Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Joefaust

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

---

Resolved

 – Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm ^X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[1]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:

• User:Joefaust/Paragliders (the gliding kites of NASA)
• User:Joefaust/Template:Comparison of types of kite hang gliders
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (the pilot)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding by police
• User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding (industry)
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (multiple uses in society): This one has a long list of red links suggesting yet others he intends to create/fork
• User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding appears to be a schema for the whole thing

Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [2] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.

I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".

I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.

In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.

I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.

If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.

Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.

Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in limbo

Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Joy: Use of admin tools -while involved- in a content dispute

The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

• Deletion of the page Moroccan: [3]
• History of Moroccan (disambiguation) now merged with the history of the page Moroccan: [4]

I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan (disambiguation) that you've merged elsewhere with no discussion no consensus Tachfin (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't restore (unmerge) it but you can trivially move it over there, with zero loss of functionality. Overall I'm at a loss for words over your blatant WP:OWN violation and inability to reasonably argue a content dispute without resorting to petty procedural complaints. This, coupled with the appeal to "consensus" over the circumstance that nobody noticed this page being redirected wrongly for years, indicates a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONS. Sure, someone can assume bad faith in my "admin actions" and undo them completely without regard for what they actually were, but that won't change the simple fact that all my arguments of the matter have remained unanswered. Talk about WP:DISRUPTIVE, sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly clear case of WP:INVOLVED and a violation of use of the admin tools. The admin actions should be undone, while discussion is still continuing. Silverseren^C 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How exactly did I use admin tools to gain an advantage over the non-administrator user? What advantage did I gain? Because, I honestly don't see any - I did not prevent them from doing anything they want, apparently I only enabled them to complain here, which seems... disadvantageous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You used admin tools to delete and then move another page to the deleted title, while in a disagreement with another user over the title and the disambiguation page. It seems pretty obvious. Silverseren^C 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) He cannot undo your changes because he is not an admin, that's the advantage you have. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Er, what? Of course he can undo my changes, he can move the disambiguation page back to its old location and create the same redirect again. Nothing I did prevents him from doing that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Can plain editors do history merges, and more importantly, can they undo them? I think not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Like I said before, yes, that's a procedure they can't do on their own, but I fail to see the observable benefit to me / harm to them from that history merge that prejudices the content dispute and constitutes an admin tool abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
            • After I've read the talk page discussion, I agree that the complaint about the histmerge is of marginal concern. The main dispute is about the page move. As with such controversial moves, it should probably be undone and a {{movereq}} posted on the talk page. Right now this is a two party tango on the talk page. It's hard to say there's consensus either way. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been recomendable to avoid doing any actions while discussion was still going on, however we must see that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on. Unfortunate rush and perhaps a lesson to be more patient in future... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on.' Doing that only seconds after I posted on talk page with no reply and no consensus for the move, I saw it as an attempt to impose a "Fait accompli" since I cannot do/undo what he did and what he did was certainly unwarranted with no consensus and in violation of WP:INVOLVED. User:Joy (as any other user) should not disregard opposition to the breaking of a status quo that has been going since 2004, and unilaterally use his admin powers to impose his preferred version. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the admin actions are undone and the discussion continued, then everything should be fine, yes. But they have to be undone to be fair to the discussion. Silverseren^C 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• So is there any good Samaritan Admin to restore things to the previous status quo? And friendly warn User:Joy to not use admin tools while involved and not edit war (The instant reverts are quite uncollaborative to say the least, I feel as if I am personally targeted since I'm just willing to restore a version that has been living since 2004, even Ips weren't reverted with such quickness and enthusiasm) Tachfin (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there are many admins who would be willing to (consensus here seems clear that Joy was involved and should not have used the tools), but the problem is that the two articles should never have been histmerged at all. They had parallel histories and the histmerge has left the history of the article in a mess. The correct procedure would be to perform a history split, but I can't see how an admin doing a history split would be able to tell which edits were from which article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it is possible; admins can see the history of deleted pages. Tachfin (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Once again, you can revert all the relevant edits yourself - click the move button on Moroccan and move it to Moroccan (disambiguation), overwriting the reverse redirect, and then re-create Moroccan as a redirect to Moroccan people. The fact that the disambiguation page was moved around will still remain in the history of the "... (disambiguation)" page. How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality. I'm not sure why you are insisting that an administrator do this, other than continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. (And, I should mention, if you proceed with this action, it will mean that I have to proceed with a formal move request, which in turn means that more editor time will be wasted on another redundant explanation of how disambiguation works.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No, a non-admin cannot undo this because a history split would be required. "How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality." I'm sorry, but that is a completely unacceptable comment from an admin – you have history merged two articles that have parallel histories, which goes directly against what it says to do in the relevant guideline. Please do not perform anymore histmerges before you have read and understood WP:HISTMERGE (particularly the section on parallel versions). Jenks24 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • A history split is not required. The history still exists; which page's history it's on is irrelevant to the content dispute here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Exactly, thank you. If we split it back up (some guesswork and possibly a comparison with a backup would be required), it still doesn't prejudice the debate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (They have proceeded with the same action so there's now Talk:Moroccan (disambiguation)#Requested move. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

