashish use, Tokerdesigner then restored the ref, see above.) Mjpresson, why did you delete that ADoH warning?

As if in answer to Mjpresson's May 26 deletion of the Australian DoH warning that mixing cannabis with tobacco "can lead to unintended nicotine addiction", the World Health Organization issued this May 30 warning:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2011/wntd_20110530/en/index.html

"... This year, the tobacco epidemic will kill nearly 6 million people, including some 600 000 nonsmokers who will die from exposure to tobacco smoke. By 2030, it could kill 8 million."

Let's do some math: assuming 1% of the nicotine addictions over the past half century resulted at least in part from youngsters exploring hashish having received advice to roll it in a joint together with tobacco (I think the figure is higher), that would account for 60,000 of the 6 million yearly premature deaths (with huge medical expenses in the later stages of illness). (Comparison: Ratko Mladić is in court over a one-time execution of 8300 at Srebrenica. Will the Wikipedia editors of today someday be compared with UN Peacekeepers who stood by at Srebrenica "for policy reasons" while Mladić's troops killed the 8300?)

I cited, above, two further edits: (a) one in which Mjpresson deleted what he/she refers to as "How-to"-- i.e. safety instructions" which could, if observed by readers, lead to avoiding the "other" How-to (cannabis and tobacco together in a joint, "which can lead to unintended nicotine addiction"), and (b) one in which Mjpresson deletes a "See also" link (which Mj believed to be a "cat"-- category?) to the one-hitter article which describes what are seen as possible alternatives' to rolling cannabis and tobacco together in a joint.

Without waiting for voting to close in this proceeding, Mjpresson then went to One hitter (smoking) and deleted over half the article, particularly pictures and information which could instruct readers in how to avoid rolling tobacco and cannabis together in a joint. Mjpresson further deleted a picture of a bottle of dokha, a sifted tobacco product used in a midwakh, as "non-contextual", even though the picture served a useful purpose in the {One-hitter (smoking) article by showing how herb (any species!) should be sifted before use in a narrow one-hitter. This seems to indicate an intention to deny readers information which promotes health and safety (but admittedly interferes with recruiting them into nicotine addiction).Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support A week block for not heeding the communities warnings since 2008 to use reliable sources for verifiability seems fair to me.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: Tokerdesigner has disrupted this conversation above with his own "oppose" (can he do that?) and a huge amount of lengthy copy/paste inserted. Can this be removed from the conversation? Mjpresson (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it might be hatted. But we can take it as read that people can "oppose" their own block or ban, and give a reason why - otherwise WP:ANI would be more like a kangaroo court. In this particular case the reason seems to be rather tangential, and Tokerdesigner is just digging themselves deeper into a hole with the genoicide comparisons, but hey... bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only can someone oppose, it's unusual for them not to, unless they can't for some reason (they are away from Wikipedia or are blocked, etc.). -- Atama頭 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed my previous note from here (after justified criticism, below, and because no longer timely. Readers can search it down in "History".) I have added further defense argumentation at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis Discussion page, at Talk:Cannabis smoking and at [6], the latter also now referenced, below, by Mjpresson. At all three of those venues, if editors will read the entire text, they can observe illuminating one-on-one debate between User:Mjpresson and User:Tokerdesigner, including references to edits Mjpresson has made in the last three days to numerous articles, perhaps in expectation that Tokerdesigner will be banned and other editors intimidated. (See Mjpresson:Contributions page.)

Option to change vote

Anyone who has already voted (above) can still-- as of this moment-- change their vote. After reading the further debate installments referenced above, they may feel they understand the issues better. The issues are complex-- if they weren't, humanity would have solved the 6,000,000-a-year cigarette mortality problem by now, by understanding the differences (a) between cannabis and tobacco and (b)between commercially advertised overdose cigarette/"joint" "smoking" and a vaporizer or one-hitter-- so regrettably editors have a burden of duty to inform themselves more comprehensively than usual when deciding on this demand from Mjpresson to ban the "anti-policy wank" Tokerdesigner.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note the above entry Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito). This is typical of the unintelligible entries we see on a daily basis. I don't understand what it means. Mjpresson (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it means "library". Perhaps that's where most of his internet access is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Because he also stated "I'm ghosthosting on various IP's to avoid getting caught by Big 2Wackgo". I don't know what that means, either. Mjpresson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's code for Big Tobacco? They could be out to get him. -- Atama頭 07:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's an actual conspiracy theory rather than a bizarre conversational gambit, it's definitely wasting other editor's time, goodwill, and attention. bobrayner (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tokerdesigner's self referencing is preposterous. See my reversion of one here [7]. I don't know if the community has noticed this. I have reverted many of these by him.Mjpresson (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That "self referencing" was produced by some formatting machine later, I didn't put the name "Tokerdesigner" in there.

To address this issue now: on the archived section of Talk:One-hitter (smoking) you can find a list of the wikiHow and Wikiversity articles Tokerdesigner referenced, in order to comply with WP:NOTHOWTO which includes an overt directive that readers seeking how-to information be encouraged to seek it at wikiHow.com among other places. Referring to those articles kept that how-to information-- how to make one-hitters, etc. in true Wikipedia "do it yourself" spirit instead of buying them from high-price WP:SPAM headshops-- out of Wikipedia pages without denying readers access to it.

(Those wikiHow articles contain typewriter-generated diagrams similar to ones which Mjpresson has recently deleted from WP talk pages where they were posted in hopes other editors would decide to use the JPG technology to enter them as thumbnail illustrations. Since when is it considered civil to delete talk page postings?)Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And now this [8] unsigned note making false allegations on others' talk pages. Mjpresson (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm a a stooge of the world's leading genocide-for-profit conspiracy?:[9].Mjpresson (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like this to be addressed, please read his entire note if you have all day.[10].Mjpresson (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner says this of me on the talk page: "Using Wikipedia to promote the interests of the cigarette industry (through his advocacy in 44 detailed articles about the chain-smoking movie-maker José Mojica Marins whose main character Ze do Caixão (in English "Coffin Joe"-- sound like Joe Camel?) commits serial murders for sex and personal vindication). I personally couldn't smoke enough tobacco to stay awake sitting through 88 hours of those horror flicks. To reference another BRIC country: a 2004-05 study showed 89% of all movies made in India contained depictions of "tobacco use" (almost always cigarettes)."[11] [sic]Mjpresson (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposed 1 week ban (or longer). Tokerdesigner's crusade (and inability to AGF) is detrimental to the project and to other editors. bobrayner (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning assumption of good faith: anyone with time to read the entire debate will find statements of mine showing that I assume good faith from Mjpresson, despite disagreements which stem from a perception that he/she has been pursuing a "policy" of removing from cannabis-related articles information which might promise to obstruct an "industry" agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction-- see the latest 30 Contributions by Mjpresson to various articles since Mj opened these proceedings. Bobrayner has the option, though it be onerous, to search further into the matter and even change his/her vote. This includes additions and revisions of my argument (above) since yesterday; I will continue as time and logistics permit to improve the links involved to make referencing them easier.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"agenda to exploit the interest in cannabis to recruit youngsters into nicotine addiction"? You've proven my point about AGF. Please stop digging. bobrayner (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But, bobrayner, why would Mjpresson delete the Australian Department of Health warning against mixing cannabis with tobacco (May 26, referenced above)?Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:THERAPY can be applied here[12],[13], [14],[15],[16],[17] in addition to the WP:V and WP:CIVIL issues. Please know that I do not intend any personal attack by raising this.Mjpresson (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean any personal attack, either, by mentioning here that Mjpression has (a) referred to Tokerdesigner as a single-purpose editor and (b) contributed 257 edits (I counted them) to the WP biographical article on the chain-smoking film-maker José Mojica Marins.Tokerdesigner (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

Should I just continue to add these until the problem is addressed? [18] Mjpresson (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My energy and wiki-goodwill are being drained by this user ranting about me site-wide. Are the admins aware that this issue remains unresolved after 11 days?? Mjpresson (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And the relentless "one-hitter" obsession [19]. Mjpresson (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• ...to hell with a one-week ban, this is out of control. Support full siteban of Tokerdesigner, and also a polite suggestion that he find a more reputable dealer for whatever he's smoking, because good GOD is he getting some bad stuff. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned before this should be a permanent ban discussion for relentless WP:CIVIL, WP:V, and WP:THERAPY. I certainly support that.Mjpresson (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not to mention violations of WP:CANVASS. --Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle _{vécut heureuse}

Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [20] due to edit warring between Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [21] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [22] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [23], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob- Despite your phrasing of that comment as a question, it's clearly a veiled accusation. If you're going to accuse other editors of not understanding policy, or having forgotten it, you should do so forthrightly. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I thought I was quite clear, my comment above "Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection" - as I was yesterday about your contributions here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Will you lay off the ad-hominem attacks, please? That quote is nowhere in your comment above; had it been, I wouldn't have commented. You asked a question-- "surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFRP - is to request article unprotection?"-- and that's a loaded question. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bolded both comments above for you to see clearly. Can you see them now? So what if its loaded its supposed to be. If you begin to edit constructively and stop disrupting everywhere you go (and I hope you do) all issues with your contributions will cease. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'm sure you're aware that that's not the comment I'm referencing when I describe your question as loaded. I'm happy to leave this where it is, but I would ask that you please stop trying to turn everything around on me in the future. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Well, I suggest you keep out of my way then - disrupt at distant locations, the far corners of the wiki are available for you, this thread is nothing to do with you, you should keep your battling disruptive nose out of issues that have nothing to do with you.Off2riorob (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, okay, whatever. This issue has as much to do with me as it does with you, and you don't own ANI, nor are you empowered to banish me to "the far corners of the wiki." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.

La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [24] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A reversion this editor carried out is found at [25]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [26], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue

Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sent to SPI [27]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should we start another RfA because of excessive socks, suspicion? In general, misuse of RfA. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.

With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.

I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.

In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[28]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.

During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.

Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Process

Currently the featured sounds process is in a bit of a controversy. Due to the wording of the criteria, both a video and the audio track from a video can be nominated and passed as a featured sound. This is opposed by many of the regulars to the process. To keep the same arguments from being rehashed in each nomination, the active FS directors (Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) and myself) put a freeze on all nominations of this sort so they could be debated in one central place. This has erupted into a scene. All of the good faith and will I have has been exhausted. Would a cooler head please intervene. (I haven't exactly kept my cool) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is here there is support on both sides. I have seen two or three regs who oppose duplicate noms and two or three (including myself) who support them. I am awaiting a substantive response to issue that are repeatedly WP:TLDRed. I am asking for explanation of why they want to run WP:FSC differently than all other quality review processes. I believe what Guerillero seeks is an excuse to continue WP:TLDRing from a friendly admin.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) continues to nominate duplicates (videos and sounds, mostly separately and this was all done directly after the wording of the criteria chagned to allow videos and sounds), despite being told not to in addition he also continues to nominate arrangements (mostly brass band) of well known and historical music despite being told not to, now while brass band arrangements aren't all bad they need to be examined on a case-by-case basis (his response above shows he's just doing it because a couple regulars support some of his duplicates), a majority of these nominations have been boring or musically uninteresting music. He claims he's doing this because both files have EV, but take a look at his wall of stars and his first post at WT:FSC, he made it clear that he wanted an FS to his name because FS was due to appear on the main page (this has been pushed back until underlying problems in the process are addressed). His continual ignorance of the concerns raised by others goes against the collegial nature of Wikipedia, it's hindering progress and is downright annoying. It's funny that he should be accusing Guerillero of TLDRing, check his active and past nominations. How incredibly hypocritical. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:14pm • 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

When was I told not to nominate them any more? I have not violated any instructions. In terms of arrangements, I am not a musician. I don't know when things are arrangements all the time. I am a volunteer file-hunter and trying to find good files. I have found about 50 good files, so you have to put up with a few dozen bad noms along the way. Are you looking for an excuse to WP:TLDR as well?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of a number of issues that need to be worked through among editors at FSC and integrated into the criteria. It's a pity that TTT can't hold off nominating files of the categories he knows have become controversial—until there's an in-depth discourse on these matters, some of which are complicated in their implications. I appreciate TTT's work at FSC, but I don't want to think that there's a mad rush to acquire rows of stars on his userpage for featured content promotions. Tony (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, you are acting like I am nominating a bunch of stuff everyone is rejecting. My nominations have resulted in 49 WP:FS since April 1. Second off, I don't even know that I was told not to nominate audio duplicates of videos (before today).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you were, look through all of your recent 20 nominations. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:59pm • 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

44 of my last 56 file nominees have passed. Check WP:FSL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is this so much an issue with FS than it is with one single editor? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strange Passerby has hit the nail on the head. Although I am no longer an active participant at FS, I do watch it, and this particular problem editor began causing issues while I was still there. TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured. He has exploited the fact that FS does not really have a policy on videos yet, which is the entire reason that he has so many FS credits already. I have advised Guerillero to consider delisting many of them, although it is up to the current participants at FS to decide whether or not to take that advice. The long and short of it is that TTT has exhausted the community's patience. Like James (AA), I've long since abandoned the pretense that TTT is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons. He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego. If his actions at FS were not enough to convince me, recent events at FfD have (see nominations 16 though 71. I don't want to steer this too off track with the FfDs, but I think that this specific nomination, combined with the above situation, shows that TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Though I have no opinion on the FS issue at this time, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago, and then, when he was generally unsuccessful, moved to VPC, where he was active until the project was closed down precisely because it lacked any real drive/direction beyond "WE NEED MORE VALUED PICTURES". He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating) and, though I wasn't involved with this (so please don't take my word as gospel truth), I believe he has been warned about similar behaviour at FAC and GAC as well. Tony takes very seriously the, as Sven mentions, "stars on his trophy wall". While many editors (myself certainly included) like to display their achievements on their userpage, Tony can take it to something of an extreme, which can sometimes lead to issues. J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • As the other WikiCup judge, I can second virtually everything J Milburn just said, except that I haven't heard anything about FAC/GAN warnings. Regardless of how the FS issues are worked out, I believe there is a long-term pattern of questionable actions from TTT. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • This is very different than FPC and VPC where I could not get the hang of things. At FS after an initial pass rate of 5/19, I have learned what WP:WIAFS is saying and have had a 44 of 56 file pass rate since.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Amalgamated this and the topic ban proposals to keep it in one piece. MER-C 11:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is classic TonyTheTiger-- he seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself. Last year, he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived. This behavior occurs in any area in which he edits-- I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get an uninvolved admin to close these two ban discussions below please? It's been almost a week. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger

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

The discussion has been open for over 5 days, and it is clear that there is strong consensus to support both proposals: (1) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured sounds, and (2) a topic ban of TonyTheTiger from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." There does not appear to be consensus that the topic bans should be time-limited, so these topic bans will be in effect until the community decides they are no longer necessary. I will inform TonyTheTiger that these topic bans have been enacted, and will update Wikipedia:Editing restrictions accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC). Edit: I have informed Tony and updated the list of editing restrictions. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

---

TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1: Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from Featured Sounds

As per my comments above, at the thread "Featured Sounds Process", TTT has exhausted the patience of the Featured Sounds community. I quote from above "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured." Until TTT is made to understand that he cannot ignore what other people are saying, and that Featured Sounds exists for more than just to fill the trophy wall that is his userpage, I believe that he is harmful to the process.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I can only speak from my own experience of Tony at DYK last year, where concerns were also raised (then WikiCup-related) that Tony was spamming, almost abusing, the process just so he could claim more DYKs. As a result I have no difficulty believing he is misusing FS in a similar fashion, and would support such a ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As I explained in the section a few above this one, similar things have also happened at FPC and (before it closed) VPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it would be a good idea to extend this topic ban proposal to all featured media processes and similar (GA, DYK, ITN), in that case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as a completely uninvolved editor. TTT is using the process as a personal vanity project by nominating as many files as possible for consideration and hoping some get through. He does not appear to be taking the time to evaluate them correctly before nomination. This is subverting it's intent which is to get the absolute best files featured. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I am pretty new to looking at either FS or TTT, and no axe to grind. Guerillo has been professional and TTT has been moving stuff around on the page in contravention to the Director decisions (as the final acts in a pattern of problem-causing). It's fine to debate the policy, but outright distruption of actions of the Director (elected by the participants) on holding or rejecting nominees, makes the whole place unworkable. Throw into that, that he is an admin and should behave better. And that he is tone-deaf and wikilawyering in interactions. And the history of similare disruption on other Featured Content processs...TCO (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• DON'T TOPIC BANS REQUIRE DIFFS OR ARE ADMINS ALLOWED TO TELL ANY STORY THEY WANT Resoponse to the four claims above by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs)
  1. "TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing."
     1. Not true. I began participating in FS in April. You might note that my nominations have passed at nearly an 80% (44 of 56) clip since my initial learning period (5 of 19) (Check WP:FSL). I have developed a good understanding of WP:WIAFS and begun only nominating things I view as very likely to be determined to adhere to WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. "TonyTheTiger ignoring negative responses."
     1. To the contrary I have been learning from negative responses. I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. "TonyTheTiger fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful"
     1. I have recently fought against closures that were against process both for those that were unsuccessful those that were to be successful. N.B.: Yesterday there was a batch of 5 closed unsuccessful without regard to WP:WIAFS that I fought against and last week there was one of my nominees that was moved to nominations to be closed that had 2/3 majority required to pass that I fought against being closed immediately and put back into the queue because I felt it was being closed prematurely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  4. "TonyTheTiger generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured."
     1. (Repeating from above). I began participating in FS in April. 5 of my first 19 files were successful (not counting suspended noms never evaluated) according to WP:FSL. Since then approximately 44 of 56 files nominated have been promoted. I have not been clogging the system. I have been filling it with stuff that gets promoted about 80% of the time (44/56=79%).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support While a lot of this "content" based discussion passes me by I am capable of determining concerns from reviewing contributions; there are over 5,000 deleted contributions. This is against a total number of edits of around 150,000, or 3% of edits, but of concern is a review of the deleted contributions in detail indicates that this appears to be a persistent or consistent ratio since 2006. This leads me to the conclusion that the editor has not (or cannot) been able to alter their approach to introducing content - the majority of deleted contributions being either "autobiographical" (in the widest sense, content derived from their own sources) or various files - despite some evidence of concerns having been raised all the while. This appears to be an editor, while a good contributor in certain areas (as the 146k "live" edits testify), who does not seem to Get It over certain matters. Removing them from areas where these concerns are manifested seems to be entirely reasonable and, given that this appears to be a long term issue, it should be for as long as there seems to be an issue. Presently, this is apparently the Featured Sound process and therefore I support this topic ban. I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • I am not trying to impress you by calling him a liar. I am presenting an uncontested fact.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • You are apparently as eager to test the limits of WP:CIVIL as you admit you have regarding WP:Notability. There are more acceptable ways in which to make a point that anothers accusation are unsupported by diffs/are likely not to be able to be evidenced. Being able to conform to WP practices is part of what is at issue here - and you are not helping yourself. Impressing me is irrelevant, but not impressing me has lead me to my opinion given above and not caring makes me more unlikely to change it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • How do I observe my deleted content, I believe there are three or four spikes in this regard. There were probably a lot of deleted edits when Template:NYRepresentatives and Template:ILRepresentatives were deleted. Then when Template:1970-1979VogueCovers, Template:1980-1989VogueCovers, Template:1990-1999VogueCovers & Template:2000-2009VogueCovers were deleted. And finally when the recent user space pages were deleted. I doubt that there is a consistent rate of deleted files, but rather a few spikes, mostly in template space when I was learning what was a good contribution there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There may well be "spikes", but I noted that there were instances going back to 2006 and for every year since. It is still a lot of deleted contribs. As for being able to review them, I do not know how an editor can review their own deleted contribs - I have been a sysop too long and my non sysop account (User:LHvU) has no deleted edits (and very few otherwise). Perhaps a non admin can address this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Obviously, I am going to have a high rate of deletions. I am probably the only editor on wikipedia who has created 100s of reviewed class (GA, FA) articles from scratch without doing the same type of article over and over again. I am constantly testing the fringes of notability with every article creation. Most article space deletions will be from having ventured to the borders of WP:N with my article creations. You will note that I have several GAs of articles that had been AFDed and such. I contest the borders and sometimes my borderline contribution result in early articles for NBA basketball players like Manny Harris and sometimes they end up in deletions. Someone who polices Barack Obama, fights vandals, or perfects the art of creating virtually the same article over and over again will not have high deletions like me. These deletions are basically unrelated to WP:FS and should not be used to determine this debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is a project to produce a free encyclopedia, and not an exercise in determining what the base level for notability - or to alter that standard by production of marginal subjects (especially with a relative high level of failure; surely only a small percentage of the other 140K of edits can only be to such content). One of the major tools of content creation is WP:Consensus, where by both discussion and action one determines what the criteria for inclusion is - and once it has been established ensure that contributions are compliant. It is recognised that sometimes there will be mistakes or re-assesments, and that consensus may change. However, it is apparent from both your editing history and your comments here that you either do not care for or are unable to comply with consensus and notability, and nor do you think you should. That is your choice, but it means that those who do work to those standards need not have to endure your disruptive presence. As this appears, per your comments above, to be your standard operating procedure, I continue to support those who wish to continue to act within the expected norms - which in this case are those involved in the Featured Sound process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support this POINT violation makes me beleive that TTT is unable to work well at FS. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. Doesn't appear to get it. Noting that I'd prefer a time-limited ban as opposed to an indefinite ban. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per LHvU. I really wish it didn't have to come to this :S —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:59am • 22:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - A topic ban seems excessive, considering so many of his nominations have already suceeded. This needs a topic RfC or to be take to the talk page and ironed out by all parties, not a topic ban on a highly productive editor. Night Ranger (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I see you aren't very familiar with TTT's edits, it's true he's a generally productive editor. However, a majority of his edits are counter-productive and arguments ensue in every featured process he's been involved with (including the now defunct Valued Pictures process), I'd hoped this would not be the case at FS but in the last 2 months his nomination reasons have been shorter and shorter, his first few FS nominations were fantastic, now he merely uses a useless, unhelpful statement such as "meets all the FS criteria", without going to explain how it meets the criteria and his own reason for nominating (which would be personalised, of course). —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:07pm • 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think there is a broader problem - Tony's interest seems to have shifted from building good content to collecting scout badges which is rather missing the point of wikipedia and is consuming the time and goodwill of other editors. However, this proposal is a good start, and I hope TTT will tweak their priorities a little in future, as TTT seems to have done lots of good content work in the past and I look forward to more of that, both from TTT and from the other people whose time has been wasted... bobrayner (talk)
• Oppose, his nominations have a 79% pass rate, I'd hardly call that spamming FS with material that does not belong there. I mean, can we get some evidence of attempts to actually resolve this without a topic ban please? I looked at his user talk page and it seems the only feedback he has ever gotten about his work at FS (on his talk page) is a barnstar.... jorgenev 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • His pass rate has nothing to do with it. Numerous people have commented that he has abused numerous featured processes, and if you look at WP:FSC now, you can see several flops. His pass rate is high because we didn't have a clear policy on videos, we didn't have a clear policy on length, and we enjoyed, before we found out about the caveats, the enthusiasm he was bringing to the project. Most of his current FSes will be put up for delisting in the near future, because most of them are around an hour long and a good deal of them have quality issues. This is not to say specificly that he is being targeted, as many current FSes are in need of being delisted, but a good number of his will be among them, and that will drop his percentage considerably. Both of the active FS directors, a former FS director, and several people in several other featured processes are all saying that TTT is highly problematic. Looking at it just on numbers drastically understates the amount of damage that TTT has caused. As for the evidence, it is at WT:FSC, the archives of that page, and in the nominations themselves. There is a cumulative affect from the IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the battleground behaviors that is very easy to pick up on, and for lack of a better term, extremely grating over the period of time that he has been at FS. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Reluctantly. I sugggest a one-month topic ban to protect FSC from disruptive nominations and other edits, and to allow it to negotiate the criteria, which clearly don't serve the process well now. This trophy mentality for his user page is over the top. Tony (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved editor. I'm seeing what others do: an editor so intent on using the project to get praise that he threatens the success of the project. --NellieBly (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this particular brouhaha. I've edited minimally in the last 6 months and hoped when I didn't see TonytheTiger at FAC when I got back that he'd learned from his previous issues. That does not appear to be the case; instead, the issues have transferred to a different process. I would support a broadly construed ban on TtT from any featured nomination process unless he can gain the support of a conominator. Someone who can provide a reality-check when TtT's enthusiasm for the process crosses the line. If that's not the case, then I will support a topic ban targeted to Featured Sounds. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Topic ban of TonyTheTiger from uploading images about himself, broadly construed