By the way, in the meantime, other people seem to have proceeded with the disambiguation of the term Moroccan, and now only four incoming links remain. Unsurprisingly, nobody else came to complain. So much for "[making] our editing lives miserable". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Joy, this comment: "continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" is unacceptable and borderline personal attack. I've done nothing that breaches WP:POINT or disrupts Wikipedia in any way. You did not respect WP:INVOLVED (whether that was in good faith or intentional). You should respect the previous consensus while discussion is ongoing (and no, discussion is not a waste of editor time as you seem to believe) and not revert-war and move a page after I pointed out that it was already disambiguated elsewhere (that wasn't a request for you to move it). Your persistent belief that you are right and groundless accusations show little respect for WP:AGF and WP:ETIQ. I'm not comfortable with such tone/behavior coming from an admin Tachfin (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, again, no, you have no idea what you are talking about - there was no previous consensus because "Moroccan" has pointed:

• to "Morocco" on 2004-01-04
• to disambig on 2009-02-27
• to "Morocco" on 2009-05-22
• to "Moroccan people" on 2011-09-10
• to disambig on 2011-10-21
• and then our little silly edit war started with you moving it to "Moroccan people" - clearly there were two options in the page history and the "Moroccan people" option was NOT the "stable" version because it was there for a little over a month
• and now you moved it to "Morocco" on 2011-10-27.

(If any of these diffs are wrong because of histmerge, it's possible that parts of this timeline are wrong, but when we know that there are only two options - that someone would change "Moroccan" or that someone would change "Moroccan (disambiguation)" - turning the latter into a redirect would have made no sense and as I recall nobody ever did that. Instead, all redirect edits were made to the page "Moroccan".)

So you blithely dragged me through these proceedings for a reason that is a) ultimately frivolous b) with no basis in fact because all your claims of "stability" and "consensus" were void given that you actually changed the redirect yourself at the time away from the longest-standing version.

You have tried to prove your point not by discussing things like an adult on the relevant talk page, instead by edit-warring and then reporting me for alleged abuse. That's called disruptive behavior and a personal attack on myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we done here? There doesn't appear to be any need for administrative action to undo any of the damage here, and the deleted redirect doesn't seem to have any non-trivial history. Is there anything else? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ blocked for 48 hours

It is with regret that I have blocked Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)) for 48 hours, in enforcement of his community sanction (listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as follows:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand has run his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation on over 130 articles between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011 (see Special:Contributions/Δ) without seeking this consensus. I, and other users, have attempted many times to engage him in dialogue about his recent return to automated editing without consensus to no avail. The sad thing is that for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive; but regretfully, the productivity of edits does not excuse failure to seek and adhere to community consensus, nor does it excuse ignoring restrictions placed by the community or the opinion of other community members. I feel sad that this has been necessary. (Corrected) --Tristessa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - if he has violated his restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success" (block log) — err, where? I assume this refers to a recent speaking-to? NW (Talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[5], [6] from me, but plenty of other people have tried to talk to him in the past; he's definitely been warned and knows the consequences of his actions, I think, as this has gone on for literally years. The history goes back a long way before I first communicated with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2, his block log, AN/I discussion way back in 2008, his talk history. I think we can safely say he's been gently spoken to, counselled, begged, pleaded with, screamed at, and generally informed. --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them. As the last complaint at his talk page was Oct 6, its a little hard to see what the issue is here; if someone thinks his editing is making a mess, that needs to be told to him than sitting on it. The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines. ---MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit severe to block him for this , "for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive" - can we unblock him and talk to him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the productivity, regretful as it is, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad. As for talking to him, this has been tried exhaustively and has routinely failed (he does not generally reply effectively to talk page messages attempting to discuss these issues with him, if at all). Were communication possible, I wouldn't have blocked. --Tristessa (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob, please calm down. Your assertion that an admin not use their tools because you don't feel they've made enough contributions lately is ludicrous. Let's please stick to this situation. Dayewalker (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not ludicrous at all - if your not contributing you have no authority - simple as - so you should not make unilateral judgments on active contributors and restrict them, you should make a report and defer to request the communities position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Then take it up at the village pump, because that has no basis in policy that I can find. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, not even in the slightest. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense and as such doesn't need taking off to the village pump, it more needs promotion of the reality to stop such violations as this, so that users are aware that whatever the labels they have, thay actually only have and only should only use the authority their contributions reflect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last (apparent) communication with him was on Oct 4. He replied. I can't tell (without reviewing all his edits) whether he did take your advise re: Wayback links, but again, spotchecking the 130 contributions you're pointing out, I don't see this. The fact that he replied a few weeks ago means that you should have at least tried to communicate this concern to him before blocking. And evenmore if the edits were all productive and non-distruptive (and truly, as best as I can tell, all seem to be non-controversial), this is a bad block. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. But he only replied tangenitally in the middle of a discussion with another user (User:Hammersoft), in effect offering almost no reply to any of what I said on his talk page. How would you suggest proceeding given his recurrent proclivity towards not communicating, and that so many people have tried to address this with him? I think he's been more than adequately warned. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the "tangenital" and "don't be..." comments, you might want to review your own edits just a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm here on other business, but just as a suggestion, every time one of this seemingly endless series of incidents turns into a heated argument between beta blockers and delta enablers the community loses that much more patience, and it's probably increasing the likelihood that he'll end up banned from the encyclopedia entirely. That's a poor outcome for everyone. Best tone down the emotions and deal with it practically and efficiently. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions. Previous history suggests that, unless he respects the person questioning his edits, he won't reply, and, even if he does, he won't stop before being blocked. In fact, the only times (that I can recall; I haven't been watching him continually, so I may have missed an incident) that he has changed his behavior is after a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block. Indeed, my sense of AGF is stretched a bit here, because it does look as if the blocking admin - who has used the block button precisely eight times in five years - was irritated by an error that Δ made in his edits 19 days ago, and waited for him to make some edits that could possibly be construed as a pattern before pressing the block button without further communication. If this block was not of Δ I think it would be reversed immediately because it contravenes numerous parts of WP:BLOCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this definitely wasn't my motivation, Black Kite. My first attempt at interaction with him over this issue was [7] (09:15, 28 September 2011) which I linked to above, and that was before I made any specific comment on the actual effect of his edits at all. Given the massive history of DR activity related to these behaviours, are you seriously claiming he had too little notice that he'd be liable to be blocked? I suppose there's no way of me proving to you that it's not a case that I was (or am) "irritated" with him, and indeed regret deeply that it came to the point of blocking him. --Tristessa (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm just going by the edit history. If you (or indeed, anyone) had even considered informing him that his editing pattern might be violating his sanctions, then I'd agree with the block. But no-one did. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem here is that blocking out of the blue without approaching for discussion and claiming there's a violation when it's on a very subjective edge (eg I don't see this as the "pattern" of edits that the community restrictions call on, but that's my opinion) is an issue. Starting an ANI thread, discussing the problem, and in the end if he still got blocked for 48hrs, I can't argue against that. But out of the blue blocks, and ones that claim communication has been tried when they haven't is a bad block. The edits should be reviewed here, and if still deemed a problem, sure. But this feels like the case of people trying to find any way to get Delta blocked indefinitely from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the time difference is germane. The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone did that, they'd be accused by the regular crowd of stocking, harassing, or provoking him. I seem to recall last time we had a delta discussion someone mentioned all these clean-up edits to him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

According the to restrictions, Beta is required to propose edits on the village pump if they affect more than 50 articles. Did he do that in this case? If so, we can get a link, and all is well. If not, then it seems to me the block is sound. If he makes 130 edits with the same edit summary, it is unreasonable to expect others to review them to see exactly what was changed. It seems like he simply ran the same script on 130 articles - and that seems like a "pattern" to me even if the script might not make exactly the same edit on each article. The restriction specifically is intended to prevent Beta from unilaterally running scripts on large numbers of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he needs to not violate his sanctions, as he is well aware. It is a pity he puts us through this every so often but there is no reason to shoot the delivery person when Beta is the one who filled out the order, mailed it off, paid for it, and then opened the door. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell if a script is being run, but the edits seems to be all doing different things, even if there is the same edit summary. It doesn't appear to be a script. In on edit, he's correcting IMDB to IMDb (or was it the other way?) and in others he's removing links to deleted images and in others he correcting the format of infoboxes. The edits are too diverse to be a script. I think he just used the same edit summary, but it doesn't appear to be a progress of the same edits. Silverseren^C 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary. He made 320 edits in August with the exact edit summary "clean". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can learn much from the edit summaries then. We just have to check to see if a series of the same edits are being done, which would indicate a script. But the edits all seem to be different, at least from what i'm looking at. Silverseren^C 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the main effect of the single summary is to obfuscate which tasks he is actually doing, to make it more difficult to find a pattern. But it would be amazing if there was not a pattern of 25 similar edits among the 2,000 I mentioned. IMO it is up to Beta to use different edit summaries for the different tasks. If all the edits summaries claim to be doing the same thing ("cleanup") then that is a pattern of edits. If Beta wants to show he is doing different things, he needs to use descriptive edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re automated edits: As has happened before, this user is running scripts or 'bots which make large numbers of minor changes, some of which are useful, some of which are pointless, and some of which make things worse. And, as before, the edit comments are useless. This time, there's a new pattern of pointless changes. See [8], where the script or 'bot is converting HTML 24-bit hex colors such as "#ffcccc" into 12-bit hex colors such as "#fcc". That's a "legacy color" format from the NeXTstation/Amiga era, and is deprecated in the HTML5 spec.[9] (See "Steps for parsing a legacy color value", esp. item 6.)