Over fifty graphs of TonyTheTiger's poker winnings were recently deleted in one day at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1. The conversation at one specific nomination, this specific nomination|this one, illuminates that TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable. Among the items not deleted are two images of the letter T in his signature, a check paid out to him, and a tee shirt he made himself. They are available for viewing at his biography page User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon. He's begun requesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here, and it may be necessary to start a similar proposal there,Edit: Someone else made the move-to-commons requests. however in the mean time, unless he is ordered to stop, I have serious doubts that he will.

• Support as nominator. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, definitely. Still thinking about the proposed topic ban for FS. Unfortunately, I don't see signs that TTT is understanding the problem. Tony (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not only that, but a good chunk of this user's userspace was recently purged in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. MER-C 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• THIS TOPIC BAN IS BASED ON A LIE BY SVEN MANGUARD THERE EXIST NO DIFFS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS ON WP OR COMMONS (1) ME INSISTING I WAS NOTABLE (2) ABOUT ANY REQUEST TO MOVE FILES TO COMMONS BECAUSE I KNOW I DID NOT MAKE ANY Come on Sven have some class. What other lies are you willing to tell to make a WP:POINT?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to have to Support the ban proposal. Sorry, because TonyTheTiger is clearly a long-standing contributor with a great track record. But I've looked at all that poker stuff - the images and the masses of personal bio material recently deleted - and it has to stop. He just isn't notable, and this isn't a web host - he needs to take all that stuff someplace else and stop trying to use Wikipedia for material about himself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment- I believe the title of this and the preceeding section should win the top 2 prizes for the most unintentionally hilarious discussion page topic headings in Wikipedia history. If you don't understand what I mean, read the two section headings while pretending you are a non-registered, first-time Wikipedia editor looking at ANI for the very first time. No offense Tony. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At least they're fit for family viewing (you might say they're G-rate!), which is more than I can say for some of our notable subjects' self-images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Isn't a ban suppose to occur after a warning. I was never given any indication that my image uploads were inappropriate. I have not uploaded any since the FfD. What gives with a ban?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support that much vanity content is painful --Guerillero | My Talk 14:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately, this seems to be needed. -Atmoz (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This makes no sense. I have been participating in XfD for 5 years and never violated a consensus decision. Why would someone say something like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Fully support Topic Ban - amongst many other reasons the screaming all-capps bold hysterical response from a tiger in a corner above is self evident that Tony's passion is far from acceptable in this arena - indeed maybe Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:01am • 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Completely not involved, but having had a look at his vanity piece, I kind of want to put my eyes out. --Blackmane (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems to be quickly devolving into a huge pile-on. What's next, he's banned from having pictures of tigers on his userpage? He appears to have stopped uploading images and says he has not opposed any kind of consensus at xfd, so I don't see the need for a ban (which I wouldn't necessarily call a topic ban anyway, but I digress). Night Ranger (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Pedro says it well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, he has not continued has he? It seems like editors with some personal dislike of the user are trying to pile as many topic bans on him as possible here. jorgenev 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • First of all, I don't have an underlying dislike for this editor. I think that if he focused more of his energy on improving content and less of it on self-aggrandizement, if he put in the work to earn all the stars he displays on his userpage, that he'd be one of Wikipedia's best assets. Unfortunately, TTT categorically refuses to accept that he is not notable. He has, by now, gone through several discussions where that message has been made clear, most recently the 52 templates and 50something graphs that went through deletion discussions. With this editor's track record on the matter, I do not believe that temporarily stopping is in any way indicative of future behavior. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane. That MfD was one of the worst; other people would have been blocked for such egregious violations of WP:UP#NOT. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment That vanity piece of his should be sent to MfD per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:UP#PROMO --Blackmane (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC) - I have just nominated the page for MfD.

Doesn't anybody like working on articles anymore? Who the fuck cares about someone's personal page like this, really?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Unfortunately. That MfD was a textbook application of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Pedro himself also brings up a good point. —mc10 (t/c) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane. I would also caution the editor that BOLD CAPS don't give the impression he hopes; editors may see them not as sincere anger but as an attempt to intimidate or bully, and that is counter-productive to a positive reception of any argument. --NellieBly (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Blackmane and WP:NOT#WEBHOST Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Pedro. It turns out that User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon is based on content deleted (unanimously!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Vernon and userfied five years ago. MER-C 10:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Topic ban of Sven Manguard on discussions involving user TonyTheTiger

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

Not going to happen per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Because Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) resorts to lies in discussions about me, I would prefer not to have to deal with a liar in my WP interactions. At his topic ban initiation you will note that he resorts to lies and does not use diffs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)

1. Lie number 1 "He's begun rewuesting that the images be moved to commons, as they are not safe here"
   1. I do not recall requesting that any files be moved to commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
      1. He's right there. I admit, on this small point, I got it wrong. Sfan00 IMG put the requests in on the letter and the check, and I'm not sure who moved the ones already in commons over. I can stand by the rest of my argument though. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Lie number 2 "TTT is ignoring that the community has repeatedly told him that he is not notable"
   1. Why would he make arguments that I am claiming notability. Note that in the arguments he points to I state "I am not arguing notability"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

      You may not be arguing notability, but by trying to host masses of biog stuff about yourself, you're *acting* as though you're notable (or that you think Wikipedia is a free web host) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be a ploy to silence sven. You tout your passing percentage but you fail to mention that most of those files passed by a slim margin due to the fact things pass with a 2/3 majority (including the nominator). If you would look at my closing statements they reflect this. For the moving files to commons this link should be helpful. File at commons The file was moved to commons after the local version was deleted at FfD. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• This link? Jarkeld (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That would be the one --Guerillero | My Talk 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Neither of those is a diff supporting a claim that I have been requesting moves to commons. None of these opposes presents any evidence against the statement of fact that Sven Manguard is a liar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just petty retaliation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is just silly. TCO (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sven should be proud that all his admin friends think the fact that he is a liar is silly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if you don't want to deal with Sven Manguard, you don't have to. no one is forced to contribute to Wikipedia. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Note - It might be helpful if the "accused" admin would post a diff or two to refute the editor's claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reversal of fortune Don't propose things that are obviously not going to fly. I propose topic banning TTT instead. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is absurd-- since it's also unsigned, I can't tell who put it up, but it's disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger did, at this diff. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  Um, and also, it is signed... GiantSnowman 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Tiger troll. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

• 'Oppose per WP:POINT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone calm down a little and look at this objectively?

I don't know Tony but from a look at his edits, he appears to be one of the most significant content contributors I've come across. I've read through this and while I see some indications Tony should (1) stop and attempt to form consensus and (2) stop uploading unhelpful files in violation of NOTWEBHOST, I also see no reason to institute topic bans and I certainly see no reason to use comments like "tiger troll" as someone did in Tony's proposal. This is looking like a huge gang-up and it's really not on. Night Ranger (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. TTT has shown consistently over the span of a few months that he is unable to work at featured content processes without turning it into a "look at my featured contributions"-like flood, many editors who have dealt with this across the different processes clearly feel this goes beyond simply FS and this needs to stop, hence the community ban request which is wholly justified. StrPby (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that these topic bans are in fact the best thing for the project. The comments by J Milburn and Strange Passerby, among others both at this thread and elsewhere, indicate that TTT has done this type of thing before. Chances are moderately high that if he continues this behavior at another featured process, the next topic ban proposal will be for all featured processes on Wikipedia, and will have significant support. I, however, chose not to go for that extreme. Also, I was tempted to suggest that TTT be topic banned from creating any page related to himself, be it a subpage, file, or template, after the combination of his 50+ poker templates and his 50+ poker graphs. He's been told repeatedly that he is not notable, and has used, to an appalling level of excess. Again I chose not to go for that extreme, and again I can easily see the community deciding to go for that in the future. This isn't pleasant, I didn't do this for giggles, but I also didn't do this on raw emotion and I believe that I was being objective when I made the proposals. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Night Ranger, I see you've been editing en.Wiki for a few months and have 134 edits; apparently you haven't had the pleasure of dealing with TTT's aim to use Wikipedia to promote ... himself. Your analysis is mistaken. I suggest that any featured content process should enact a clause similar to the one we had to enact at FAC to end the abuse endured there (and I noticed that TTT moved on to disrupting DYK in his quest to win WikiCup, and then to Featured Sounds in his ongoing quest to promote himself, which he admitted at TFA/R) ... FAC's solution to the TTT problem was a rule change:

If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, my account here is new but I've been on Commons since 2007 and have edited here as an IP for a few years as well. You're right, I'm not very familiar with Tony, but from the standpoint of someone who is totally uninvolved and sees someone who has made a great deal of content-based contributions to Wikipedia, it just seems a shame that this has been taken to this level. There has to be a better way to deal with this than topic bans. Maybe not, I dunno. I do know we need more content contributors, not fewer. Night Ranger (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy's and Sven's comments are dead-on. As at FAC, TTT's activity at DYK was the direct impetus for a rule change requiring nominators to conduct reviews on a 1-for-1 basis. cmadler (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know what you are saying I admitted to. During the 2010 WP:CUP, I happened to be out of town at my grandmother's deathbed trying to edit without a regular connection and I ended up causing a lot of problems at DYK. Then, at WP:FSC, there seems to be a bunch of lies being cast about by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) that I am nominating any old crap, when 80% of my stuff has been passing. Clearly, I never got in tune with FP, but Sven is insistent on categorizing my FS contributions as if they have not been successful and huffing and puffing about how it is just like all other situations. For any featured content review process, 80% pass rate is pretty good. At FAC and FPC, I don't have great pass rates, but at FSC, and FLC, I do. At FLC my last 8 in a row have passed if my records are correct and at FSC, 44 of my last 56. Don't generalize to all featured content processes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your FAC pass rate is what it is because you get other people to pull your articles through-- they almost all appeared at FAC ill-prepared, and you continued to bring them ill-prepared until the TonyTheTiger Clause was added to the instructions. I was referring to your typical self-serving statement, once you realized Featured Lists and Featured Sounds would be on the main page, that "Damn. I have to learn how to do a FS to keep up my main page been there done that thing." After that, you went straight to Amazing Grace and tried to insert sounds just so you could get them featured. It's always all about you all the time. Please stop calling Sven a liar-- that's a personal attack and you should be blocked for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A liar is a person who tell multiple untruths. He has admitted to one regarding whether I have requested materials be moved to commons. Most people would say claiming I nominate wantonly with low-quality nominees at FSC is far from the truth since 44 of my last 56 have passed. He has said I have claimed to be notable when I have stated the opposite. This ban discussion has basically gone down the path of Sven posting lies, me showing they are untrue and people piling on saying that even though the things are not actually true you have a bad attitude and have been a problem in a whole bunch of other ways. How would you like me to sugarcoat this ban nomination. It is a string of untruths put together to instigate a lynch mob of people willing to ban a person from posting images against an XfD when the person at issue has never violated an XfDs in five years on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when I was on my grandmothers death bed, I worked offline and dumped dozens of articles into the DYK process for the CUP causing people to question why I was not using my normal editorial routine (wondering if I was dumping my own work) and creating debates about whether the numerous hooks should be merged as well as causing consternation about why I was not reviewing articles as fast as I was nominating them. At FAC, I'd have to check, but I think about 4 of my last 5 passed. So the complaint you are griping about is from years ago. I have only been nominating with co-authored work of late to keep problems to a minimum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WRT, Amazing Grace, now that I have nominated 75 FSC, I understand what sound reviewers think improves/degrades articles (as evidenced by my 80% pass rate) and believe the two files that I want to add belong in the article. However, the main editor does not want to talk about the merits of the files and continues to WP:OWN the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My condolences, but please stop throwing numbers around, they're irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that you've been asked to stop and your methods have, in fact, been questioned and you aren't confirming or denying this. You continue to update your biography despite the very fact you aren't notable, while you are thanked for your contributions you seem to be promoting yourself and your work on Wikipedia albeit liberally (your consistant calling up of how many FSes you've made in your comments in this ANI thread are just some of these examples).

Wikipedia isn't a world stage or WordPress, it's an encyclopedia. All userspace frippery is not helping build an encyclopedia but rather starting unnecessary arguments such as this, I'm sure you know full-well you aren't notable and I'm sure you know full-well no one cares if you're successful or unsuccessful in your poker ventures. Sure you've contributed a lot of content, but showing it off and going around and waving the number of featured content you've nominated/contributed to in arguments in an attempt to coerce others to agree with you seems like you're trying to get the upper-hand, so what if you have good "pass rates", you're starting arguments left, right and centre. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:08pm • 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you are condoning me for following your suggestion. Aren't you the one who said to go count my recent nominations. I went straight to WP:FSL at your suggestion {"look through all of your recent 20 nominations"). Now, that you realize your suggestion makes you look bad, you try and say to ignore the numbers. I don't know if 56 files is exactly 20 nominations, but those are approximately the most recent twenty to have been evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Proof once more

... that handing out achievement badges results in people disrupting the project for the sake of their trophy pages. It's high time we codified that FA / FS / DYK / WikiCup et cetera are strictly intended to make contributing here a little more fun and that editors who take them too seriously will be asked not to participate in them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd wonder whether instituting regular discussions to whether to ban particular editors on the less than clear-cut question of how inappropriately seriously they are taking the processes would end up causing a lot more drama than the status quo. Thinking of the cases of Ottava Rima, Matisse etc. Skomorokh 11:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that it takes less effort to ban one from, say, DYK than it would to ban them from the whole project. But the point was simply to state up front that we consider these things to be strictly informal games meant to aid the building of the project, such as to dissuade people from treating them like an end to themselves. That way, there would hopefully be less drama when it comes to asking people to voluntarily stop participating in star-collection. I've been meaning to write Wikipedia:You are not your barnstars for ages now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

_delurk A person's motivation for contributing is unimportant. What matters is the end result: does it result in a net improvement to the encyclopedia? Somorokh makes a good point that the informal approach has advantages. Trinket collection is a positive except when it morphs into gaming a process, and usually that self-manages. The drawbacks to formalizing 'don't take it too seriously' is that it shifts attention from project mission to qualitative judgment of the editor, and that type of shift generates conflict. In this discussion (re: the main thread), the basic problem is that one editor who does not take feedback well has nominated a very large number of 'freebies'. Roughly that is like the difference between putting an article through an automated spell check versus manually editing it. Although it does help the project to convert files to .ogg format, it also creates problems when an editor frequently submits nominations that may take more time to review than to nominate. Two approaches have resolved that in the past: reviewers decline to evaluate and/or editors enter informal agreements to shift focus toward submissions where their own efforts have a greater role. In this instance an individual's response became combative after other editors called a break to revise the featuring criteria. New essays aren't needed: WP:POINT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT already apply. The current friction would be substantially less if an editor had built up a trophy collection of several dozen FS stars by recording cicadas--especially if they created new articles for the cicada species. There's a wide open niche at FS to parallel FP's bird and bug photographers. The difference between conflict and productivity is a willingness to take feedback and step outside the box. Durova⁴¹² 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) _relurk

A person's motivation is important when it's self-promotion that is wearing down other editors who must review ill-prepared work, draining their time, and abusing of the featured content processes. I have never been in favor of banning anyone from a featured process, on the principle that even a stopped clock is right twice a day-- IMO, the solution is to change the rules of the processes to stop the abuse, which is what we were forced to do at FAC because of TTT's repeatedly using it as peer review for ill-prepared articles, after which he moved on to DYK (which he seriously abused in his quest to win the WikiCup) and Featured Lists and Sounds. I also think DYK made the wrong change to their rules, requiring nominators to review, which has only resulted in more faulty DYKs, poor hooks, and ongoing copyvios, but that's another topic. There are other problems at Featured Sounds, which is an immature process-- they should adjust to prevent this kind of abuse, but I don't foresee that happening. Similar problems occurred at Featured Pictures, which is also gameable for those who participate in the "reward culture". The "reward culture" per se is not the problem-- it's editors who game the processes while abusing of editors who must review sub-standard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The now-banned user ItsLassieTime was notorious for a number of things, including racking up "good article" nominations while apparently compromising many of them with copyright violations (as was later learned). I wonder what the point is? Is anyone likely to list writing wikipedia "good articles" as a point on their resume? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but someone has used good articles to assist in achieving tenure. --70.246.148.152 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy is quite right that negative effects on other editors are an important consideration. It's a difficult situation to manage when an individual consistently leeches productivity from a large number of highly productive editors. She has handled difficult situations and earned a great deal of respect for it--most people would have burned out. I just wish I could share her optimism about formal criteria changes being the solution for FS: both FS and FP are in a situation that FA would face if about 1 in 2000 public domain articles from other encyclopedias were adaptable for FA promotion, with about 95% of those requiring serious work but the remaining 5% of those only needing wikimarkup. That 5% occurs in clusters. Both FS and FP have the same dilemma: although it's useful to this site's readers to import great content to WP and get it recognized, people are human and reviewers get fatigued. The editors who know where the caches are could flood the nomination process with freebies, and if the community attempted to create a formal definition of a freebie they would likely create a gameable definition. In the past this worked out informally because the people who knew this loophole had the project's best interests at heart, and the community would be pleasantly surprised how some "notorious" trinket-collectors were basically enthusiasts who responded to this reasonably. A pragmatic strategy is to deal with an editor's motivations empirically: if the energy is positive it can be redirected into win-win alternatives, although the history prior to FS and the reaction to recent feedback do not bode well. Tony, if you're reading this it would be a really good idea to switch gears: there is plenty of other low hanging fruit at FS--I suggested a couple of types in a previous post. But if the motivation really is to game processes then the most effective response is to disengage. Nobody is forced to review nominations. Durova⁴¹² 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Naive question -- if a contributor is gaming some incentive like FS by flooding it with self-noms, can't people who object just let those self-noms sit while they review others? Or, as a policy fix, set an upper bound on self-noms-per-week? FWIW, I don't know TTT from Lulu the Lotus Eater, and my user page boasts of 8 DYKs. Sharktopus^talk 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Astute question, Sharktopus. That's exactly how the reviewers usually handle gaming: withholding reviews on a case by case basis. A flexible response has served the project better than hemming in the most productive editors a blanket "be less productive" rule. Durova⁴¹² 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FS has no self cleaning mechanism like FP. A sound could sit unreviewed for a month and stay on the board. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between gaming the system and posting numerous noms that are sufficient quality to have a high likelihood of passing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad

Just checked out his tony the tiger (Antonio) user page. Pretty darnded interesting actually. If he had that as his user page itself would be kinda OK, no? Or if we made him skinny it down (not tracking his current winnings or the like...guy needs to get his own blog really.) The 600# deadlift in particular is pretty darn respect-worthy. Too bad the fellow does not "get it" that he is disruptive, but it's been years and the guy is an adult. (Even worse, he is an admin, which means he should have a certain type of maturity, of self-reflection). Wiki just needs to do what is right for itself. Too bad we don't have some special stars for FAs on core articles. Hmmm...getting an idea here. Even for that, I know he would gaff it off and do the minimum...guy is a bit of a sea-lawyer. Still...reminds me of the comment about Wikicup and FA interactions. If we made at least SOME of the "rewards" like TFA and 'cup give priority to "real topics" this might make our overall "product for readers" better. TCO (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, TTT is not an administrator. I believe he had an RfA at one time but did not pass. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Three RfAs (1, 2, 3). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this year, the WikiCup is offering more points (and, probably, a separate award) for high importance articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I look warmer on the 'cup now.TCO (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson's behavior

User:Pmanderson and I are currently participants in an RfC submitted by another user to gauge how the community feels about our romanization of Russian guideline. The guideline in question was proposed by me in 2007 and adopted by a universal consensus between a dozen editors after being open for discussion for over a month. The person who submitted the RfC believes the consensus no longer holds in relation to a specific part of that guideline, namely the one prescribing the way to deal with establishing a conventional name for a place in Russia. While I disagree there is a problem, I readily admit it is a reasonable request which deserves wider community attention.

Here is how the events unfolded:

• The RfC was opened on June 9, and Pmanderson added his oppose on the same day.
• I added my support soon after, and commented on Pmanderson's opposition, citing a specific example from Britannica (an acceptable reliable source per WP:NCGN).
• In a different section, Pmanderson states that he is going to change his vote and will "remove the disputed text". The latter part is the the beginning of the trouble—we have two people opposing something (including Pmanderson), one person supporting it (me), and the discussion which is going on but is nowhere near completion, yet Pmanderson sees nothing wrong with unilaterally deciding the part is question "is plainly not consensus" and removing it himself. For now, however, we can write it off as the "bold" part of the BRD cycle.
• Pmanderson changes his vote as promised and declares that we should not use Britannica because it uses "pidgin English" (I'm not kidding) and because WP:NCGN needs to be amended anyway.
• Next he compiles a list of the grievances he has with the entire section of the guideline. Not a part of the original RfC, but OK—all editors have a right to identify potential problems, and adding this to an already ongoing RfC makes sense.
• His next steps are editing the guideline as promised, classifying the parts he censored out as "strongly disputed" and "dubious". Now, at the time of this edit, the only person who "strongly" disputes these is he himself; most of the parts he took out have no comments from any other editor (even me). This is the first time he does this, so, let's put it into the "B in BRD is for 'bold'" bucket.
• I reverted the changes when I saw them the next day, pointing out that such sweeping changes should not be made while the discussion is still young. Welcome to the "R in BRD is for 'revert'" part.
• The next step in BRD is, of course, D (discussion). Not according to Pmanderson. Note the threat in the edit summary.
• I decide to try restoring the last stable version (the one being discussed) once again. The ANI remark is more of a representation of how flabbergasted I am, not something I intended to do at that time.
• In response, Pmanderson reverts once again, accusing me of treating the page as my "pet project". In practice, we now have one concerned editors who finds it perfectly OK to demote a standing guideline to an "essay" status merely because he disagrees with it.
• This is supported by a comment previously made on the talk page, where Pmanderson is "genuinely shocked" with the wording of the whole guideline and declares "most of it" to be "contrary to usage and policy". A certain passage he describes as text which "contends ethnic nationalism" (the final parts of this diff). These are opinions he is entitled to, but not shared by anyone else on the page. My feelings are summed up by the last paragraph in this diff.
• Not to bore the reviewers with unnecessary details, the situation only goes downhill from here. In the course of few days, Pmanderson:
  • decides that the guideline does not even deserve an "essay" status and marks it as "historic";
  • describes my request to respect previous consensus and to follow procedure as "the demand of our more unscrupulous bullies" and assumes (indirectly) that I cannot be a "reputable editor" (apparently, because no "reputable editor" would ever support something Pmanderson is against). Later he described the request to honor process as "power gaming" and stonewalling.
  • further describes my request to respect procedure as a "bad-faith revert war" and the whole guideline as a "private opinion of a Russian editor" and parts of it as a "nationalist diatribe";
  • produced this opinion of Britannica as a source, with a thinly veiled characterization of me as someone among "non-anglophone nationalists like those which inflict themselves on Wikipedia" who "should be banned". At this point even the person who submitted the RfC asked Pmanderson to chill and to respect the process;
  • started to present my two reverts as "interminable", pretending not to understand the reason behind them (something already explained to Pmanderson by two people), and trying to turn the tables around (either discuss what other people want, or acknowledge that this is your private project), wondering at the same time how can one disagree with his opinion "without being a Russian nationalist";
  • recognized his earlier remark about my two "interminable" reverts as a factual mistake and corrected it to "revert-warring to the unspeakable". By this time, Pmanderson is still the only person who thinks of the guideline as "unspeakable", yet instead of a discussion all we have is a steady flow of attacks in my direction;
  • has been asked by the RfC submitter to stop calling me a "Russian nationalist";
  • called to ban me flat out (as "the author of this" and "POV pusher");
  • decided he had enough of my opposition and made the final recommendation;
  • voiced an interesting opinion on how changes to our guidelines should be done (by observing that it has changed in response to ongoing discussion), which is in direct contradiction with the procedures outlined in WP:HISTORICAL;
  • speculated that the 2007 consensus was due to me gathering "my handful of friends" and described his unilateral decision to change the text and status of the guidelines as "specific proposals"
  • promised to make an edit to prove a point and proceeded with it. Whether the glaring mistake he made in that edit is intentional, is anyone's guess;
• continued and continued with his insistence to pass his own opinion, unsupported by any other single person, as something "the discussion has established".

And all this in relation to a standing guideline with the discussion ongoing. To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected).

This is how I see things. This (and this) is how Pmanderson sees them. Comments from uninvolved parties would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

TL;DR. Can you summarise please? What specific incident requires administrator intervention here? Have you notified Pmanderson of this? I know his obdurate refusal to maintain his talkpage in a manner which allows people to actually edit it without waiting five minutes for it to load makes it difficult, but you are required. → ROUX ₪ 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, too long indeed. My apologies. The middle part is just a list of diffs to refer to; the first paragraph provides a background, and the last two summarize the problem. If any of my accusations in the last two paragraphs raise an eyebrow, a diff to support them can be found in the mid-portion. The user has been notified. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:26 (UTC)

From my point of view what happened is much simpler:

• This guideline has sat undiscussed since 2007. User:Mlm42 filed an RfC questioning one part of it; that part has received no support but Ezhiki's. It seems to me to have other quite serious flaws. I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only, and he would revert any effort to change it or indicate that it was the product of a very dated and local discussion. I so tagged it, hoping that this would inspire actual proposals to meet the complaints of several of us.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed, and I did a draft, expecting that novel language would provide an opportunity to converge. Instead, he objected on purely procedural grounds, insisting that he alone could formulate proposals, and that they must have a formal vote. I agreed, skeptically, to wait a couple days for these propoeals.
• Instead of formulating them, he has come here.

In short, this is a classic case of dressing up a content dispute in which Ezhiki is the minority (and a WP:OWN claim) as a conduct dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how discussing my behavior helps your position any. If my behavior needs to be discussed, you are welcome to submit a separate ANI report. Here, let's stick with yours.

To the points:

• A guideline sitting undiscussed since 2007 is not a problem—it's more of an indication that it works, if anything. However, once a discussion is open, editors are expected to discuss, not, as Pmanderson did, to jump to conclusions and hastily tailor the guideline according to their own vision.
• The reverts I have made were to ensure that proper procedures are being followed (and there is nothing wrong with "insisting on procedural grounds"). Pmanderson is welcome to make suggestions for amending the guideline, as is anyone else, but it is unacceptable to insist that changes must be made immediately when the RfC was up for discussion for only one day (!) and no other opinions supporting most of Pmanderson's views have been voiced, and that Pmanderson has a right to make changes, while another editor doesn't even have a right to disagree with them.
• I made some minor edits; Ezhiki reverted. I made some tags and commented some things out. Ezhiki reverted. True, and this conforms to the B and R of the BRD cycle. What Pmanderson omits is that instead of discussion (D, step 3 in BRD), he re-reverted and kept insisting on his version. See the evidence section above for specific diffs.
• At this point, it became fairly clear that the guideline represented Ezhiki's opinion only.... It may have become clear to Pmanderson, but no one else shared this sweeping assessment, which Pmanderson continued to pass for "consensus". This is actually a perfect example of Pmanderson's overall attitude—make a statement, and then keep referring to that statement as if it were true forever and is universally supported.
• Further discussion revealed a couple points on which Ezhiki grudgingly agreed. I would appreciate if my agreement were not referred to in such terms.
• As for the proposals, I discussed the possibility of submitting them with the RfC submitter, and mentioned that I will collect and post them after a few days once other potentially interested parties had a chance to join the discussion. I did not come here instead of making proposals (a suggestion itself showing the lack of AGF), I came here because I saw a larger problem. Besides, the "couple days" to which Pmanderson "skeptically agreed" have not even passed! Another example of unexplainable hastiness exhibited by this editor.
• The WP:OWN accusation I'm not even going to comment on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 20:50 (UTC)

• • Still no proposals from Ezhiki...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I started the RfC which kicked all this off. I thought we were starting to make progress towards improving the guideline, but the incivility levels between Ezhiki and Pmanderson have been steadily rising.. in my opinion the incivility has mostly been fueled by Pmanderson, who appears to be upset about the (perceived) inconsistencies between the guideline WP:RUS (maintained mostly by Ezhiki) and the more widely accepted guideline WP:NCGN (maintained mostly by Pmanderson). I'm hopeful this can be sorted out, to the satisfaction of both of them, by making better wording choices in WP:RUS. Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if it could be settled by such means; although WP:RUS much more seriously conflicts with core policies which I rarely edit. As for WP:NCGN, I have undertaken from time to time to summarize a discussion, or react to an instance of actual consensus in Wikipedia space; but I have attempted to do so only when nobody else had done so; certainly I have not prevented others from doing so. I doubt Ezhiki is entitled to say the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• AS for Ezhiki's particular comments: the word "percieved as racist" was anglophone, by an editor who plainly has no notion what it means.
• Similarly, if If you must, then was not intended as grudging, then I must regret Ezhiki's use of an idiomatic expression outside the sense it customarily bears. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  How can the presence of an open RfC on the guideline's talk page not clue you in that "attempts to do so" (i.e., to reach actual consensus) are being made? Why such hastiness? And what "instance of actual consensus" did you have in mind while making this edit (note the impeccable grammar)? Or this edit? Or this edit? There's certainly nothing on the talk page (beyond your own comments, that is), to indicate a "consensus" of any sort to substantiate any of those edits.

  On the ...who plainly has no notion... bit, here we again have Pmanderson making an assumption, formatting it as an obvious truth, and expecting others to take this blatant lack of good faith to heart. A perfect illustration of the problem, that one is. And misspelling a common word in a sentence which accuses another editor of poor grasp of the language? Oh, the irony.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

  Sigh. It's not my opinion that the remark in question was not racist; that the opinion of several uninvolved editors, here. But a spurious cry of incivility is almost as useful as spurious cry of racism. 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Information here may be relevent to this discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. --Jayron32 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢: Generally, whenever Anderson is involved in a discussion, we're going to have problems with civility. That's reflected in his blocks. It's a shame he hasn't learned from them, but he often succeeds in getting other editors riled up (as he has with me), so perhaps he feels the rewards of attacking rather than cooperating are worth the occasional block. His modus operandi is that whichever POV he supports is 'consensus' (even if he made it up just then), that others defending established consensus is 'ownership', that his wording is 'English' (despite the fact he has yet to master English grammar[29]—that just happens to be the edit I saw before coming here), while any competing wording is 'not English', unprovoked personal attacks, 'I didn't hear that' when evidence contradicts him, etc. Sometimes he may even have a valid point, but it tends to get lost in all the bombast. BTW, I've heard the 'doesn't know what anglophone means' dispute before, with the same complaint that it was covert racism. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, kwami has just summed it all up—I'd agree this is exactly what's going on on the WP:RUS RfC. Looking at pretty much any discussion Mr. Anderson had participated in, if there is a disagreement of any sort, the same pattern of behavior can be expected again and again and again all over. How can one have have six blocks in the past twelve months alone (all for personal attacks, harassment, revert warring, move warring, and a 3RR violation), be a subject of several ANI reports and a conduct RfC, and yet still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance? How many times will incidents like this one have to repeat before sanctions are imposed? Blocks clearly don't work; on two occasions he had been unblocked for "seeing errors in his ways", but the consequent blocks and ANI reports indicate very much otherwise. Saying "I didn't do anything wrong but I won't do it again" just isn't good enough any more. How long will this kind of behavior be allowed to go on?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of the above, for the most part. The one thing that I have slight trouble with is the "still be allowed to devote a third of his editing time to policy space, where following proper process is of paramount importance?" comment. Policy pages are pretty unimportant. Myself and probably 90% of all editors simply ignore the text there, while upholding the ideas that they embody. What users such as Pmanderson (and yourself, I'm guessing, based on this comment and the WP:RUS page) fail to realize is that it doesn't really matter what policy pages actually say.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By and large it doesn't matter; but Wikipedia space is, all too often, used to insist on damage in mainspace. Some sentence which has sat unread for four years since two or three editors "made a consensus" five years ago, becomes "Consensus Policy before which all must tremble" in the hands of some editors. It is preferable to have guidelines which don't say stupid things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That I agree with, but what you say and what you do are clearly two different things. Which tends to create threads such as this. I think that you and I actually hold very similar opinions in this area, but... I'd like to see you spend time elsewhere, because I think that your "battlefield" approach does more harm then good. Where there are issues with people using Wikipedia policy as "the Truth" out there in the mainspace, that should be dealt with by talking to the people involved and convincing them that they're taking the wrong approach. It is preferable that our policy and guidelines don't say "stupid things", but it's not that big of a deal that they sometimes do.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert (yet) on the behavior of this editor, but I do find it difficult to understand what is constructive and substantive about misquotes and twisted comments here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this now?

ANI discussions are not supposed to be laundry lists of unrelated grievances. Serge Woodzing is objecting to edits of Throne of a Thousand Years - the article he wrote, and which used to read like a publisher's blurb (the talk page suggests that this is because he represents the publisher). I'm glad to see it has been cleaned up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson's got a point—this should be closed soon. Here's what we've gathered so far.

As of today, five editors (including me) have voiced an opinion that Pmanderson's behavior is problematic. ANI, of course, is not a place to assess the overall conduct; it is a place to report and act on specific incidents. With that in mind, I would appreciate the following three issues addressed before this thread is archived:

1. With regards to the ongoing RfC on the romanization of Russian guideline, Pmanderson is in general a very vocal opposer of the current of the guideline, while I am in general a very vocal supporter. With that in mind, I believe neither of us should be trusted with assessing what the standing consensus is or with amending the wording of the guideline; either after the discussion closes or (especially) while it is ongoing. Is it a reasonable request to restore the guideline to its pre-RfC state and amend it only after the RfC closes and specific recommendations become clear? I would trust any uninvolved established user with this task; I am also confident the job can be done by the RfC submitter (User:Mlm42). I do not trust Pmanderson's ability to accomplish this task.
2. The support for this ANI thread demonstrates that Pmanderson's behavior is often problematic. The RfC on this user's conduct filed about a year ago was closed with the statement that the sheer number of endorsements asserting Pmanderson's behavior "indicate[s] that Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others", and while no sanctions appeared to be called for at that time, it was nevertheless clear that "there is a problem that needs correcting". Since that RfC, Pmanderson piled up six more blocks for all the same reasons, and was a subject of several similar ANI threads. The problems does not seem to have been corrected; it seems to only have gotten worse. With that in mind, would another RFC/U be appropriate to discuss not just this incident, but the overall behavioral pattern since the last RFC/U?
3. Are any disciplinary measures warranted in relation to this specific incident?

I appreciate time and effort others have put into their comments in this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:58 (UTC)

Hm. I see a number of editors who would like to drag in their grievances, real or invented, against me. ANI is indeed not a place to consider overall conduct, especially from volunteer plaintiffs like these.