This is apparently done whenever this user's script touches an article. This is not only pointless, but a step in the wrong direction. It generates a large number of diffs, obfuscating any substantive edits. It will confuse later editors who aren't really, really familiar with the formal HTML parsing specification. Somebody please make this nonsense stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial...- User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Rob - most of the user's sanction-violating edits in this last period (> 100) occurred within one day (22 October 2011) in high-speed chunks (4-6 per minute), and I haven't even dealt with the subject of his historical editing using the "Cleanup" script on dates before the period given in the block. Aside from that, again, please stop the ad hominem. It's not helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the data from the comments here - I have seen nothing presented , and you yourself said it wasn't that his contributions were detrimental - It's not an ad homin to point out that an account is not contributing to article content - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its boorish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are considering a rule requiring significant recent content contributions by editors who impose sanctions on others then we should first consider it in light of the sitting Arbitrators.[10]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not considering a rule - just a heightened degree of common sense application of attributed authority - I would suggest that its well understood that arbiters have a heightened degree of authority and workload that can and does restrict them from ordinary contributions to project space - unlike administrators who have a lower degree of authority and if they are not contributing to article space they need to understand to not action any controversial authority edits and simply request community consensus first - what is so wrong with that - nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst having some sympathy for Rob's position (and yes I realise I pointed out the blocking admin's lack of use of the tools), this is probably distracting from the main issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, he should have been blocked for a longer time, he got blocked for a year for a reason. --Hinata talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, if the edits are beneficial, then WP:IAR concerning the sanctions and get off his tail. Are we going to start blocking active contributors now? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rainbow Dash. IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried. Or can somebody point to me how Beta's edits were disruptive? "It's not the point, he broke the rules"? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just for my own edification, are we claiming that he's made a series of distinct, beneficial contributions spread out in reasonable numbers of the course of days, but since he's used "cleanup" as his edit summary, that he is deserving of a block? Is it a part of his sanctions that he must use different edit summaries? If he's violated his sanctions, then a block is justified... but if we're blocking because he used generic edit summaries, resulting only in preventing him from making positive contributions, then it should be reversed. Are any of his edits detrimental? The HTML color code thing isn't convincing to me, even as a professional web developer. That could easily be a mistake from a non-automated process.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my take - its people trying to read into "a pattern of edits" to as much a degree as necessary to "criminalize" Delta. It is vague, unfortunately, but I think one has to look at why these are in place to be understood what the issue is and what that means to "pattern of edits". The community clearly did not want Delta editing mindlessly with changes to articles with no human oversight that was creating avoidable errors and problems in articles. Again, not having reviewed every single edit, the spotchecks show nothing earthshatteringly bad. A few weeks (months?) ago, he had been doing cleanup that stripped hidden HTML comments from articles, but when he was warned on that, he no longer did it. Again, best as I can tell, when he was warned off adding Google Book links or adding Wayback links, he backed off. He's listening. This is what the community wanted, yes?