Ezhiki's first request is to make a page say many things which are plainly not consensus. The comments on the clause originally at issue in the RFC are overwhelmingly negative; the discussion has produced negative comments by other editors on much of the rest of it, including a suggestion that most of it be replaced by a cross-reference to other more established guidelines, which say different things; even Ezhiki's most recent edit claims he has no objection to this change (which is not yet done). One substantive change I have made (to recommend -y instead of -iy as the Romanization of the Russian ending) is supported by every comment on it, including Ezhiki's.

Changing a guideline to a state which is demonstrably not consensus is oppposed to WP:POLICY. This is taking proceduralism well beyond excess. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's one solution: both of you ignore this and go back to Wikipedia_talk:Romanization of Russian and simply talk to each other. If you're both willing to see each other's point of view (without battling over the tags on the front of the document), then I'm confident that a mutually agreeable solution will arise.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. There are three suggestions, two of of them rather drastic, awaiting comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs

Would an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Doncram NHRP stubs again? The debate started on 31 May 2011 and remains open. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ping? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pang? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pong? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Calaf? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable block of Δ

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Asterion (talk · contribs) has just blocked Δ (talk · contribs), claiming civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring. As there's no warning on Δ's page on this, the best I can surmise is over these series of edits on Croatian kuna : [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. I will also note that he created a new section on that article's talk page [35] after he was reverted but before reverting a second time (eg 2RR). He did not exceed 3RR. This is also NFCC work that has been broadcasted well beforehand in March for the various numismatics projects and discussed at length at NFCC, and while not 100% resolved, there is consensus for these removals until the issue is resolved. He engaged with discussion and I see no signs of incivility there Talk:Croatian kuna.

Δ's requesting an unblock: were I not involved, I would easily remove this as there's no justification for it, none of the reasons that Asterion gave - while suggested by community sanctions - match up to the actions I'm seeing in light of the community sanctions - and if they are, they we need to reclarify them because I cannot see what he's violated. Unless Asterion has other reasons to justify this, I recommend Asterion's block be reviewed. (A message to Asterion will be dropped shortly). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question is subject to community restrictions and has been warned and blocked in the past. Failure to engage in dialogue and treat other editors in a respectful manner is clear indeed. Regards, --Asterion^talk 03:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by that second sentence. It's not so clear to me. NW (Talk) 03:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And exactly what disrespect did Delta give that we let other editors get away with all over the place without question? I see that you declined to remove his block, claiming that he threatened a block via this edit, but clearly he used "may be blocked" which is far from a threat or uncivil. Ignoring some parts of a comment while still responding is also far from being uncivil, unless there's a new line in the sand we expect Delta to practice. Additionally, as it remained unresolved from the last time Delta was here, there are no new restrictions on him for maintaining the NFC policy, though clearly he's taken steps to clarify what he is doing with the right edit summaries and talk page discussion. One could argue he is being selective on the policy, but the policy assumes limited exceptions, meaning that if it is an exception should be discussed first before adding the content back in. So again, none of these are against anything in his community restrictions, and the block seems extremely inappropriate for these actions. A warning, yes; a possible ANI discussion yes, a block, heck no. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, this is not the way I see it. Even if not intended, the civility issue is still there. I do stand by my actions but would not oppose to a reduction in duration if deemed appropriate by the wider community. --Asterion^talk 03:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you'll never count me as a "supporter" of Beta/Delta in any way; but I seriously can't find a single thing he said in the diffs you provided on his talk page, or indeed on anything he has said in the past few days, which would justify a block, of any user, under any set of civility restrictions. Like, not even close. I am a frequent and vocal critic of Beta/Delta's interaction style, however this is not even remotely blockable in any way. I am the civility police that everyone complains about, and even I cannot find anything uncivil which has been said. Please unblock him. --Jayron32 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am Spartacus! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This block appears unsupportable to me. To my mind, there is no civility issue here at all. I'm also less than impressed by the blocking administrator reviewing his own block and also reverting the disputed article to his preferred version. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing incivil in Δ's comments. I agree with Jayron32, please unblock him. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? Asterion both blocked him and declined the unblock request? That's not how it's supposed to work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how I'm reading this as well. That's really not kosher. Courcelles 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Also, bad block to begin with, should be lifted ASAP. Delta has the ability to be uncivil, but this wasn't it. Courcelles 04:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

Blocked him, declined the unblock request, and restored the images to the article that Δ had removed. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please stop abusing Δ? For god's sake this is the third block in about as many weeks. I know that Δ, with his long record and questionable civility, is an easy target, but I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning. Yes, Δ should know better. Yes, Δ needs to be careful. Yes, previous blocks should factor into future blocks. This is, however, getting out of hand. Δ does good work. He's worth keeping around. Continuously blocking him, which is functioning as a long term ban, when no discussion on a long term ban of Δ has reached a conclusion favoring that outcome, is unethical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have unblocked User:Δ per the consensus here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Asterion: You acted way out of line here for not only blocking Δ, but also declining his unblock request. Further, going on to restore the images in violation of our guidelines and policy was wholly out of line. If you're going to police Δ's edits in the future, I strongly suggest you gain some understanding of the NFCC policy and let other administrators step in with some advice if you begin to think it a good idea to block Δ again. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• 1. First, I think delta is a problem with WP. I've supported his outright ban from WP.
  2. Second, "I've seen a whole lot worse behavior go by without even a stern warning" is a weak cop out. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
  3. Lastly, I don't see ANYTHING in these diffs that was uncivil. It seems pretty standard and follows WP rules/customs. I don't see a reason for a block here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • • What I meant was not that bad behavior justifies other bad behavior. Instead I meant that civility rules are applied unfairly towards him. As to your first point, I would politely suggest that you drop the issue. You and he are on opposite sides of an active Wikipedia-based ideology war, just about everyone who works in files knows that, and therefore if you start any action against him, it will be seen as inherently tainted, and you might get boomeranged for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Unless delta starts something with me personally, I won't be doing anything on WP:AN/ANI anytime soon. My point of trying to get him blocked in the past was that, even though I was on that side, I don't think this behavior warranted a block. I agree that civility rules are imposed against him unequally, BUT that is of his own doing. Until such incivility ceases, those community imposed restrictions are going to remain in effect to keep a bad situation from getting worse. If he shows better self control, I would see no reason to keep such sanctions in place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If we are going to be blocking on community standards, I would expect Delta to only be blocked on the same type of incivility charges leveled against any average user which would normally take them to WQA, RFC/U, or AN, or maybe just let off with a warning. If, instead, the community routinely ignores some incivility (like swearing) but insists that Delta be blocked for violating it, that's a double standard. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • No, it's a result of his community sanctions. It is supposed to mean he's blocked for any and all violations. A community sanction for something doesn't mean treat them the same as anyone else. it means that someone has had problems in an area and the community has decided that the person is allowed far less leeway in that area than the average joe because they know it gets out of hand for that person. If someone is given a community sanction of 1RR, we don't hold everyone to 1RR nor do we let that person go to 3RR because everyone else is allowed to and it's a double standard.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has clashed with Beta/Delta on a number of occasions, this particular incident seems rather mild. It might be a good idea for Delta to be a bit more selective with "you may be blocked" warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand by the community's decision. As for the unblock request, this is probably the first block I have enforced in around 4 years, so no conspiracy here. I was simply trying to explain my reasons to him, not denying any kind of appeal. As for comments like this, I have no opinion whatsoever on the article or on the images yes/images no issue, so let's just not extrapolate and fall foul of the same lack of civility. This is *all* I have to say about this. Good luck with the project. --Asterion^talk 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. It is understood that not everyone has the block procedure down pat. Hammersoft is being a bit too harsh. And Delta will be up for another block sooner or later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the blocking admin has retired. That's a shame, hopefully he will reconsider. 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's rather an extreme reaction. If everyone retired after making a mistake, there would be (almost) no one left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I sta...checked his contribs and he has been incredibley inactive. You are not losing much.

2. Admins that quit like this show a lack of the maturity and ability to deal with conflict that we should expect of RFA candidates.

3. If all the drama and wacking were to go away...but the articles still needed work, how many people would stay to work on them?

TCO (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As the person whose quarreling with Δ led to the block, I guess I should say something. I agree that a two-week block for him would have been excessive. I already told him publicly that his block threats were being silly and that IMO was punishment enough :) It is true that Δ seems to be making a pretty generic deletionist argument against the content in question, and being a bit of an ass in the process (JFTR I saw absolutely no hint of consensus or indeed consensus-building for this "work" at the discussion page I was pointed to), but I'm an admin and my skin is thick enough to deal with that - it needs to be. So while I appreciate Asterion's intervention for the sake of civility as such, as well as the difficult predicament in dealing with disruptiveness, the block, particularly of such length, does seem a bit too trigger-happy for this particular incident. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed Asterion put up a 'retired' sign on their talk page. OK, that's also a bit excessive, please don't take things to heart this much... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a case of, sorry to see you go, thanks for your contributions, please leave your tools at the door on the way out. An almost inactive admin that blocks when they don't understand blocking has no right to be retiring in a huff and keeping the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed a rash of returning old-school admins lately who have have the policies and guidelines change without them realizing it, only to make a questionable decision with the tools, and end up here on ANI? Just sayin'. --64.85.216.2 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that and some other strange stuff going on lately involving long-absent admins reappearing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not change the community sanction into something that generates less controversy? You can think of editors who are repeatedly uncivil to have to have a banner on their userpage that says that they have been found to be uncivil. That banner can then only be removed if they behave themselves for some time (say a year). It's a bit like a "beware of the dog" warning, instead of trying to punish a dog for barking. And if the dog does not bark anymore, well, then we don't need the warnign sign anymore... Count Iblis (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Hell has a better chance of freezing before they ever get lifted regardless of how well I behave. Ive been back since July of 2009, almost two years now, and Ive snapped what? once? And when that happened it was after severe provocation. BQZip01 is a perfect example of why it will never happen, their goal is to have be banned regardless of my actions. Its not a matter of needing to place a warning sign about the dog barking, any dog will bite you if you torment it enough. Common sense says, If I poke a dog in the nose two dozen times the odds are I probably will piss it off and may be bitten. In this situation too many admins sit by observe the repeated poking and after the 24 poke the dog bites the person, and then gets punished. What needs to happen and is starting to happen is that those bystanders are no longer ignoring the abuser and are placing the blame where it belongs on the person who is repeatedly poking the dog, not the poor dog who after 23 pokes finally gets fed up because its master(s) refuse to take any action and bites the person out of frustration. Its not a matter of me being uncivil to everyone, quite the opposite I try to be as factual and informative as I can to everyone who comes to my talk page. However if a particular user repeatedly makes personal attacks and pushes my buttons everyone has a breaking point before they snap, mine is fairly high, however people have almost always ignored my complaints when I bring up the fact that I am being provoked, and instead enjoy punishing me after I have been pushed too far. I take a hell of a lot more abuse than 95% of the rest of wikipedia users can handle and it doesn't phase me. However at a point, and administrators refusing to do anything about it I do snap. That is fairly rare (once in the last two years to my knowledge). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, dude. Seriously? I'm pretty sure I was siding with you on this one. However, you aren't a dog. You are a human being and, like everyone else, you ostensibly have the ability to control your own actions. I concur that some people are pushing your buttons (perhaps even intentionally). It is up to you to control your actions. Again, I disagree with the community and think you should be blocked for a while, but consensus says otherwise. Accordingly, you are only subject to your current sanctions. If someone is pushing your buttons and causing problems, leave me a note on my talk page and I will make sure they receive any/all warranted warnings. I will even push for a block of that person if they are continuing to be uncivil. I've said before that "their bad behavior doesn't justify your bad behavior". That sentiment's a two way street. If I am clamoring for your block, I and others should be just as diligent in pushing for others' blocks if they meet the community standards. The difference is that if you make one mistake, it's going to be counted as your last mistake in a string of them. Noobs get multiple chances, but you get one. If you can control your behavior and avoid hostile language/discussions for 12 months (basically no more blocks), I will support the removal of your restrictions [and you can quote me on that!]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, someone whose last *100* edits date back to November 2008 blocked someone, then reviewed and declined the unblock request, and then reverted to a preferred version? I don't care if he "retired", he needs to have the tools pulled. This is why inactive admins should not retain tools; they are unfamiliar with current community norms and make stupid decisions (yes, stupid) like this. The extreme overreaction to being called out for it reinforces the need to de-admin inactive sysops after three or six months. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. We need a systematic purge of admins more severe in scope than anything Stalin's NKVD did. Won't target any single user here, but this encyclopaedia is based on content, not wiki politics. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with above. But it will never happen because some folks say its unfair and "punishing admins" to require them to remain up to date or risk having their tools suspended. Admins absent for more than a year should be temporarily desysopped and when they come back they should have to work closely with another active admin for at least a few weeks to shake off the rust and become current on policy and SOP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Asterion subsequently blanked and then indefinitely protected his user page. Desysopping here might seem punitive, but if he's retired now anyway, it might be safer all round, given this series of mistakes (and he might even be more likely to return if admin responsibilities were removed). Rd232 public ^talk 02:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe Asterion will un-retire when the matter dies down a week from now. To me, it sounds like the textbook example of meatball:Goodbye. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on article rescue

Since Avanu (talk · contribs) is not showing that he can differentiate between useful and unhelpful contributions on the subject of Article Rescue, I propose that he be topic banned on the subject for one year. For example, he added a section to Template talk:Rescue last night about an article that had been "rescued" without the use of the tag, as an indication that the tag wasn't required. Since most of his contributions on the subject seem to hover around that level of logic, I think he needs to stay away from the topic altogether.

• Support as proposer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose because if we started topic-banning editors just because they happen to make a few bad/controversial edits, based on a "low level of logic," around a particular area, then we would quite likely need to exclude every single IP editor from topics to do with the US government, and from sci-fi, and from cartoon shows. We'd lose quite a lot of editors. Topic-bans, especially for extended periods of time, should only be used on the most compelling and serious cases, and I'm really not seeing that here. What I'm seeing is a lot of discussion and engagement on the talkpage, among other things. This is clearly a good-faith contributor; perhaps slightly misguided, but really not at the level of desperate incompetence which should be the domain of the topic-ban. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Further observation: Avanu's engagement on the talkpage seems to be pretty mature in comparison to some [36] I might add! ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 12:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poem was clever, and friendly. However, if you don't think so, it would appear that an interaction ban is probably the right thing because if that's all it takes to get sand in your shorts, and you can't help but turn everything SoV does into something worth whining about... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Interaction ban" you say? Funny suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Let me get this straight. You're proposing that an editor be topic banned because he made a talk page post that doesn't run afoul of any policies or guidelines, but, in your estimation shows a "low level of logic?" Can you please either provide the diffs of disruptive or otherwise problematic editing in this area that would show the need for a topic ban or withdraw your proposal? Right now the proposal looks awefully spurious, and given your history with Avanu perhaps it looks even worse. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by Avanu - Sarek, if you think I was saying the Rescue tag *isn't* required, then you completely missed the point of what I posted. The thing that myself and other editors have all been trying to get the 4 or so of you to recognize is that we are in favor of Article Rescue, *but* we're not in favor of drive-by tagging. For some reason Sarek, DreamFocus, and a few others feel incredibly threatened by anyone suggesting that the Rescue tag follow its own guidelines. The story I posted last night was an amazing example of an editor doing things right and being about more than just talk. Sarek, I'm not sure if you read any of it or just simply did a knee-jerk reaction, but frankly I was really impressed by the story of how that Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) article was rescued.

Note: I have a feeling that if people look deeper into this Sarek, they're only going to see what we've all been seeing in your conduct and others' conduct, but you brought it here, so, ok. -- Avanu (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Note: I'm posting the diff to my very first discussion on the Rescue Tag Talk page. I notified people that I was making a WP:bold suggestion for change, and the first person to reply to my post was Sarek, where he immediately phrased it in terms of WP:ownership. diff Essentially this has been what the discussion has been about. 2 or 3 Article Rescue Squadron editors who express a strong strong ownership of this template, versus several others who are trying to get them to see that their cause would be much better supported if they weren't being so touchy about following policy and the tag's own guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistorical note: The debate started a bit earlier than that.

• improper tag in light of Articles for Deletion discussion. If I can't simply merge it to end the debate, why should someone else 'flag for rescue'?
• again, adding a POV tag (rescue) in the article with a strong demand to leave the tag in place while an AfD is ongoing runs counter to the idea of CONSENSUS for AfD, until AfD is settled, leave out
• Violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS, WP:CANVAS, WP:PS, and possibly more. Improve the article, await consensus, do not re-add tag
• Undid revision 426293719 by Heironymous Rowe (talk) - vandalism and violation of WP:GAME, WP:CONS
• ...there is an ongoing deletion discussion. No consensus has been reached, and during this an editor decided to add the 'rescue' tag, which implies the article will be improved, which skews the deletion discussion. True improvements to the article are needed, not WP:CRYSTAL promises, so this seems like a way for people to WP:GAME the AfD rather than actually improving the article and letting AfD run its course.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - As an uninvolved editor, I read the current Template talk:Rescue. While, at first read, I believe Sarek's perspective on the issues raised there is the correct one, the issue raised here seems more like a content dispute. I think both parties are operating in good faith, but the tension on the talk page is a bit too high. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk)

• We have never been in the business of attempting to silence editors who voice strong opinions about our processes, so far as I know. It's not exactly an uncommon opinion that ARS is far from a net positive in its current form, and editors who are part of ARS should accept that the onus is on them to either reform the project to be more universally accepted as productive or to convince its detractors that it's fine as it is. The diffs provided certainly don't warrant a topic ban on the entire process of "article rescue" (a phrase which had never been controversial until ARS started up, by the way). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the justification for a topic ban. I do see an editor who is being tenacious and borderline disruptive. I'd strongly recommend that Avanu take a break from ARS for a while. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hobit, I, and other editors, have asked for minor and reasonable compromise on this tag. In the course of this debate, the status quo editors have continually expressed ownership of this template and have said this issue comes up "every six months or so" (since 2007). Rather than have this issue drag on for yet another 4 years, I'd like to get a reasonable compromise established so we can put this issue to bed once and for all. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You just declared an intention to argue against consensus for the next 4 years?????? I think you just made my case for me. Thanks for the help. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. That's not how I read what Avanu said. Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Yes, I get that. I'd say another way to say it is "this WikiProject won't do things the way I want them to and I'm going to stick at it until I get what I want". I'm not saying you are wrong (I honestly think most of what you have proposed is reasonable, but so is the current tag--I view either as acceptable), I'm saying you need to let it go. There is no consensus for your view and pounding on it isn't going to change things, nor frankly should it. One should not reward people for coming back again and again with the same point. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hobit, what we have seen is a perennial issue and a set of editors who have been running off those who ask for compromise. My goal is to seek a lasting consensus, not just have 3 or so editors continually driving away alternative viewpoints. -- Avanu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But we don't tend to ask other groups to do do things the way outsiders to that group want them done unless there is consensus there is a wider problem. It's clear the members of the group prefer the template as it is. And it's also clear that there is no consensus that the template is a problem as it is. Unless a wider consensus of a problem gets established (perhaps via an RfC?) just arguing with the same editors over and over again isn't going to change anything. I imagine you know that. So it becomes unclear why you keep beating the same drum. As I said, you are being tenacious and borderline disruptive. You are doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• LOL. If we're going to topic ban editors from Article Rescue for having a "low level of logic", that's going to be quite a cull. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For real. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is really the most informative and erudite opinion expressed in this entire section. Plus I laughed :) -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I laughed, too! Actually quite refreshing to find such a gem in this 'house'. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support LOL — Ched :  ?  21:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC).. just so there's no misunderstanding: the support for Black Kite's "LOL" is an oppose of the "ban". — Ched :  ?  22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- We only impose sanctions on editors who are being disruptive. Strongly advocating that the ARS use their tag responsibly is far from that. This seems to me to be a case of "I don't agree with Avanu! Silence him!" Reyk _YO! 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For a number of reasons, the largest of which is I'm not really sure Avanu is that far out of the mainstream in his thinking on ARS. -- ۩ Mask 22:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Please take this in context. Avanu will not stop bringing up the same argument time and again, and even now is trying to start over and do it yet again. Think of this is any other wikiproject. If someone who never contributed to any articles the project was involved in, spent months filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations, wouldn't you consider that disruptive? Dream Focus 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ..."filling their talk page with the same repeating arguments and accusations" - pretty good description of your own user page and talk page, no? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But that's his personal page, of course. Here Avanu is like the preacher on the public street corner all day telling us we're all going to hell. A few times is sufficient to inform us of our sinner status.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to hell. Nor do I think you are going to Miami. What I do think is that *very* minor adjustments can satisfy all parties, but frankly there have been a very small group of 3 or so editors who just won't bend even the smallest amount with regard to addressing misuse of this tag. I put in a proposal that allowed people to remove the tag after 24 hours if people hadn't followed its own guidelines. This was just flatly rejected. Despite knowing it was being used improperly, the minority of faithful ever-present defenders can't allow anything about this tag to change. I've provided many different formats for proposals to find a compromise here and we've had old editors come out with stories of their attempts to work out a compromise on this, all the way back to 2007. Yet the same very small group of editors tenaciously grip the reigns on this tag. I'd like to see this perennial issue get settled, and although it might seem pushy, I'd just like to see this finally stop. And that isn't going to happen by running people off every few months. I'm new to this really, but the same issue has cropped up for years, and I believe with a VERY minor degree of compromise, we can reach a solution here. -- Avanu (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on our discussion today on the rescue template talk page, its pretty clear your objections are form over substance. When I said awhile back that an editor will pop in at ARS from time to time since 2007 seeking changes, my point was that each said editor crusaded essentially alone and got no consensus for a change. This is no different when people come to the village pump or AfD and say "hey let's suspend AfD" "AfD has been a problem for years, and let's call it Articles for Discussion" not "deletion." These proposals also never gain traction, they just come up from time to time when someone new to the situation is not familiar with what came before (all normal Eternal September stuff). You continue to insist that change *must* occur, but you haven't proven a serious problem to those participating in the discussions. So we are getting weary.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as an involved party. The proposer (User:SarekOfVulcan) and User:Dream Focus have been involved in a content dispute with User:Avanu (and myself). The latter named editor has not covered him- or herself with glory (making poor choices related to boldness, personal comment and hasty reply), but I tend to agree with User:Avanu on the merits. Avanu raises a real issue, that recurring Rescue tag abuse tends to color the ARS as a canvassing club. Template usage instructions should be improved to dissuade abusers. Avanu and other editors who've approached the ARS about such improvement in talkspace and in template talk have been discouraged, derailed, and gamed. User:Dream Focus has been particularly unhelpful and dismissive. If ARS members can take responsibility for maintaining a formal part of the deletion process, then they can respond reasonably when drive-by tagging abuse is pointed out again and again. BusterD (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - the debate playing out right now with regard to the Gery Chico article epitomizes the problem here. Compare with Silk Road (anonymous marketplace) and Islamic Center and Mosque of Grand Rapids, discussions on the same page. -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. While we agree with Avanu, everything's hunky-dory -- as soon as we start disagreeing, the WP:CABAL is being disruptive. Hence the topic ban proposal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, that's bollocks, and not really worthy of a respected admin. Meanwhile, of course, a much easier way of sorting out these problems would be with the magic letters "MFD". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Not sure how the WP:CABAL comment applies here. I just see a very small set of people claiming they can WP:OWN a template and disregard its rules. Wikipedia does have a WP:CANVAS guideline and by willingly disregarding these simple rules, they're basically just violating that. As I've said, very minor changes can fix this and as we see at the Gery Chico discussion on this tag's Talk page, compromise seems to simply not be a part of these editors' vocabulary. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Black Kite, while an MFD would eliminate the problem (by eliminating the tag), I think that would be overkill. I can see a legitimate use for this tag, but if you ask people to follow the Usage section of the tag's rules, you get DreamFocus, Colonel Warden, or Sarek on your case defending its misuse. Milowent seems to follow suit as well, but seems more willing to have a reasonable debate on the merits of the issues. The first three really just seem completely set on no changes at all, and seem to regard those perennial requests for doing things correctly as a bothersome nuisance. -- Avanu (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron would attract outside input. I'm not necessarily endorsing an RfC, as things have changed since WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination) (May 2009). Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit warring by Δ over NFCC issues

Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a separate incident from above, and I'm going to start by quoting the WP:3RR exemption for NFCC:

Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Bolding belongs to the article. Not my emphasis, but it is the emphasis of this report. This means that the removal of the content should be unquestionable. There should be no reasonable question over whether the image is okay to be in the article. Unfortunately I have to seriously question this series of edits, which resulted in a brand new user getting blocked over a dispute with Delta: Tamimo (talk · contribs) uploaded File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg and immediately added his FUR [37], and then [38] went ahead and added it to the article. This is very commendable. He is a new user, and made very few edits, but he knew enough to make his FUR before adding it to the article. Great, except within 2 minutes, Δ removes the image. What could possibly be wrong? Well, you may have to go back and look very closely to see the mistake he made, because the edit summary is not very helpful. Over the next hour and 46 minutes, delta removed the image 6 times

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

All with the same edit summary, none with any further explanation. Even after the user posted a question to his talk page [39], Delta did not really offer any further help, [40]. He made an assumption that the user did not read the edit summary. However, the user did add a FUR rationale, this poor new user was understandably confused and frustrated. For those who didn't notice it, this article is for a TV drama, there was also a movie of the same name, Raja_Ki_Aayegi_Baraat. The user had simply forgotten to add (TV series) to the FUR. The image isn't even in use on the movie page. Why would it be? it wasn't intended for there. It only took me a few seconds after pulling up the image to realize what the error was, but a new user may not have noticed his typo, especially when met with repetitive and unhelpful edit summaries.

Unfortunately the user made a minor personal attack on Delta's page, for which he was warned, and then after having edited no further, he was blocked out of the blue. That probably needs a review of its own. I have asked the blocking admin for an explanation to this but he hasn't responded yet.

The issue here is "unquestionable". I think this removal was very questionable. It was a trivial thing to see the mistake that a brand new user had made (he'd made a couple edits prior but really only began editing today), and this would have been a very minor fix, and didn't warrant 6 reverts of a new user, with static unchanging edit summaries. For those who will undoubtedly say "There is no way Delta could have known the intended use", the FUR clearly states Logo image of Indian drama-serial This is clearly not intended for use in the movie article, and the image itself isn't present in the movie article. I see no evidence the user has ever edited the movie article, and a quick note of the diffs above will see it was added to the drama article very quickly after the FUR was added, making it all the clearer where it belonged. The FUR further goes on to say Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial making it all the clearer what the intended use was.

All in, this seems to be the same behaviour that generated countless ANI threads on Betacommand when this was all getting started. His inappropriate handling of NFCC issues, especially in relation to new users. As such I propose the following:

• Delta be blocked until such a time that he can demonstrate he knows the difference between questionable and unquestionable removals, typos resulting in missing FUR are not unquestionable removals.
• As was previously suggested by didn't gain consensus, he be placed on 1RR for all NFCC related editing

The image itself has been fixed, but we run the risk of losing a potentially good new editor, one who knows enough to add a FUR, because of this.--Crossmr (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as a transparent end-run attempt at an indef block. You say he is to be blocked from editing until he can demonstrate that he knows how to edit properly. I don't suppose you'd accept a nicely written essay? If not, how exactly is he supposed to demonstrate anything? This nonsense is getting tiring. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, typically users are blocked until its clear the disruption will not continue. Disruptive editing with new users was a problem 3 years ago, and it's still a problem now. There is no evidence a week or a month long block would fix the problem anymore than the time passing during the last 3 years has. If he can clearly state that he's aware of what a questionable removal and non-questionable removal are and that he'll only repeatedly remove unquestionable ones, than that will suffice. Nowhere did I ask for an essay.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Clear attempt to hound him. If you wish to report edit warring, take it to AN3. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  This issue goes well beyond a simple 3RR violation, his interaction with users over NFCC, especially new users is a years old issue that hasn't resolved itself.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As you will see in my comments below, another thing to consider besides 3RR is his cookie-cutter, context-ignoring editing style Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Δ should not be deleting images because there is a minor error in a FUR. In cases such as this, the better approach would be to fix the minor error in the FUR, and drop a friendly note on the uploader's talk page explaining their error and why the exact article title must be used. A similar situation exists where an article has been moved, but the FUR has not been updated. Again, the better solution is to fix the problem rather than deleting the image. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly my point. This is what moves this beyond "unquestionable".--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I have deleted the image under WP:CSD#F7, for yet another reason: it had a blatantly false fair-use tag and FUR (it was declared as a logo, which it clearly wasn't.) If anybody wants to fix that, feel free to undelete. I couldn't, because I don't know what it is and why and how it is supposed to be representative of the series. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  Most likely it was a title screen with the logo on it, as I recall it appeared to be a screenshot with text on it, and a source was given, but I can't verify that now because you've deleted it, which also disturbs the diffs presented above. Why don't you restore it so that it can be fixed?--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an admin, but what troubles me is that many of his image removal edits seem to be bot-like. For example, at Notre Dame-UCLA rivalry, he removed the UCLA image but left the Notre Dame one (which clearly suggests not paying attention to the context of the article, either both should be there or both should be removed), left the same edit summary that he's left on dozens of other pages, and after I undid his revision and explained why it was fair use in the edit summary, he just made the exact same edit with the exact same summary and no acknowledgement of my reasoning (FYI, there currently is fair use rationale now). He needs to remember WP:BRD. We have bots that can do bot work. We don't need editors acting like bots. Though Delta may be right on paper, his methods are clearly violation of policy. If I was an admin, I would support harsh disciplinary action against Delta Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment WP:BRD is an essay, whereas WP:NFCC is policy. Removing files that don't meet the NFCC policy is permitted, even if they are inserted multiple times. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) The ND logo is free use, the UCLA logo is not. It would have been better to have removed them both, to be fair to both teams. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The fact that Delta didn't indicates the lack of contextualizing his edits. There is now rationale for use of the UCLA logo in that article, BTW Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)`

NFCC is policy, and Delta was technically enforcing it, but the very first thing I noticed as well was bot-like behaviour. Six reverts to one article, all with the exact same edit summary, and exactly zero attempts to engage an apparently new editor to help them correct their ways. It strikes me that a human would figure out, sometime long before the sixth identical revert, that it might be time to change message or tactic. NFCC usage and enforcement is a giant clusterfuck at the best of times. No attempt whatsoever was made to guide the editor on how to correct their ways. That is the truly disappointing, and completely typical, aspect of Delta's behaviour. Also, looking at his log from today, 14 edits in one minute, all with identical edit summaries, on a very wide range of topics. Frankly, I question whether this is Delta himself making these edits, or a bot. Resolute 03:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Delta has technically violated the 3 revert rule, however, he was doing so to enforce the NFCC policy. To me it seems like this proposal is just another attempt to indef Delta. Enough is enough. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  3RR only makes an exception for unquestionable removals. This was not an unquestionable removal. Nowhere did I suggest he be indefinitely blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's unquestionable: the image lacked a proper rationale required by NFCC and the Foundation for its use there. Easily-fixable, that's a different story...--MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's not remotely unquestionable. The error was very easy to see, and Delta had plenty of opportunity over 6 reverts to notice the error and either fix it or bring it to the user's attention. Not once did Delta specifically state "There is no FUR pointing at this article". that probably would have given the uploader the kick he needed to notice the typo on the name. He just repeatedly stated over and over there wasn't a valid FUR linking to the big article on it, but never once stated the specific issue on this page.--Crossmr (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we're back at editors using Delta to complain about the strict enforcement of NFCC. Now, I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right, but as far as current policy and NFCC goes, there is nothing wrong with >3RR on removing images that lack fair use rationales. If you don't like that, get consensus to change WP:3RR to change that. Or NFCC.

But now lets get back to the problem here. Under the consideration of the community restrictions, has Delta done anything wrong in this specific instance? No. Reverting with the same , correct edit summary (including the link to the right policy) and responding to the user to point him to the right place is all part of this. Yes, NFCC policy is not easy, but that's why there's plenty of places to ask questions. At worst, [41] this comment is slightly biting the newbies, but I've seen other established editors do far worse without repercussion.

What I do go back to is my suggestion from the last time Delta was here: that he should not be exceeding 1 or 2RR without attempting to engage in discussion on an appropriate talk page (the uploading using, the article in question, or the like). Delta's lack of reaching out first to explain the issue seems to be the biggest point of contention, because if he doesn't do it first, the resulting discussion may get argumentative from the POV of the uploader or user ("But this image is fair use!"-type arguments), and Delta gets stuck in a corner in how to respond politely.

Now, I know this is going to come up, but I am sure someone is going to suggest that Delta must fix any "simple" obvious errors in rationales before deleting them. While it may seem a fair requirement, at the end of the day, unless those simple errors are explicitly listed, this will be gamed against Delta to drive him from the project. ("Well, of course you should have know this was the logo for My Baseball Hometown Team instead of for My Basketball Hometown Team"). The burden, as stated many times over, is on the uploader or those wanting to retain the image to ensure NFCC is met. Even if you define simple cases, like disambig errors, someone will find a way to make a Delta change a huge violation of he restrictions.

Thus, the complaints on this specific issue cannot be dealt with, and one can only consider actions that force Delta to engage in conversation while fixing non-free problems as best he can. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if Delta meets any serious opposition to his removal, he needs to stop and take a serious look at what he's deleting. We might excuse him a single mistake of going through and missing a typo like the one we saw above, but after a couple reverts, he needs to start having a discussion, or thoroughly having a look at the image in question to see where the confusion may be. If he's going to get tied up with an article for over an hour and a half he could take a few minutes to look at the image more thoroughly. It's one thing if there is no FUR at all, it's another when there is a simple mix-up like this. There is a noticeboard for a reason and he either needs to handle this situations or send them off for someone else to have a more thorough and helpful look at them. To make it easier for him, I would accept him being allowed to run a script or something that would automatically kick articles to the noticeboard if he's been reverted twice on them, with the understanding that he walks way from those articles after they're passed on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the block request, regardless of tamimo's discovered status, there was still clearly extensive edit warring over NFCC issues, that don't seem to be clearly exempted by 3RR, and which at least another editor agrees with, and likely more if this discussion is allowed to run its course. Can we use this as a talking point to get somewhere?--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Unblock of User:Tamimo

This appears to be the edit for which Tamimo (talk · contribs) was blocked. IMHO, the warning issued by Gfoley4 was more than sufficient. Tamimo made no further personal attacks after the warning was issued, and the only other interaction with Δ was to ask again why he keeps deleting the image. I feel that the block was not justified, and therefore should be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked the admin here [42] about it, but have yet to receive a reply.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported the user to AIV and Icairns decided to impose the temp block. Newbie or not, "dont u dare mess with me" is not an appropriate comment to make. Delta could have maybe explained the situation better to the newbie. "I don't understand" would have been a fair comment from the newbie. "dont u dare mess with me" is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So you reported a new user to AIV without first issuing a warning? You're aware that AIV complaints are typically not acted on unless there is a clear indication of warnings issued and ignored? #2 on the AIV instructions The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop., in fact it seems your report [43], came a full 7 minutes before the brand new user was issued a single warning [44]. Maybe this entire situation needs a far deeper look.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw "dont mess with me" as a threat of violence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For which the editor was (harshly?) warned at lvl 4. The block came without further continuation of the behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There can be no compromise where threats of violence are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Threats of violence need some legitimate component to them. There is no indication that this user had any personal knowledge of Delta, or that he was actually planning to attack him physically. There isn't even a physical component to the threat. For all you know, he may have meant "Don't mess with me or I'll report you". keep in mind it was only his first day of editing. There isn't even the remotest hint that there is a threat of violence here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw it differently, and still do. A user making a comment like that is up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Him "being up to no good" is a far cry from someone saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kick your ass", both of which are a far cry from "Don't mess with me". That's a terrible assumption of bad faith, that has zero basis in reality, and we don't even have a history on which to base it. If this was some long term user who'd had a history of physically threatening users who made this kind of comment, I guess. But a brand new guy on this first day of editing? Not even close.--Crossmr (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see you prove that his threat of violence was baseless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

First you need to prove there was a threat of violence. Please indicate where he said he would take any physical action, oh and again on AIV obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only, I don't see where the user did either of things.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Where I come from, "Don't you dare mess with me" is a threat of violence. P.S. The guy's block has now expired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this user comes from "where you come from"?--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where he comes from, nor does it matter. Err on the side of caution. When someone makes what could be a threat of violence, they have to be dealt with. So, have you fixed that image's rationale yet? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a threat of violence. What if he meant something along the lines of "Don't you dare mess with me, or I'll file an ANI report"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

*Ummmmm .... he hasn't even requested an unblock yet. Maybe wait and see what he says? — Ched :  ?  07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (STALE: block expired) — Ched :  ?  07:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The block has now expired. Tamimo was dealt with by means of a warning, as this was a first offence, that should have been sufficient. Δ could have done much to alleviate the situation than he did. By taking a step back and looking at the slightly wider picture, instead of robotically following the rules strictly to the letter, he could avoid many of these situations from arising. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes he could have, and that was the outcome of his arbcom case and community sanctions. That was supposed to be the entire point, but here we are, and he's still doing it. As the argument was made above, Delta was technically correct in that no FUR pointed at the article, but that is only due to a typo which makes the removal questionable, he was right on the basis of the FUR, but he was wrong in regards to 3RR and edit warring, and of course it happened over his favorite subject.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo, et al.