If the issue was that this felt like a pattern of edits (arguably either way), then the right course of action shouldn't have been to block but warn Delta "This appears to be a pattern" and request he VPP what he's doing. A block this fast is just assuming a lot of bad faith when Delta is trying to contribute as much within what he can do within the restrictions. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Hinata. Two weeks seems more appropriate. He is right, but that doesn't mean he gets to steamroll everybody Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You agree with user Hinata - since the last five months the User:Hinata hasn't even contributed a single minor edit the the en wikipedia article space. - a user that has only ever contributed minor reverts to the en project - and only ever fifty of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Hinata&namespace=0 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, strange that isn't it? Wonder how he suddenly got alerted to this thread? My AGF is certainly being strained tonight. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Rio, I believe another ANI has been started in response at least partially to your Re: of my comment. The bottom line is that I think that Delta/Beta has acted improperly, because he is using the fact that he is right to ignore other guidelines that suggest how to act. I feel the block was appropriate, and could/should even have been longer. How many contributions some editor I agree with has zero bearing on my opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss every Betacommand sanction violation exhaustively, on the grounds that he really ought to know better by know, but keeps violating his sanctions anyways. Just how much longer will his ridiculous behaviour be tolerated? Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a wrong question. The correct one would be: are the sanctions helping, or hurting the project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the sanctions have averted some of the bad tendencies in Beta's editing, they have helped the project. When I was on the group that developed the sanctions originally [11], I expected Beta would have no trouble following them, because they were written to be easy to follow. The fact that he continues to step outside them underscores their value. Also, without the sanctions Beta would simply have been banned from enwiki. So in a sense the sanctions help the project by allowing Beta to contribute in some way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the "pattern" part of them isn't actually that clear, if this ANI discussion is anything to go by. And unfortunately, that's the important part here. The rest is easy to follow, but they aren't relevant here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it's a stretch to argue that 2,000 edits with exactly the same summary do not constitute a pattern. Also, if you look at his contribs, the articles are editing in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order, which is evidence he has made a list based on some criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if all the edits were doing the same thing; but they're not. In fact they appear to be doing a quite wide range of cleanup operations. As for how the list is generated, I suppose the best person to ask would be Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the same cleanup script does different things depending on the page it is run on (one example would be AWB), it's still the same script. Experience shows there is little benefit in trying to discuss these things with Beta; that's how we ended up with the edit restrictions. However, it seems like the common thread in the recent edits is removing references to deleted or nonexistent images. Start with the edit to Carleen Anderson and go down the list of contribs from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow (it's 1:15am here). It's fairly clear regardless that this block isn't going to be undone anyway; but I do hope it'll lead to Delta's constraints being tightened up (in the sense that it's patently clear to everyone what is and isn't a violation). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, persistently yelling "ban him" at every ANI discussion when everyone else is trying to have a sensible discussion is not really helpful. We heard you the first time. It's like the random person who walks behind the TV reporter and makes faces. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup. Some aspects of it are beneficial (the removal of redlinked images), some are unnecessary (the addition of spaces after asterisks), but it does look as if the errors and more controversial aspects of this cleanup task have been stopped after the discussion we had on his talk page on 27-28 september[12].

Basically, it is clear that this is a pattern of scripted edits, but on the other hand I can't find actual problems with the current run. Suggest unblocking on the condition that Δ gets approval at some location (VP or so) for his current cleanup task (which shouldn't be a problem), and that he gets prior approval for any changes/additions to it, to avoid the need for constant scrutiny of his many edits (which did contain errors and problems last month). Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• There were actual problems; that they are minor is arguable. Here, the edit removes an important (IMHO) hidden instruction to editors, and removes "is" from the intro entirely, which is restored by another editor here. Not a big deal, but sorta zealous and hurried, without proper previewing. Yes, it's a giant article, and it's hard to preview everything, but that was the first word in the lead sentence. That's the only example I'm going to cite, because I feel most of the edits performed were beneficial, though a few were neutral, and arguably personal preferences (shortening named ref names). I have no beef with the editor whatsoever, and it is indeed regrettable that the situation has gone this far without the editor responding to requests and suggestions in a meaningful way. Hell, I even learned how not to be uncivil as a result of reasonable requests, and (finally) links to helpful essays. I'm saying that requests shouldn't be ignored, or blown off; they should be considered civilly. If they pile up unanswered, per WP:DISPUTE, escalation is not only desirable, it is necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. If escalation is all that will get an editors attention, it's not so bad. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is doing the distributed TCP flood attack on my home connection's static IP (I guess you must have found it via /whois on freenode), can you please stop doing it. If you have a grievance about the block, please raise it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Tristessa (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

""Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation"/"apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time"/"They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup." - If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?

So can someone show me where exactly there was a pattern of edits? And if not, can we then overturn this block? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to "dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same", I just have to look at the last 25, or 50, or 100 edits by him with the "cleanup" tag. They all are based around the removal of deleted images from pages, and add some minor AWB-like cleanup stuff. Do other editors have editing patterns as well? Obviously, e.g. my AWB edits are a pattern, even if they include things like space removal, template replacement, and adding of orphan tags. The pattern in my case is tagging as unsourced. Some of my non-AWB edits also follow a pattern, e.g. category additions. Others are completelyt outside any regular pattern. Taking the same approach, it is quite obvious that Δ makes patterned, scripted edits. E.g. these 4 consecutive edits in one minute: [13][14][15][16] all have one image removed, and some layout cleanup, including the automated addition of descriptions to bare links. You can check the dozens of edits before and after these as well. I don't see the point in your denial that the sky is blue here, or that this isn't a pattern. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is clear then. Doing 25 cleanup edits is a pattern - as probably is doing 25 edits in a row. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually wonder how someone who is not allowed to perform more than, what was it, 25 edits with a conceivable pattern without permission is allowed to do thousands and thousands of edits. Δ should have been blocked way earlier than this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Delta use more than 25 edits on one page to bring it to FA status? Or is that a pattern of 'bringing a page to FA status'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is to 25 or more pages, not to 25 edits to one page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WHAT, now you say that he is allowed to do 25 consequtive edits to one page, which all would, e.g. convert 'period-space' to 'period-space-space' and it is not a pattern, but if he does that on 25 different pages it is. No, Carl. Both are patterns - 25 edits to 25 different pages, changing some text in all of them is a pattern of changing text in 25 different pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs from Carleen Anderson down in the current list of 50 contribs, they all involve removing a reference to a deleted image. So there is one pattern just in the recent ones. It is probably true that he should have been blocked earlier, unless he did get a village pump approval for these. But nobody is being paid to watch his edits so closely, so we can only expect people to notice things occasionally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the edit before that, removes another image than what is removed on Carleen Anderson. So editing 25 pages in a row, in all cases adding or removing a couple of (every time different) words is a pattern of .. adding a couple of .. editing. Can we please define 'pattern' now? What is the pattern that you see and that is different from 'adding every time a different word to a different page'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In all the edits he is removing a reference to a deleted image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• @CBM; you're effectively saying that if Δ makes any edit that is similar to another one, it's the beginning of a pattern. If he removed a link to a particular image, I could see it. But, you're saying that if he removes links at all he has to seek approval. This is mind bogglingly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if he makes a series of edits that are similar to each other, that is a "pattern". He clearly has **some** purpose in mind with his edits, he is simply obfuscating it by not giving clear edit summaries. The restriction is not excessively vague, he is simply pushing it to the edge instead of working inside it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Carl, but .. well, adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern, or are you (or Tristessa) singlehandedly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them. I know patience with Δ is low, but what harm would it have done to question him on the matter? If the edits are, as evidence suggests, beneficial to the project, then the goal should be to stop Δ from violating the sanction while continuing to add those beneficial edits to the project. Put another way, if he had actually posted and asked permission, would it have been granted? Would it be granted now, seeing as we have examples of the work? I don't know. But, however valid, I think this block was mishandled - and I'll bet half the discussion here is a direct result. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same. In practically any other case of a ban being flouted in those conditions admins are not normally expected to stop to think twice before enforcing the community consensus with the tools provided for such a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Automated/Semi-Automated tool usage

I asked this last time, and never got an answer. Is Delta not still prohibited from making automatic/semi-automatic edits? Last I checked that was on his original list of sanctions and I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about that being listed anywhere. Frankly he just shouldn't be anywhere near that scene at all. It always ends badly for him.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

For as far as I can see, there is no restriction on automated or semi-automated edits there. Strict review, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't look directly above that?

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate

I knew we'd decided that, and I don't recall a concensus reached discussion anywhere that overturned that and it certainly isn't recorded there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. But a script is not an automated program when every edit is manually reviewed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He's prohibited from making edits that could appear automated either. And in the past he's admitted to not properly reviewing edits like in the case where he reverted someone over NFCC violation because he didn't properly notice they only linked to an image and didn't re-insert it because he was working on diffs and not actually looking at the page.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [17], just a month old. The behavior being found at fault here is effectively the same. So one AN/I thread concludes with no apparent violation, and then this thread starts with a block and unsurprisingly the resulting fracas.

I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed.

But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ. Sure, some of you are going to scream "but he doesn't deserve fair, he hasn't earned it!". Cart before the horse. If you can't provide an environment in which he can work within his restrictions, you are dooming him to fail no matter what he does. At this point, according to Tristessa, a series of different types of changes constitutes a pattern. How in hell is anyone supposed to abide by the restrictions when it's interpreted so broadly that any edit constitutes a pattern?