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.80.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.67.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.73.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These may all be the same guy, using a Nevada-based ISP. Note that his previous registered user ID was indef'd for copyright violations and personal attacks. Imagine that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Might want to file an SPI, so someone with Checkuser can see if there are any other IPs or accounts he has been editing from. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, let's just leave the poor, misunderstood, abused newbie alone, as Crossmr thinks we should assume good faith. P.S. Here's one thing he said that got him blocked.[45] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to your original report, as you had no idea about this when you made it. You still haven't proved that he made any kind of threat of violence and in fact have only strengthened the fact that there wasn't one. His personal attacks are trivial at best, and in fact your sarcasm is stronger than his attack. As far as you were concerned you were reporting some new editor to an inappropriate noticeboard for an imagined attack based on your own personal bias. It's become quite evident that this is likely an immature user who probably needs mentoring, but as often the case in NFCC issues, appears to have been brow-beaten by more experienced users. Look at his talk page. He got absolutely slammed with notices. Something that wasn't supposed to be happening anymore, this is exactly one of the problems that was identified with betacommand and his bot.--Crossmr (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My having turned him in was based on experience and what admins have advised me offline on numerous occasions. Meanwhile, Ched pointed out that the guy made no attempt at an unblock request, which seemed a bit curious, so I investigated a little bit. If you think the guy can be mentored, feel free to volunteer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is different. Socking to avoid a block is something which should be investigated if there is credible evidence that it has taken place. Tamimomari was blocked on 4 June, Tamimo did not edit before 6 June. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the dynamic IP ranges, he might be hard to stop. If you start following the chain of the IP's, they go back a few months, with additional 71's turning up. I remain convinced that he only created the registered users in order to upload pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• hmmm ... the closer ya look .... just sayin., — Ched :  ?  08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Image needs restored

Resolved

Image has been restored so that errors can be fixed

Future perfect deleted the image, but it appears he's now gone offline. As he noted there was a missing license, I'd like to fix it, but I didn't save the image. So if someone could go ahead and restore the image so that I could fix the license, I'll do so. From what I recall, it looks like a title image similar to File:Friends_titles.jpg so I'll check the source and update it appropriately.--Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted under F7. There's no mega rush here. Having seen the image, It could be described as a screenshot of a title sequence rather than a logo. Given that the uploader is a new editor, we can expect mistakes to be made, as seen above. This may be another mistake. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that above, but he said people were free to restore it if they wanted to fix it, I want to fix it, but he hasn't restored it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Google cached it [46] this page contains the same image, and it's clearly a title screen (which contains a logo), the same as the friends logo.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like the one I saw yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not showing in FPAS's deletion log. If you can show me where he said that, then I'll undelete the image for you to fix it. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's right here [47] in his deletion log

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Raja-ki-aayegi-baraat-300x191.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free use policy: obviously false tag (not a logo))

and he said right here he didn't object to people restoring it to fix it [48].--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So we have one admin who blocked the guy for making a threat, and another admin who deleted the image on the grounds that the guy violated the fair use rules. Looks like a growing conspiracy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FPAS beat me to the undeletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've updated it with the additional license and added the word "titlescreen" to the description.--Crossmr (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You also need to add it to the appropriate article, or the orphaned-fair-use bot will tag it for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Follow up

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

No administrative action is needed at this time. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Yeah..not sure who this person is that closed it, but the immediate matter was neither dealt with, nor does tamimo being a sock end up being relevant to the issue. It wasn't known when Delta was making the reverts, and if tamimo hadn't been a sock, there is no evidence that Delta wouldn't have done the exact same thing. Even Massem seems to agree that Delta should be limited to 1 or 2RR on NFCC issues, this discussion was certainly still on-going--Crossmr (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• My position is this: based on the last Delta thread, I can't see us reasonably putting a 1RR or 2RR limit on Delta without being too specific on the types of edits that are, but that doesn't address the core issue in that the past incivility and the like that came from Delta generally arose from him not communicating the issues of NFCC. That is, my belief is that a reasonable community restriction that would help improve the core issue is to require Delta on a contested NFCC matter to explain on an appropriate talk page what the issue is before engaging in either a second or third revert. It doesn't matter if this is a templated message or what, but as long as he is explaining his actions away from his own talk page, that's the head start that is needed. That's above any other matters and assumes he is following NFCC policy. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is in separating genuine disputes from people who might try to abuse it. How about this - Delta should only feel free to continually revert NFCC issues on images where NO FUR appears at all, not just for that article but for any article. Beyond that he should limit himself to a single revert, and then kick it off to the noticeboard for others to handle. This gives him an opportunity to make his case and if it doesn't hold, then he can let others handle it and avoid conflict. This way if there is confusion over the FUR, like in the case above where it was a simple typo, it can be handled without mass reverts on the part of Delta. As I said, I'd support allowing him an automated process to kick off pages which he meets opposition to make it easier and faster for him to handle these without adding a big burden to his work and letting others who may handle the situation better or more thoroughly do so.--Crossmr (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  He's not abusing NFCC. Unless someone wants to propose that change at WT:NFCC or at WT:3RR, Delta's following the letter of the law and within the bounds of the community restrictions. What I surmise others want is that Delta be a bit more human in his edits - and that means at minimum discussion resulting after his first remove is reverted prior/as he completes the second revert, and not just via edit summary notice. Pretty much every situation that appears where Delta is heading down the incivility track is due to lack of personable communication with the person that is reverting him. I would be a bit cautious on the next possible step, preventing Delta from exceeding 3RR on NFCC matters, but as you say, the infrequency of these cases usually means that if Delta lets someone else know about the issue that person can step in to take over to deal with the persistent user that's engaging in the EW.--MASEM (t) 13:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  That's debatable as some users do think he's abusing NFCC. In this case I feel he was, and I wasn't the only one. As I've mentioned before, you either get to choose the letter of the law, or you don't. If you want to live by the letter of the law, do you know how many violations of his community sanctions he's committed these days? Even if it's policy, he really shouldn't edit warring anyway. That gets him into a bad situation. Even if he is right, if he's edit warring with some new user, we could end up chasing away a user who is just confused. He's done it in the past, as users have basically said they left because of the way he acted. So even if he is following the letter of the law, it's how he follows it that causes issues, and now that I've thought about it more, he really should be at 1RR on all NFCC for the sake of his interactions with others. He can remove an image twice, and if there is still opposition, kick it off rather than risk creating a bad situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get all this straight. Delta scares me with talk of blocking me in User talk:Chaswmsday#WDTN and User talk:Chaswmsday#June_2011, based on what I later find is just his/her own Essay: WP:Fair use overuse, assuming Delta=Betacommand=Durin. And the Essay seems to misquote WP:NFCC items 3a and 8. But if I dare revert Delta's edits to keep the images in question from being orphaned and then speedily deleted, I could be charged with edit warring, but that any of Delta's subsequent reverts of my reverts would not be counted against him/her, even though there would be no huge consequence to keeping the images intact while the dispute is pending. And just how/when is the dispute resolved? When a few users who have a certain bias in their minds get their way on an issue that allegedly was settled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations#Use of images in articles? And that can be justified both by argument and by a reasonable interpretation of 3a and 8? When I leave in frustration? Urgh. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, Delta's using standard template warning messages for over-use of images and 3RR, so I would not talke it as "scaring" you to avoid a block - they're boiler plate messages that behavior like this is discouraged. Secondly, no, Delta (who is Betacommand) is not Durin. That essay was written a few years ago so the exactly language of NFCC#3a and 8 may have changed, but the intent has not - we strive to minimize non-free images and only use them where they aid in comprehension of the article. Delta's removals and reverts of that are in line with established practice that loading a number of decorative images into an article is never appropriate, the idea that some may be readded after considering how each meets NFCC. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:WDTN. First, if the essay is out of date, it should be edited. Second, what is the definition of "decorative"? Third, how would images of the same type greater in number than some arbitrary number per article (say, 2) ever meet NFCC? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'decorative' are things that can easily be replaced with text, or items that severely limit the readers comprehension of the topic when no free replacement would be possible. Without critical commentary for why the old logos are notable in their own right and have sources providing citations on aspects of the logo itself (not just being used for identification like the current logo) then it falls under decorative. -- ۩ Mask 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletionists typically hate things that make an article easier for the average viewer to comprehend, such as illustrations and lists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue here is that people do not read the notices/edit summaries that I leave. Unless I start using extremely large red blinking text Im not sure how else to get them to read the notices that I leave. When I make an edit I clearly state the reasons why. 95% of the time users just stick there fingers in their ears and ignore what Im trying to tell them, and they just blindly revert to their version, not bothering to even consider the reason for my edit. I have provided several useful scripts for working with/checking non-free files and their rationales. see:

• importScript('User:Δ/NFCC.js');
• tools:~betacommand/check_files.html
• tools:~betacommand/rationale check.html
• example of checking all uses of a file for rationales.

Im doing just about as much as I can except saying fuck WP:NFCC, lets use as much as we want ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the standard "explanation" doesn't make sense to newbies. I know at one time it didn't make sense to me, either, and I had to ask whoever it was (not Beta/Delta), and probably more than once, just what that standard warning is supposed to mean in plain English. What it means is, "You're using it in article that's not listed in the picture's fair use rationale." In this case, the user Tamimo (now indef'd as a sock of Tamimomari) didn't ask the right questions, hence he and Delta were talking past each other. Then Tamimo issued a threat (continuing the bad behavior he had shown as Tamimomari toward another editor), which escalated. Whoever brought this here led us to the serendipitous discovery of sockpuppetry. But this problem could arise again, and I think the solution is a more-clearly-worded explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, as I have said, I am always open to suggestions/modifications of the notices I leave. However very few people step up and lend a hand fixing that. Ive seen two people step up and lend a hand, Hammersoft and Xeno User_talk:Δ#Maryland_State_Colonization_Society, and in both cases I have adapted my notices/edit summaries to try and make things clearer. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on Delta, you've had move lives than a thousand cats. You've been talked to countless times and it's done essentially no good because you're a AN/ANI regular still after years of the same behavior. Just think that if all the user and admin effort that's gone into attempting to deal with you had instead been put into actually improving articles....and even more so if we didn't need AN/ANI/Arbcom/etc. It's a mind boggling thought.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because people just complain, say "it should be done better" but never actually put their money where their mouths are. Hammersoft and Xeno are part of the solution, instead of just complaining, Ive made multiple suggestions including a file/use discussion similar to FFD but for individual uses rather than the whole file (cases where a file is being over used but FFD has zero chance of deletion) Take a look at my edits and compare them with policy, Every single one of my rationale missing removals is exactly within policy. I also have one of the highest mainspace percents with relation to my contributions. Most people who follow these notice boards have anywhere from 10-40% of their edits to articles, very very rarely will you see one with 60%. I on the other hand spend most of my time working on articles and have over an 80% mainspace I typically spend most of my time working in the article space and avoiding the drama boards. If we deleted AN/ANI I bet we would loose a lot of people here just for the drama. I however focus on what actually matters, articles. you are only at about a 45% mainspace ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's because some poeple, you in this case, refuse to learn how work truly productively in a collaborative environment. You avoid drama boards? ROTFL. Delete AN/ANI, yea, you'd be one we loose because you you thrive on it.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the main issue, and in fact you've been told by users you accused of not reading them that they had. Your explanations are sometimes not that clear or helpful. Look at this case. This was a case of a typo. You took the time to revert the article 6 times, but not once did you look at the image and realize "oh there is a movie and a drama, this image obviously isn't being used on the movie page, and has the words 'identify the drama' in it". I know many people like to often say "I can't possibly know what the intended use is", but in this case, it was extremely obvious what the intended use was. The image was used in one article and had one FUR they just didn't match because of a naming typo. Had you fixed that obvious error, or even said to the user "The FUR doesn't point directly at this article" they may have noticed the error and we wouldn't be having this discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt that simple taking a quick look I saw a film and what appears to be a tv show both using an image, I dont know if the tv show spun off the movie or vise a versa, I cant tell what the file is really, (Ive seen movie screenshots used in TV articles) so its not as clear as you claim it was. I took the safest route and just removed it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was that simple. The description clearly said "Image is used to visually identify the logo of the drama-serial- ;Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat." The image was NEVER added to the movie article, and the movie article doesn't even mention the drama at all. The image was added to the drama article 2 minutes after being uploaded. It could not have been anymore obvious where this image really belonged especially after looking at it 6 times. The movie article clearly says it is from 1997, and the drama is from 2008, the movie obviously did not spin off from the drama. The file was clearly described (missing a single word does not make it as unclear as you'd like to claim) and had you followed the source you'd have clearly seen that the page is about the TV show and the image is being used to identify that.--Crossmr (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a very productive discussion at this point. I think what would be helpful is if we drafted a "Common FUR problems" document that our NFCC workers like Δ could link to that would offer tips to users whose images have been removed from articles. Would you be willing to help me put such a document together? 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "I'm not saying Delta's behavior is exactly right"--that's an understatement. In my 6 weeks of editing, I've seen more AN/ANI threads about Δ (why can't he pick a name that appears on a standard keyboard?)/Betacommand than anyone else. From reading these and backlinks, it's obvious this person has a years long history of problematic behavior; behavior that obviously isn't going to change and centers on two things: atrocious behavior and non-free images. Why does wiki continue to endure such behavior? It seems self defeating to me. BarkingMoon (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just my view: I like 28bytes' suggestion on something being drafted up in laymen's terms that's easy to understand. There are folks here (including me) who have been here for years that have trouble wrapping their head around our legal issues. WP:NFCC, WP:PLAG, WP:COPY etc. I understand the wording in places like that is by necessity very legalistic, and each time I read through them I get a bit more out of them ... but I digress. Just from my experiences ... Delta is passionate about these things, and they are extremely important. I know Delta may not be a "chit-chatty" "how's the wife and kids" kinda guy, but he knows this technical stuff inside and out. I've never seen him fail to steer a person in the right direction if asked about a computer, programming, technical, or wiki kind of question. He's given me some very sound advice on several occasions (although I doubt he'd remember). All I'm saying is that maybe it's time to give him a bit of room, and a little bit of help; instead of the constant "why can't you be nice" let's poke the bear and see if he'll growl stuff. Let's not forget that he's done some great stuff here, give credit where it's due.

I do understand the hard feelings from days gone by, but it sure seems to me that he's been doing his damnedest to comply with the community. Honestly, do you think he'd still be here if he didn't honestly care about what's best for the 'pedia? ... OK .. I'm done running my mouth now ... have a great weekend all. — Ched :  ?  05:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ched hits the nail on the head here. Delta is very knowledgible and skilled, especially in the technical areas and in NFCC issues. However, he is not very good at communicating with people who are less knowledgable in these areas (read: just about everyone else) and invariably this leads to conflict. The trouble is that the image policy is complex, especially for new users, and Delta expects all other users to be as fully versed in the policy as himself, and he has (to my observation) shown no interest in educating users in the policy, if they can't figure it out he seems to have little patience with them. At some point dealing with Delta's interaction styles we all begin to feel like King Cnut facing down the tides: No matter how much we want him to be more accomodating towards users who do not understand NFCC policy, he's just not going to. We'd have a better chance of getting the tides to stop comming in. I don't know exactly what this means or how we should proceed. On the one hand, he does needed work. On the other hand, the manner in which he does this work causes much consternation, and has for many years. I guess I am saying, I want Delta to continue to do his work, but I want him to be better about working inexperienced users through the minefield that NFCC policy is; helping users who are using the wrong template, or misspelling things, or whatever do it right. Most users want to do it the right way, and are willing to learn, and I just want Delta to take more interest in teaching them. Ah, well, the tide is coming in again. Pardon me while I tell it to stop... --Jayron32 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, and that's the entire point of this. He didn't get it before, the community finally got fed up and kicked him out..he was let back in under heavy protest, and heavy restrictions, and he still doesn't get it. I'm seeing absolutely nothing different about his behaviour now than I saw 3-4 years ago. From the unhelpful and repetitive reverts of a confused user (sock or not is irrelevant, there is no evidence anyone involved knew that at the time), to these kinds of statements directed at users he's in dispute with [49], to ignoring the community by violating his sanctions both by starting large projects without first proposing them, to blowing through his edit restriction so many times I gave up counting, and having 3 blocks stick, and one questionable one reversed that some people supported. That's all happened in the last 5 weeks or so. As a member of the community, it just boggles my mind. As a community I think we need to draw a bright line and say: He gets it and we all forget about it and move on, or he doesn't get it and we all forget about it, and he moves on. I don't see any other way we can move forward. Users have, in the past, left the project because of him, because of the way he conducts himself with what he does. The conduct has seemingly not changed, as such I can only worry that we'll again lose users because of that conduct.--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you declined to respond to my offer above to help draft a document that would help these confused users you speak of, I'm forced to assume you're more interesting in bashing Δ than in solving the problem with confused users. As such, I'm closing this thread. If a new incident arises that needs administrative action, feel free to open one. And if you should decide to reconsider working on a guide for helping users identify and fix FUR problems, you know where to find me. 28bytes (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Despite that lovely assumption of bad faith, I wrote that on the way out, and didn't see your small comment tucked away in the middle, the problem is in fact not confused new users. Do they need help? Yes. Should we make a document clearer for them? absolutely. But all we're doing is treating symptoms. We're not taking care of the problem. I am not bashing Delta. I was clearly outlining how I viewed the situation, and the giant issue I'm seeing here. The problem is clearly, and has been for 3-4 years, Delta. Other users seem to handle NFCC without generating the problems he does. When it comes down to these situations, it takes two users. The person adding the image, and the person removing it. And as Delta has said, there is only one constant. Throughout all this time, and all those users, we can't try and shift the blame to them. They are new users and we expect them to make errors. It's how we respond to them as a community that is important and the way he responds isn't. As for actually writing the document, am I good choice to do so? Probably not. I'm hardly the expert others are at NFCC, and you'd be far better off getting someone who regularly deals with NFCC stuff and is known for interacting well with users to help you write something, but I do think the document is needed. The last time I took part in an NFCC discussion was probably years ago, heck the last time I even uploaded an NFCC image was over a year ago.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

28bytes' suspicions echoed mine, as you continued to defend that user despite its own behavior, and it looked like your agenda was to gripe about Delta. The right response to Delta's standard-form FUR edit summary should have been, "What does this mean? I don't understand", and NOT "dont u dare mess with me". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr has also posted on my talk page, so I have replied there. Short version: no, Δ isn't a particularly good coach for new users struggling with FURs and NFCC, and hammering that point home doesn't really help anything. What would help is a simple troubleshooting guide, which Ched and I will work on this week. Everyone with experience or interest in this area is invited to join us. 28bytes (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Just point us to the right link. While you're at it, someday, something in plain English about how to upload a free photo would be good. It seems like every time I go to upload a photo I've taken, several layers of complexity have been added. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do; as soon as there's a link, I'll make sure it gets advertised. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond being a bad coach. Users have stated that they have either curbed their editing or stopped editing because of the interactions they've had with Delta. That is a huge problem for the project, and goes well beyond simply creating a "NFCC for dummies" guide. Is that needed? Yes. But it doesn't solve the actual problem. Delta knows that he has the issues. He's known for years. Yet we still see him getting into the same situations. No one has a gun to his head forcing him to handle NFCC issues. At any point he can walk away, and there are times when he should. If he's been reverted a couple of times, he needs to kick it off to a noticeboard and let someone else handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are we still debating over this when the original account in question that Crossmr tried to defend is blocked indef for socking? It sounds like a kangaroo court to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it being a sock is irrelevant to the actual issue. There is no evidence Delta knew it was a sock. The account in question was making a trivial error in the FUR (the edits were otherwise fine and appropriate) and the issue is the unhelpful and blind reverting. This could have been any old new user. Let's not forget just shortly there after he got involved in an edit war on rd232's talk page that some admins thought he should have been blocked for (and one did block him before realizing there was a declined 3RR request already on it, but others had posted supporting it), and hardly an isolated case. While he's often right in the removal of the images, it's how he removes them, and sometimes when he's not right that causes issues, but he seems to treat them all the same. Let's take a look at the history of this talk page which also occurred at the same time: [50]. While the removal is mostly inline with policy, his final removal, where he just quotes policy, with no explanation [51], is not actually removing an image. There is no image on this page [52], so I don't see how a link to an image violates NFCC. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't even looking at the page and just saw his edit had been undone, so he responded in kind. While it's not a 3RR violation, he's edit warring without carefully checking his edits, because he removed no image from that page. He also reverted 6 times over at [53], which again may have been inline with policy, but he only used a helpful edit summary the first time. There is no evidence there the user is banned, and it's the exact same behaviour. While in this case we're not dealing with a FUR that has a typo (it was actually missing in at least some of the images) Delta handled the situation identically.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalked forever

I continue to be stalked (for years now) by an editor who for all intents and purposes only has one agenda, i.e. to stalk me, and whose contributions are not valuable but border on disruptive as unnecessarily time-consuming. Can anything be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please inform the other person next time (using {{ANI-notice}}). I've informed Pieter Kuiper. Bidgee (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP:HA:Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles...The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Reichsfürst (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not hounding if the other editor is clearing up genuine problems. (I'd be the first to admit that if I see a pattern of problematic changes made by one person, I'll look closely at their other contribs). Is this edit summary accurate? bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the likes of this, I'd suggest it's not unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this is the fourth "I'm being stalked" complaint regarding Pieter Kuiper by SergeWoodzing here on ANI. Rather than accept the outcome of those ANI complaints, Serge just repeats the same complaint over and over. How many times does he need to be told this is not stalking?--Atlan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that Pieter has never been blocked. Is this "original synthesis", i.e. synthesizing of names (or "making them up"), a recurring issue where Serge is concerned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It has happened before. I've had one previous encounter with SW but I can't remember where it was (it came from a 3O, or medcab, or somewhere like that) and the issue was basically one of an anachronistically-translated/interpolated name for some historic Scandinavian subject; the name didn't actually appear in any sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pieter has intimated that Serge is involved in some way with Throne of a Thousand Years, a book whose main selling point appears to be that it contains newly-coined exonyms for ancient Swedish royal names. And yes, it's definitely a recurring issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So the OP here is essentially spamming? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