This restriction either needs to be more tightly defined, or Δ needs to be banned from the project, since the restriction is making it impossible for him to edit. This middle ground is resulting in far too many threads, far too much acrimony, with entirely predictable and avoidable results. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that we are dealing with an editor who is unable to communicate effectively. Further up the page here, there is an incident involving Rezabot, which had to be stopped because of a total of 3 bad edits in a run. The bot owner's preferred language is Farsi, but he's been perfectly amenable to efforts to diagnose and resolve the problem, and the bot has been restarted without concern that he'll just go back and do it again. If Beta only communicated, we would not be here. I agree he may not understand the restrictions. Do we want to say "you may not edit with bots, scripts or any other automated tool, unless you have completed all the paperwork and got approval." Is that the intention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that if Beta wants to perform some task on 25 or more articles, he needs to get approval. That is an explicit goal of the editing restriction, to prevent him from doing undiscussed semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. It is unreasonable to allow him to avoid the restriction by obfuscating thousands of edits by giving them the same edit summary. If he were to focus on writing content instead of cleanup, these sorts of complaints would disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But, Carl, writing 25 different articles is a pattern of editing. And 'removing 25 different images from 25 different pages' is not more or less a pattern than 'writing 25 different articles'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets even worse, technically, over, say, 10.000 edits and a period of, say, 2 years (or more) {Δ would not be allowed to remove, e.g., the word 'the' as superfluous in >25 different articles, since that is also a pattern. Just a matter of going closely through his edits, and for sure you will find 25 of that type of edits over the last year. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This situation is not like that. In the last 50 edits alone we can see a pattern of removing references to deleted images. It is not as if these "cleanup" edits were infrequent and interspersed with other sorts of edits - the recent contribs show over 25 in a row with no other edits at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The paint brush you are describing is using TYPES of edits as a "pattern", rather than SPECIFIC edits. Under such an interpretation of the restriction, it's impossible for him to edit unless he gets approval for every 25 edits. We can debate whether it was a pattern elsewhere. The point is, you've construed this paintbrush very, very broadly. Others don't construe it as broadly. This needs to be clarified, or we WILL be back here again because of disagreement as to what this restriction really means. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, the restriction applies to types of edits. The same sort of cleanup edit made to 25 articles is a pattern, even if the exact change to the text is not the same each time. We don't expect a semi-automated process to make exactly the same change each time, just the same type of change. In this case we can point out exactly that the type of change appears to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then it is impossible for him to edit here without your approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but still, doing 25 edits in a row trying to improve 25 articles is a pattern as well. And are you now suggesting that if he, say, every 20 edits does one dummy edit to break the pattern it is not a pattern anymore? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, that's not a broad enough paintbrush. These two edits separated by two years constitute a pattern: [18] & [19]. See, they both used "cleanup" as an edit summary, and both modified what templates were being addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would even go as far as calling this a pattern: [20] and [21] - you see .. 2 edits which do not use the word 'cleanup' - a clear pattern of not using the word cleanup in the editsummary.</ridiculous addition> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Arguing about the definition of soup isn't helping anyone. –xeno^talk 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is the definition of "pattern" isn't defined, and is being construed to apply across a broad swath of editing. Without a clearer definition, we will be back here. So, I suggest either clarifying the restriction or banning Δ entirely, since it is in practice impossible for him to comply with the restriction according to all definitions apparently in play as to what a "pattern" is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra and Hammersoft are trying (so far unsuccessfully though) to muddy the waters by debating what constitues a "pattern", and using reductio ad absurdum as if it was a valid debating technique. Perhaps they can indicate what, in their opinion, constitutes a "pattern" and what doesn't. The edit restriction gives "any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", but apparently removing references to deleted images on dozens of pages in a row, with minimal automated additional cleanup on the same pages, does not fit that definition. Could either of you please give an example of a task that you feel does fit the "pattern" definition? Or are you trying to say that anything extremely repetitive set of edits is not a pattern as long as Delta makes them? I hope the former, but it looks more and more like the latter, and that you are trying to defend Delta because it is Delta, and are willing to ignore reality when it suits you here. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I already stipulated that if Δ were to remove a particular image 25 times or more that that would be a pattern. Perhaps you missed that? The point is what YOU call a pattern, and what I call a pattern is irrelevant. Every person here might have a different definition of what that is. Without a clearer definition, Δ is set up to fail. No matter what he does, he can't comply. As an abject demonstration of this lunacy, the case here in call was already discussed a month ago, and concluded with it not being a pattern. Now, it suddenly is and his head is being served on a platter. He can't comply. The only possible way to make all of you happy is for him to stop editing entirely. Perhaps that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, Δ could err on the side of caution and request approval as indicated if he wants to make a large series of semi-automated edits that all do something quite similar. –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity. I intend to make separate requests to cover such things as adding stub templates, removing references to deleted images, re-pointing calls to templates away from redirects to the proper template name, etc. I'm going to paint using as broad a paintbrush as possible to avoid the sorts of threads this one is so emblematic of. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful I feel. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• First five proposals have been made. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks and subsequent five threads. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why are people making this so bloody difficult. I simplify some, but Delta is in this situation because Delta wrote number of scripts with some controversy, ran them through a few hundred or few thousand articles, did not answer the resulting criticism well, and kept repeating that loop. Sometimes things were exacerbated by claims that hundreds of edits an hour were "manual" rather than "semi-automated" and so not subject to bot approval. So now, just about any repetitive task Delta does is treated as de facto semi-automated, and limited to 25 articles without prior review. Ordinary, manual article editing is rarely "repetitive" for more than a few articles, and doesn't have long "patterns". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on whether they are modified by WP:VPP consensus further to Hammersoft's excellent work on the subject, enforcement blocks could escalate -- but blocking a productive editor is not something that should be taken lightly and I really couldn't have felt justified blocking for any longer. If of course this situation continues he may then be blocked for longer, but I think we should stay away from any medium or long-term block unless it becomes clear that efforts made in this discussion haven't worked later on. I sincerely hope this will not be the case and positive developments in collaboration between Hammersoft and Delta may well ensure it is not, provided Delta becomes more responsive to communication in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem seems to be that Beta desperately wants to make large numbers of edits automatically or semi-automatically, and just isn't good enough at programming to do it without frequently breaking something. What he really needs is outside code review. It might improve his programming skills. Given the communication issues, though... --John Nagle (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had little involvement in this, but my impression is that Δ's main problem is not a lack of programming competency, but rather one of [temporary] obstinacy, and perhaps one of lacking knowledge of editing standards outside Wikipedia. See the archived discussions about dates of book publishing: User talk:Δ/20110901; AN thread. He usually changes his script when enough people complain about a particular aspect of it. That talk archive page has some genuine bug reports, but also at least four design complaints: (1) switching articles to WP:LDR, (2) switching non-temlpated book citation to {{cite book}}, (3) the publishing date issue, and (4) linking to main google book page [not page preview]. However his first reaction seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature". The main communication problem seems to be that his semi-automated clean-up tasks aren't documented anywhere as far as I can tell, and his scripts seem to get enriched with new features that don't seem to be discussed with anyone prior to their implementation. I don't know if that's a violation of some Wikipedia policies or of his restrictions or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Δ/Proposed tasks was created yesterday by a friend of his. Perhaps there's hope of a more cooperative approach here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you've got contributions going back to 2005. Unless you've spent your wiki career under the proverbial rock you should know this isn't the community's first kick at the can with Delta. No one takes blocking Delta lightly and outside of possibly Giano, jimbo and that on wheels guy I doubt anyone else has ever received this much attention and/or community effort to work with him and shape him into an editor that is here to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fram - it is not my intention to muddy the water, it is my intention to show that 'pattern' can be turned into anything positive or negative, and then Δ gets the block as soon as someone defines a pattern as being negative - or even when all edits in the pattern are in fact 'positive'.