As per the consensus gained at the Village pump, I have created a new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Part of the purpose of the board is to shift disputes that don't belong on AN and ANI (content and minor conduct issues) to the new noticeboard. While part of it comes down to the best forum for resolving the issues at hand, part comes from the thought that people can take disputes to ANI and get a quick fix. Things like edit warring, block evasion, severe conduct issues, sure. But there are often disputes filed at AN and ANI that don't belong there, and part of these changes would be that disputes like these (at the discretion of admins and those watching AN and ANI) to close the threads and directing them to the new noticeboard. It's designed to have ANI used for what it's actually designed for, and reduce the clogging up of these boards, instead directing the issues to a more focused board which can address the issues there. I realise that this isn't a change that will take place overnight, and will take a lot of hard work, but is definitely worth a shot. I've posted a notice to the top of this noticeboard with info about the changes. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. Hopefully this will make AN/I less of an abattoir. Added to watchlist. --causa sui (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great idea. Now when someone posts here, we can have additional debates over whether it belongs here or on that other page. Come to think of it, maybe not such a great idea? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it sounds like a good idea at first blush, but for different reasons from Baseball, it may cause some problems. For example, what is the difference between the new noticeboard and WP:CNB? Also, the new board says it's a "starting point" for disputes and may point users to other forums in certain cases. That's a bit murky. As for Baseball's point, Causa may be correct about reducing the smell of blood, but there will always be endless debates on ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to update the wording per discussion below. As long as it's clear that this board isn't to absorb all existing DR forums. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. I don't see how to edit the noticeboard language. Whether it's because I don't have the rights to see certain things when I click on Edit, or whether it's because I can't find the right template, don't know, but I'm tired of staring at it and trying to figure it out. If someone wants to explain it to me, fine; otherwise, someone else will have to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like pointless over-bureaucracy that most will ignore. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucracy has expanded to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See, Baseball apparently forgot the debate about whether the new board should exist. Not to worry - if there's no consensus, someone can always raise the issue on the new board.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See, I wasn't aware of any such debate. Not that it matters. As Tarc says, it will probably be ignored until or unless it serves a useful purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to say that this would be "expanding bureacracy", considering that it will be removing two noticeboards, and replacing them with 1. That said, I'm not sure that people will end up using it, even if it is a good idea. The only way I see it being effective is if we clarify what types of discussions belong there vs. ANI, and people are diligent about moving threads that don't belong at ANI to the new noticeboard. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't what I was expecting. I thought this was more for resolving disputes. Instead, it seems to be a starting point for redirecting disputes to some other venue. Even in this limited capacity, I can't help but wonder if it will work in practice. I'm a regular at WP:RSN and lots of disputes are brought there under the guise of some WP:V issue, but in reality, it's actually an WP:NPOV dispute and WP:V just happens to be what the editors are currently arguing about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just for redirecting disputes to another venue. It's designed to help resolve the issues, my comments about directing disputes to other venues is so we don't get giant walls of text for disputes that are better served at an RFC/U or a mediation case. If that doesn't make sense it's important to clarify the purpose, because it's not only just designed to tell people where to take disputes, that's pointless, it's designed to solve small to middle sized disputes, including ones that didn't belong at ANI, and is designed to eventually supersede the content noticeboard and WQA. If disputes are massive or clearly need another additional forum of DR, that's what will be suggested. It's a new board in its infancy, so striking the balance between having massive discussions and actually best helping people will take time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion about the description of the board that may help:

This noticeboard is for resolving minor Wikipedia content and conduct disputes. In cases where the dispute is beyond the scope of the noticeboard, users will be directed to the best forum, such as a request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation, or to a more specific noticeboard.

Also, as an aside, the notices you're putting on other noticeboards about the new board has some technical problem. At least on my browser (FF 4) it spills over into the archive box.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the word "minor". Very few people, when in a heated dispute (even over the most petty of issues), believe that their dispute is "minor". I would let other people at the noticeboard determine whether or not it is out of the scope of the noticeboard, and if it is, direct them to the appropriate venue. The board will only be useful if most disputes start there, and are only pushed to "higher" forums (such as ANI, ArbCom, etc.) once the possibilities of resolving it at the dispute noticeboard have been exhausted. If we leave the word "minor" in there, most of the disputes will not start there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the word "minor". I kept it in because it seemed to be the intent of the board in the original wording. I just wanted to shift the focus from pointing people elsewhere to resolution, as well as remove some redundancies. I don't know what Steven thinks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with removing the word minor from associated pages, as long as it's clear that this new noticeboard isn't designed to absorb all other dispute resolution forums. As for the notice template, if it's broken, feel free to work on fixing it and feel free to update the associated noticeboard page (WP:DRN) to better reflect the purpose of the noticeboard. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean my suggested wording with Jr's modification is good? I can edit WP:DRN easily enough, but I don't immediately see how to fix the template problem. I'm not even sure what template is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording is good. I've updated the notice at the top of this page also to reflect discussion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23: I think this is what you're looking for: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Quest, thanks very much. I was looking for a template because it was in braces. I still don't really understand how it works, but I've changed the language per this discussion. I made one additional slight change for clarity from "beyond the scope of the noticeboard" to "beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it is here and I've fixed the problem where it was spilling over onto the archives box (I'm using FF4, also).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Berean, that was the other problem. Thanks for fixing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think it is helpful for us to be so negative about it. It seems like a good idea on the face of it, but, frankly, we can never know with these things until we try them. However, I am sure that we can all agree that anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping some things away from ANI is a good thing. AGK [•] 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• What purpose will it serve that can't be achieved at AN, AN/I, or any of the other boards? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Disputes can be resolved at ANI or another noticeboard, but that doesn't mean the existing noticeboards are the best forum to do so. The difference between existing boards and this new one is the structure, which aims to keep discussions calm and on topic. I realise that it's a new, untested idea, but I really don't see the harm in trying it out and seeing how it works. At least then if it doesn't work we will know so, but WQA at the moment is often a brawling pit where often the disputes just get worse, and many editors take disputes to ANI because they cannot be bothered pursuing proper dispute resolution, clogging up ANI and wasting the time of admins. I hope that explains somewhat the purpose of this new board. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Do the right thing. Don't get crowned.

I would like to ask, suggest, beg, plead, URGE ALL the folks here and about the wiki to PLEASE remain calm. There is already enough heat in this kitchen to warm our souls for many months to come. I understand that feelings and passions are running high these days, but I'd suggest that much of this is already in the hands of the Arbs. pro-tip: Eyes are watching, and things can get said in the heat of the moment that are often regretted later. Once something has been posted here, it's here to stay, and it can't be taken back. Perhaps some therapeutic work in other areas might help everyone simmer down a bit. Obviously I can't demand anything .. it's just a suggestion. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You got to cool out, relax. Things like this work out. Trust me. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

k .. so I haven't quite got the "concise" part down yet... lol. — Ched :  ?  20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. A++++. Great service. Would buy again. etc. etc. etc. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The color of the sign is not very calming. Seeing red and all that. Gacurr (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That sign was from The Blitz. Is anyone here getting bombed? I know it's Friday evening in the Americas, but ... :) Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hiccup! I mean, er, no, why do you ask? Sharktopus^talk 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Todd sounds like a man with a plan. >:-) — Ched :  ?  00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This might be related. If it is a fake, please don't tell me. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – User unblocked by Toddst1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like a review of my second block of Sodabottle (talk · contribs) for gaming the system. I originally blocked the user for edit warring and RegentsPark (talk · contribs) unblocked the editor - which I disagreed with as the user didn't seem to understand why what s/he was doing was a problem. The first block was not a 3RR violation, but was clearly an edit war as the user self-identified in this edit summary. When blocked, Sodabottle claimed that unless s/he violated 3RR s/he wasn't edit warring.

In discussing the unblock with RegentsPark, the unblocked editor came into the discussion and calimed that s/he "had a faulty understanding of what edit warring /3rr is". Looking further into the matter, it became clear that Sodabottle was misrepresenting him/herself after I found that Sodabottle had warned his EW opponent about a slow-mo edit war here. After I pointed this out, Sodabottle went further insisting that "I never knew slow motion edit warring would lead to blocking" yet the editor had threatened his/her opponent with just that - S/he had threatened to report Paglakahinka "to the admins" for doing the same thing. To me this was a clear case of misrepresenting him/herself - and since s/he continued to do so, I blocked the editor again - this time for continuing misrepresentation under gaming the system.

Sodabottle was previously warned that he was bordering on gaming the system in RegentPark's unblock message.

In discussing the second block with Salvio, we both thought it best to review in a broader context. Comments please. Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: (1) The user got caught in a lie; (2) It's only 24 hours; and (3) That was generous on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd first like to thank Toddst1 for taking his block here for review. Personally, I believe Toddst1 was a bit heavy-handed, in this case, but, more importantly, that he should have asked someone else to do the blocking, as he was the author of the original block and, though the latter one was due to a different violation, the underlying dispute, in my opinion, was the very same; so I believe Sodabottle should be unblocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring, whether it be slow or fast. ----Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: the alleged warring appeared to have stopped before the block. Both parties were discussing. Sodabottle promised to withdraw from the article as soon as the block ended, and did so. Sodabottle also asked the unblocking admin to unblock the other "warring" editor. Blocks are not intended to be punitive.

There was quite probably a courtesy issue involving the unblocking editor not consulting with Toddst in the first instances, but visiting that disagreement between admins on one of the "warring" editors (which is how it seems even if it is not) it at best unfortunate. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle was discussing the issue while edit warring - all through the edit war. What indication was there that it had stopped? Toddst1 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, I did not phrase that well. My point was that the warring would appear to have been over by the time you placed your second block. Sodabottle had said he would leave the article when unblocked & subsequently left a message on the article talk page to that effect. He also acted in good faith in requesting that his "opponent" be treated in a similar manner to him. His explanations regarding the subtleties of 3RR/edit warring have surely got to be taken in good faith: he appears to have a good track record & certainly on those occasions when I have had dealings with him there has been nothing untoward.

The issue being discussed here is your second block imposition. You were unhappy with RegentsPark and made that clear on his talk page. The pair of you disagreed. Sodabottle turned up there and within a few minutes you had dug something up and blocked him again. The stuff you had dug up was, fundamentally, related to the same issue that had already been discussed on his talk page in relation to your first block. Given your debate with RegentsPark regarding the unblocking, it does have the unfortunate appearance that you might have been looking for a way to "get your way". I am not accusing you of doing this but it does have that appearance and, as such, was a bad decision. Salvio is, I feel, correct in drawing your attention to the matter, although some of us had already done so on Sodabottle's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) This is ridiculous. I actually came here to report Toddst1. This is an action clearly taken by an admin so he could flex his muscles. While he states that the reasoning is different, there was no true additional justification for this block when compared to the one he already used. Sodabottle was not warned for before his first block and clearly showed that he had no intention of gaming the system. In addition, I believe this comment was totally out of line. This is clearly wheel warring. Personally, I would like to know if Toddst is open to recall? Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you spotted the bad word. I called bullshit when the guy was lying to me. I am guilty of that.

You are right - I did not issue an WP:EW warning the user because s/he was extremely aware [54][55] of the policy to the point of bullying Paglakahinka. The point of warning someone is to make them aware of the policy so that they can stop their disruption. In this case the user was well aware, despite lying about it.

You're wrong that it was wheel warring as the second block was for lying about the circumstances of the block - after the unblock - which s/he was warned about.

However, I came here for a review of the second block and as it seems to be relatively split, I am unblocking the editor. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me insist again - I did not lie. My understanding of EW/3RR was faulty. I knew EW was bad but i didnt think by itself EW was a blockable - i thought it becomes blockable only after a editor crosses 3RR (or 1RR where applicable). This was my mistake. I knew EW is bad, but indulged in it because i believed i should go upto 3RR to get the user to the discussion page before using other dispute mechanisms. The unblocking admin RegentsPark accepted this explanation in good faith - i had/have no reason to lie. I promised not to indulge in ANY SORT of EW now that i am aware of where i had gone wrong - All of this is in my talk page discussions. I put a note in the article's talk page and took it off my watchlist - i have'nt gone back there since and i am not going to. I asked for the other editor to be unblocked because he is a new editor and he had stopped after i issued a 3RR warning.

We both had stopped reverting each other when the first block happened. Toddst1 asks What indication was there that it had stopped?. You can check the my contributions time line. After the 3rd revert at 17.07, both of us stopped - we were both discussing the issue at the talk page with other involved and uninvolved editors. After 17.07 and before my first block at 19.29, i have made multiple posts at the article talk page discussing the issue with the other editor and explaining my position. This is the indication that we be both had stopped.

I have had a clean blocklog for 20 months since i started editing en wiki. These are my first blocks of any sort. I am an admin in 2 other wikimedia projects. I have been templated/warned only once so far. I rarely get involved in content disputes at all - my content contributions/interests are in areas relatively uncontentious. After the first unblock i saw Toddst1 wasn't happy about regents action, so i went over regents' talk page to explain what led me to behave as i did and what happened. Toddst1 saw my earlier warning to the other editor and took it to be proof of me being aware of "slow motion EW is a blockable offense". The wording on the warning says "i will report you to the admins", as i believed if i reported him (i have used ANI less than a dozen times during my time here) an admin will turn up and warn him - not block him (As at this point i am still thinking, unless someone breaks 3RR he doesnt get blocked). My first unblock request and subsequent discussions with Ryan Vesey illustrate this confusion - At this point I am still thinking EW is not a blockable offense by itself.

Toddst1 has unblocked me now (though the IP is still blocked - i had to swtich to my backup connection to post this). But i am still insisting what i insisted before - i did not lie, i was ignorant and had a faulty understanding of what EW by itself is a blockable offense. I don't know if this will result in me getting reblocked, as this explanation got myself again for the second time. I still insist on that. All i can say at this time, i will not indulge in any EW (except for obvious vandalism) and will always ask for others' opinion/intervention for content reversions--Sodabottle (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I cleared the autoblock a while ago. Email me if that's not the case. Either way, I look forward to a much more constructive future in any interactions we may have down the road. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Toddst1. I am able to edit now. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access

Resolved

 – done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

...needs revoked by worked up curmudgeon. Doesn't want to play nice. This one is a MoMK Knox meatpuppet.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw, what a sweetie. I'm touched by his comments. Bonus points for use of CAPITALS in certain WORDS as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Long-term edit war at The University of Western Australia Business School

There's a long-term edit war going on here. Does this need admin interference? Regards, —Tommyjb (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna protect it for three days and clean it up and then watch-list for further activity. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. —Tommyjb (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear...

Resolved

Note: The link is pretty graphic, so I should advise not to click on it if you are at work or might be offended. I don't want to "shock" anyone.

Proxima_Centauri Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism. I'll see what I can find. 28bytes (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. {{Cite arxiv}} was vandalized. I've reverted, protected, and blocked the vandal. Thanks for reporting this. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is the second unprotected template redirect that has been vandalized today, the other was Template:Infobox_Organization&redirect=no posted above at #Transport for Greater Manchester - urgent attention needed. Admins might want to keep an eye out for unprotected template redirects and maybe start protecting them preemptively. --64.85.216.174 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats at Amina Arraf

Background: A popular Syrian activist blog of a pro-democracy lesbian turned out to be written by a straight, white guy named Tom MacMaster

• IPs: User:85.105.159.200, User:88.233.127.238, User:195.175.230.155
• Talk threads: Talk:Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari#I_am_the_hoaxer, Talk:Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari#Just_so_you_know...

Now a series of IPs claiming to be Tom MacMaster are threatening legal action if certain sourced claims are not removed. The IPs geolocate to Istanbul, Turkey and east towards Ankara where it was publicly reported MacMaster was taking his vacation. User:Orangemike blocked one of the IPs for making legal threats, but new ones keep coming up and the threat is persistent, as is the claim to be MacMaster. Can I have another eye on this, please? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MarioPool and constant creation of fake television channel articles

MarioPool (talk · contribs)

Best way to explain what is happening is with the following chronology (some of the items might be out of order since I cannot access deleted content):

1. Copypastes Boomerang (TV channel), and tweaks it slightly to Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted under A10.
2. Recreates Tv Kids (Australia). Deleted again under A10.
3. Copypastes Filmnet into Tv Filmnet. Redirected to original article, and user cautioned: [56].
4. Copypastes BBC Prime, and tweaks it slightly to Tv Prime. Deleted under A10.
5. Copypastes BBC World Service Television, and tweaks it slightly to Tv World Service Television. At this point, I realize that he is trying to say it is a different network. Therefore, instead of tagging it for A10, I PROD the article as there are not reliable sources that this other network exists.
6. Same as above between Al Jazeera Urdu and Tv World in Urdu.
7. I warn the user to stop doing the above: [57]
8. After the above warning, does the same between S4C and TV Russia.
9. Level 4 warning given: [58]
10. PRODS removed from TV Russia and Tv World in Urdu. Nominated for AfDs and deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tv Russia
11. Continues pattern with Nederland 3 and Channel 3 (Asia).

In all cases, the new articles are 90-99% copypastes of the original articles. The references are changed to websites that do not exist. This user has been warned over and over again. Rather than respond, he continues the pattern. I believe a block is warranted at this time. Singularity42 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Update. The user appears to also by copypasting files, and tweaking them with photoshop. See File:Nederland3clock1999.png (especially this version and File:Ned3 generic id 2003a.jpg (and using the same caption for the two related articles). Singularity42 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone revdel the unused images at File:Nederland3clock1999.png please? It's excessive. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact that whole image needs deletion as it has no fair use rationale and is used purely for decoration. Yoenit (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that all User:Ischa3 has done is upload 100s of non-free logos without fair use rationale for use in galeries and decoration. Going through and tagging them now. Yoenit (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd caution against carpet bombing Ischa's uploads. There might be some worth saving. If there aren't, well then just fire at will. Still, my point is to look first. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe unrelated and more likely, not particularly relevant, but there was a rash of very similar article creations back in 2007, which I remember for the rather idiosyncratic names given to the made-up channels. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC Radio Survey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBC China were the AFDs for two of the articles. The pattern of article creation is very similar and I remember that the creator of those articles was also editing cartoon articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello!

I think this may require administrator's attention. Instead of solve the dispute, below listed user went to the talk page with the lone intention to frighten and intimidate the other user. Written in a completely degrading stlye, even the (possible) living place was revealed and a promise of physical harm/sexual abuse was made. It is a clear harassment in my point of view, with a potential real life outgrowth that should not be understated. – Thehoboclown (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've RevDeleted the abusive comments (there was earlier abuse in Romanian too), and have issued a warning to Cyperuspapyrus - a block should be the next step if that kind of attack is repeated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Declared good-hand-bad-hand account

North8000 (talk · contribs) appears to be operating a good-hand-bad-hand scheme with TheParasite (talk · contribs). The latter's userpage states, "Most of the time I am North8000 who tries to contribute and be productive. But I have a split personality [...] When this personality comes out, I just want to pick at, delete, criticize and tag other people's work rather than doing anything useful [...] I am so expert at quoting and misusing Wikipedia policies [...] If you anger me I will go after you and win."

While this sort of thing could potentially be humourous, it doesn't seem to be so in this case. A recent example of pointless disruption took place here: [59] [60] – which I only realised was a 'joke' by accidentally clicking on the link to one of the userpages.

The editor has declined my request that they voluntarily stop this disruptive editing so I am reluctantly bringing this here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, one of the accounts should be blocked for abusing multiple accounts. If TreasuryTag hadn't stumbled upon the person's userpage and brought it to the attention of the disucssion's participants, it would have appeared (and did appear to me) that they were two seperate accounts joining in a discussion. This clearly violates WP:ILLEGIT. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Another instance of using both accounts in the same discussion without indicating they are the same person: [61] and [62]. This and the above incident are the only times the second account has edited outside of its own userspace. The only purpose of this account seems to be to add support for the other account's comments. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true./ I will prepare a thorough answer in the next few minutes. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TheParasite has only had 2 brief edits (outside it's talk page) in it's history, and both of them essentially a brief disagreement with me, and both obviously there only to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me. I prominently declared this in both directions. So it is not disruptive per that definition, nor agreeing with me. So, all of the above accusations of going against policy or guidelines are not correct.

But I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that. I'm leaving now for about 6 hours and won't be able to participate or do anything further until then.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to stop with the split-personality. It's a pity that you couldn't have so agreed about half an hour ago when I asked you to on your talkpage, though. Also, if the only purpose of the account was "to lure people to TheParasite's talk page where it's shouted from the rooftops..." etc. then that is obviously disruptive because it serves no valid purpose related to building an encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation[63] GB fan (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident where I provided a profuse and detailed explanation. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:GHBH and it is silent on the issue of whether it is only talking about "undeclared" bad hand accounts (which would make it a "sock puppet") or both "declared" and "undeclared" bad hand accounts. However, I would ask North8000 to say how he thinks that creating a "mirror universe doppelganger account" contributes to building the encyclopedia. I would also ask him to review WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the dangers of picking an alternate account with a vastly different name from your main one; at least I had the sense to make the signature of mine really obvious. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 19:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In my case I would think that Ron Ritzsock is obvious enough. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, although it also isn't a bad-hand account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other alternate accounts that have been used by this editor?   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A WP:SPI may be in order. Phearson (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am sure that there it was not the intention of North8000 to be deceitful, and I for one accept his explanation that the secondary account was duly disclosed on its userpage. However, to a participant in the village pump discussion in question, it would not be immediately apparent that the sock is the same editor as North. It would be preferable if he stopped editing from the secondary account, or at least did not use it at all to participate in community or content discussion. I do not agree that an SPI is warranted here, because this seems more like a misguided than a deceitful use of a secondary account; but I do think that administrative action would be necessary if North does not voluntarily abstain from using the account. AGK [•] 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your assessment of my intentions is very accurate. Recapping my earlier note, I was thinking of retiring TheParasite anyway as a unneeded complexity and distraction, and now decided that now is a good time to do that.

I think that persons throwing around inuendos, making clearly erroneous accusations without/ before carefully reading the guideline, mis-characterizing it as a bad hand account, and leaving out key information is the worst thing happening here. When I accidentally edited as both North9000 and Goober9000, (ONCE, and about 8 months ago) I immediately took ownership (I think I also then double signed the edit) and explained the situation right there by the edits. I also left a detailed explanation of the situation and how the error occurred at the top of the Goober9000 page for 5 months after that, (check the history) and after that left a briefer note which remains there. And then 8 months later somebody left all of that out and just wrote "Here is a place where North8000 and Goober9000 another declared account participated in the same conversation".

Further, the message at TheParasite is to call attention to a very serious problem in Wikipedia, and I feel that the manner chosen to do it at the TheParasite page is an effective if unusual way to do it. There are very destructive people like the TheParasite roaming Wikipedia. The two times that TheParasite has ever edited outside of their talk page is when this problem was germane to the discussion. North9000 was arguing for things which would help solve the problem, and then TheParasite briefly chimed in opposing me, in essence saying that they wanted to keep the status quo. And as if the name alone "TheParasite" wasn't a dead giveaway. With an inexplicable and unexplained goofy comment like TheParasite made, and a name like that I think it was very clear to most that I obviously wanted people to go to TheParasite's page, but somehow that also got "missed" and left out in the above.

And finally, the "shouting from the rooftops" was explicitly "where it's shouted from the rooftops that it's me"; referring to how prominently I indicated on both user pages that both accounts are me. Then TT chopped off the operative "that it's me", then "forgot" this and made the comment that the shouting from the rooftops was "disruptive". Disclosure of the alternate account was certainly not disruptive. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Persisent problems with Petey Parrot

I'm gonna say right now that I am half-dead and half-asleep, so other editors like Dougweller and possibly noclador could fill in the details as I need to hit the hay soon (need to get digging at 05:00 GMT+2). There have been some problems with

. He has made very POV edits on many articles, particularly ones related to Jews, Israel, US Foreign policy and neo-con stuff. I listed most of the Jew-related stuff in this topic. At the time it was a very exhaustive list. Now that is a problem, but it's not what prompted this ANI posting. The main problem is that Petey has been violating NPA nonchalantly. Now after Doug gave him a Level-4 warning, he stopped and only started posting suggestions for additions to various articles as well as making minor helpful fixes and larger not-so-helpful ones. Recently though, he made a PA and got blocked. His response to this was to post a strange PA on his page about the Likud party. [64] He also made this odd comment [65] and this one after his block was extended [66]. The other editors could explain it better. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from their talk page alone, it's a wonder they haven't been indefinitely blocked by now. Larry V (talk | email) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If I hadn't been struggling with an iPad using Wikiedit (which seems to have no tildes) on a bad 3G connection in the middle of a field and then delayed by a dead batter (now replaced by the RAC) I'd have brought this here much earlier today. I interpret " the Rainbow Likudis at the Pentagon" as meaning Jewish homosexuals, in line with his other anti-Semitic comments on talk pages. Why he decided to ignore my Level 4 warning I don't know, but he did and another editor reverted his attack as vandalism. When I saw that I gave him a 24 hour block, raised to 60 hours after his Rainbow Likudis comments. I'm not sure how we should proceed now and would appreciate other comments. It doesn't appear as though he's taking these blocks seriously at all. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I ran into Petey Parrot too - his edits are: unhelpful, disruptive, violations of BLP, homophobic, anti-semitic, and he ignores any advice/warnings. The last straw for me was this edit: [67]. He clearly is not contributing anything of value to wikipedia, but disrupts the work of productive editors. noclador (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noclander. I have thought for a while now that the user is not here to improve the content from a NPOV position - some undue edits - user page once deleted as an attack page. His early contributions suggest returning user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Petey Parrot apparently has no regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. My previous experience with this user was to revert this unsourced edit, so I was a relatively uninvolved admin until I saw his talk page response to Dougweller's block. I extended his block to 60 hours in the hope it might give him pause, but I suspect that no number of limited blocks will cause him to amend his behavior. I'll support an indefinite block. -- Donald Albury 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Petey Parrot problems? Propose permanent prohibition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"'Ooose a petty boy, then?" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't often say this, ... but this one has "indef" written allll over it. — Ched :  ?  01:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • He was issued a short block, and is squawking about it.[68] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out.

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Um.. ignoring the fact that you've spammed this to a bunch of talk pages, I've blocked the editor for 3 days for socking, and have protected a bunch of the articles. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:KieranKiwiNinja

KieranKiwiNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While new-page patrolling earlier, I CSDed Drigers and Boss (Person), as the subjects appeared far from notable. These pages were soon deleted. I then noticed that User:KieranKiwiNinja had apparently created the "Drigers" pages various times before, and it looks like (s)he was blocked for this on 11 June 2011. So I warned the user not to create such pages again, and I was met with a very uncivil comment on my talk page. (Note that I am not, as the comment suggests, an admin.)

Does this user need another block? User has been notified of this report.

—Tommyjb (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 72 hours because of the personal attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

False and misleading

Faulse and misleading accusations from NEREO, CHUCAO, Jcestepario are to much!.They act coordinated, probably the same person, or VandalBOT, Sneaky Vandalism,Template Vandalism, Harrassing. Leaded by NEREO without boundaries.They put violent notes under a copyrighted maps and in history as " Falsification" under the template and other discrediting notes in Wikipedia to my articles Jaime Said. They put "false data" and have taken all my work down. They threten me as I try to recover the work that NEREO and his team deleted. He has obtained for the second time to Blocked me for 3 month. He has spreaded in the spanish secctions Frutillar, Patagonia, Puerto Montt, Valdivia, Lago Llanquihue, Lago Ranco, Chiloe, Puerto Octay, Monte Verde all Chilean Territories of Patagonia, deleted all my work, changed to his point of view and construct HIS Argentinian view of Chilean Patagonia with a campain to discredit my work as Historian. Please VIEW HISTORY of the pages mentioned--190.96.40.109 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)--Jaimesaid (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This complaint was originally left at the vandalism noticeboard. I dropped a note at their talk page asking for some clarification. Larry V (talk | email) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nereo (talk · contribs) and Jcestepario (talk · contribs) have been notified. I can't find this "Chucao" fellow, though. Larry V (talk | email) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any editing to topics related to Patagonia by these accounts appear to have been a couple of years ago, certainly in the en-WP. If there are edits on other language wiki's then there is nothing that can be done here. Of note is that there appears to be no block history at en-WP relating to User:Jaimesaid, and I wonder if the references to "spanish secctions" (sic) refer to that project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Wran

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, User:Wran has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his/her position on what details about the alleged assaul victim should be given in the article, culminating in a statement that I am "clearly favouring censorship in an utterly arbitrary and tyranical manner, including lying about consensus when the editors are 9 to 3 in favour of inclusion". [69] A previous attempt to reason with Wren on his/her talk page resulted in contributors being described as "fascists". [70] It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at minumum a topic ban for Wren is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must include everything that is sourced or stand accused of 'tyranny' and 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My review of User:Wran's talkpage is that they have been given policy based reasons why a persons name may not be included in another subjects article, and that they have not accepted those rationale's. My understanding is that one person citing policy correctly has the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when multiples are in agreement as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation - not that I am seeing anything resembling negotiation. I am going to issue the editor with a final warning to not add the name to the article, and not to make personal attacks on other contributors (I deem liar to be more of an attack on the integrity of a contributor than even "fascist"). Any repeat of this behaviour, and they get blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not call anyone a "liar"; rather I said that a particular demonstrable lie was "lying": when someome accuses an editor of violating consensus when it's a simple matter of fact that the consensus is in the accused's favour, that is clearly a lie.

Your second sentence is absurd as a person can't have the consensus of those opposing him and your use of the term multiples is not intelligible English. Presumably you meant something like: "one person citing policy correctly overrides the consensus of any number misapplying same, and that when there is a consensus as regards policy then there is no room for negotiation." This however is absurd as the second clause contradicts the first. However either option would justify my actions as both others and myself cited policy correctly and pointed out clearly how those who disagreed with us were misapplying it; and ther is a clear consensus in my favour. Your remarks here and on my user page make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of the term "consensus': I suggest you read the wiki article "Consensus decision-making". Nor have I expressed personal individual insults to anyone, whereas my accuser has: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". Wran (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• From the look of it, Andy isn't the only person reverting your changes, but you are the only one putting them back. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And here's another one: [71] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Farsiwan

I am sorry, but this is just not tolerable. It is full of PA and racist slogans. Only because the user lacks qualification in that field (i.e. he does not even know the basic WP:RS), he is claiming that there is some kind of an "Iranian" and "Shia" conspiracy, of course "headed" by Clifford Edmund Bosworth and David Neil MacKenzie (c. this). The talkpage to Ghurid dynasty has become a playground for users like him. And it prevents (and chases away) actual experts (for example User:Tekisch). Some admin-help is needed. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly issues with this editor, but perhaps owing to lack of familiarity of WP practices and policies. I make no comment regarding whether the representation of Pashtun history is biased either by the references available or the use of same, but it appears to me that this might be considered a content dispute couched in terminology that violates WP:NPA - but I do not believe that concentrating on the apparent slurs against some editors should be a reason for ignoring what may be legitimate concerns over the possible bias against a people. I feel that there is not enough evidence presented here of attempting to resolve any of these issues for there to be admin intervention. I suggest some attempts at dispute resolution and possibly an RfC in regard to (various) editors participation in these areas may be considered.

I would note that I have very recently been involved in suppressing alleged personal information being presented about this editor, so I am aware that there is not only one party to this issue that is apparently not complying with WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that there is no bias, even though this is hard to accept/believe for users who are "blinded" by national sentiments, overexaggerated patriotism, or even stubborn ethnocentricism (that's the case with Farsiwan, User:Tofaan, that one IP on the talkpage, etc.). The article Ghurid dynasty is in a very bad shape and needs improvement. But the origins section is well sourced. In fact, it uses the most authoritative sources of oriental studies.What this user does is blindly attacking and insulting these sources (and that actually proves that he cannot be an expert on the issue and that he lacks even the most basic knowledge of the subject) and the authors. There is no such dispute in the academic world. There is not a single reliable and respected scholar who would claim what Farsiwan is claiming. If the most trusted and most authoritative sources of a certain field (in this case Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, even Encyclopaedia Americana and Encyclopaedia Britannica) make a clear statement (i.e. that the Ghurids were NOT Pashtuns) and a few users make contrary statements (i.e. that the Ghurids were Pashtuns, meaning of their own ethnic background, without being able to present a single reliable source), then the users are wrong and their misleading edits need to be reverted - aggressively and without any compromises. This is not just a question of simple Wikipedia rules. It is also about the general agenda of these users who are stubbornly trying to force modern national identities on long-forgotten royal families of the middle ages ... --Lysozym (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Walmartfan

User:Walmartfan is making a lot of questionable edits, including one using an image they uploaded to Commons to vandalize Fox News, and edit warring at File:Robloxgame.jpg, where their edit summaries have included "WHO CARES ABOUT WIKIPEDIAS DUMB RULES" and "I WILL KEEP REVERTING IT". I assume something should be done and I'm not sure what; I didn't think reporting them at WP:AIV would be appropriate so I posted this here. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a strict message on their talk page. Should the reverting continue then a block is necessary. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:LessHeard vanU went ahead and blocked him/her! Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

After comparing the warnings on the user talkpage and their edit history, I considered that allowing them to edit was simply a timesink. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and is there any way to get File:Faux-News-poster.png, which they uploaded today, deleted? My apologies as I don't have much experience working with files. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already been nominated for speedy deletion at Commons. An admin there will delete it shortly. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he or she has uploaded some copyright violations to Commons as well. I nominated these for deletion too. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonicsgate

Single-purpose accounts have basically turned an article about an obscure documentary into a platform for a local cause. Is it worth it to even try to trim this article back into something reasonable? Chicken Wing (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As a recent example, user:Sunserj comes by and adds a ton of information to the article. The user has three career edits to Wikipedia, and all of them are very elaborate edits to the Sonicsgate article. The user makes no use of edit summaries. I checked some of the sources the editor used, and some of them are a bit questionable. I revert the article back to a point when it didn't look so much like a platform for a local political cause. That prompts user:71.247.216.62, making only his fourth career edit, to revert my edit. Despite never having used edit summaries previously, the IP address editor uses a long edit summary to seemingly impartially berate me for poor editing practices.

I deal with this on this article all the time. Without administrator help, I'll probably just give up on the article because it's not worth my time. Plus, as I get more fatigued with dealing with these problem editors, I'm likely to start getting sloppier correcting the page, which will only give them ammunition. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an admin will do something about this first; but have you tried asking for semi-protection at WP:RFPP? That would keep most of the riff-raff away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this would likely be the best course of action. N^oformation ^Talk 02:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The last time the Discussion page for the article was used was almost a year ago. How about instead of fronting the problems alone, start a thread on the Discussion page explaining what you perceive the problems to be. That way other editors will have a reference point to work with, and maybe the SPAs will even be prompted to engage in actual dialog.—Biosketch (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions -- I really do -- and I admit that coming to WP:AIN seems like a drastic step, but call this death from a thousand paper cuts. I've been dealing with the same handful of editors for years on several Seattle-to-OKC related articles. I didn't think I'd be able to justify a semi-protect because of the slow nature of the trouble-making, and I haven't used the discussion page recently because years of dealing with this group of editors has shown it to be a waste of time. The last edits to the article's discussion page a year ago included senseless attacks on my editing history. You can look at the talk pages to articles like Clayton Bennett and Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City to see that for about three years or more I've just been beaten down by a small group of fringe editors. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Right on cue, the IP address displays that it is much more interested in mockery than serious discussion.[72] I really don't mean to seem short-tempered, but I've dealt with these editors for years, some of whom have threatened me and my family with physical violence. I try to assume good-faith, but it becomes obvious fairly quickly when it's just another round of abusive editing. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to try, at least that way you can point at the discussion and essentially say "Use the talk page (constructively) if you want the information kept, otherwise I'll use WP:RFPP, and you'll be locked out of editing, I don't want to do that, but Wikipedia is about discussion, not edit warring...etc, etc." That way if they don't want to discuss the content (not the editors), it'll make it that much easier to semi-protect the page. - SudoGhost™ 04:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(As a note though, it's now on my watchpage, and I'm sure it's on a few more now as well, so that alone should help) - SudoGhost™ 04:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Al-Andalusi in 'Asma' bint Marwan

The article is about a female poets who were executed by the order Muhammed (Muslims prophet) because she critisied Muhammed in one of her poets. Al-Andalusi has a very disruptive edits in this article trying to push traditional religious views and undermine academic and modern historian views and any view which is not in favor of traditional Islamic views.

If you look at his talkpage you can see a long history of his disruptive edits in Islam related articles. Here is some of his disruptive edits in 'Asma' bint Marwan article:

• Deleting sourced materials belongs to a wellknown professor and historian: 1 and 1
• Disruptive taging: He keeps adding tag where quotes are provided in footnotes and in article body: 1, & 2, & 3.
• Serious violation of NPOV: Pushing religious POV of Hadith Mullahs views and represent it as the fact and universal accepted views where modern historians and academics views are missing: 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, or see this edit summary,

• Try to undue historians and academics views by different ways such as renaming the section name to undermine the importance of the views or pushing modern scholars views to very bottom of the article to undue these views, e.g. out of several similar edits: 1 Penom (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User: AndyTheGrump

In an ongoing dispute in Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case User: AndyTheGrump has made repeated personal attacks on contributors who don't agree with his position on what details about the alleged assault victim should be given in the article. Previous attempts to reason with AndyTheGrump by various editors have not received any responses aside from false statements, mis-characterizations of wiki policies, and personal insults such as the following: "Take your ridiculous coat-racking elsewhere"; "his favourite hobby - ethno-tagging. ... to hijack yet another thread with his agenda."; ""is there any article that Bus stop won't troll"; "we can start talking about your attitude to WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the other policies and guidelines you routinely ignore"; "If you had the faintest idea what such words actually meant". It seems to me that such comments go beyond simple questions of talk-page etiquette, and that at the absolute minumum a topic ban for AndyTheGrump is merited, until he/she accepts that Wikipedia article content is decided by policy, and by consensus, not by assertions that we must delete everything he disagrees with no matter how well it is sourced. Wran (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all of this be in the existing thread that Andy started about your conduct? [73] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I add that maybe Wran should read WP:PLAGIARISM too... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And WP:Point and WP:Boomerang... Kevin (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Has Wran understood the warning [74] he received from LHvU? He appears to be continuing to edit war on the DSK article. [75] Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned not to attempt to add her name in to the article and not to personally attack editors, I don't think that means he can't edit or add in the other info (obviously not past 3RR but otherwise). I've just read through all the relevant talk page info and this stuff is a bit more complicated that what's been presented here. There are good points on both sides and I can see why Wran is frustrated. Personally, reading that article, I would expect to learn something about the accuser (not the name, but from what I read Wren specifically said they don't want to include the name), and as of now I think that information is lacking. It shouldn't be presented the way it has been, but I think something should be there and I think you guys all need to calm down, take a step back, assume that the other side simply wants the article to be the best article it can be, and work together. N^oformation ^Talk 03:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle content disputes. I brought Wren's behaviour up here after he/she started describing contributors as 'liars' and 'fascists'. Of course it is 'more complicated' if you want to go into the minutia, but that isn't the issue - what matters is Wren's abusive language, and combative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no excuse for that and he has certainly been unpleasant.N^oformation ^Talk 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)