@all: OK, there is a restriction that should stop patterns. That is all fine, it has been lengthy discussed etc. I can see the necessity of it. I do however think that the risk with the broadness of the term 'pattern' is that things evolve to being a pattern, and that anything - positive and negative - can be construed as a pattern (which I tried to show with my reductio ad absurdum). One removes an image left, and an image right, and there is no pattern yet, but when it approaches - even over 5000 edits spread over months - 25 times a removed image, it can be, and obviously is, construed as a pattern - especially when it then comes in longer bursts where that is happening. For more, see suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a case of "take the first letters of every article Beta edits, turn them into numbers and divide by three and you get the Fibonacci sequence". It's BetaCommand carrying out a series of small, rapid cleanup tasks with generic summaries which closely approximate the sort of things that bots and scripts are written to do. This is why most bans include the words "broadly construed". We do not want banned editors to test the waters of their bans. We want them to stop doing what they were banned for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, Chris. And I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern, but I do think on the other hand, that if you take out the obvious patterns, there will be less obvious patterns (but which are still not as absurd as I, Hammersoft or now you put them). I am not excusing Delta from not seeing the obvious patterns and not asking permission for it, but I do think that when first there is an AN/I thread saying that there is not really a pattern, Δ editing on with that thought and then a month later after hardly any discussion someone comes, construes something/it as a pattern (which it now apparently is, while first it was ot) and blocks Δ is not the way forward. I've been on Wikipedia a long time - and I do know how effective WP:BEANS really is - even if it is not a suggestion, but just as a practice that works. Δ now asks permission for 30 patterns (and may get all 41 granted), starts editing, and one 'Beta-blocker' (I know, 'Δ-blocker) goes through the edits, and finds obvious pattern 42 and we have another AN/I thread and another (and then probably lengthy) block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Chris, I hope we want banned editors to become productive editors again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on BetaCommand to be careful to stay within his editing restrictions as they may be construed by the admin corps; if he is, after all this time, unable to wrap his brain around what is construed as an automated edit and what isn't then that is not the fault of the admin corps, nor anyone except Beta. If he chooses to skirt close to the edge of the defined restrictions, or otherwise to test them, then he has little recourse when a member of the admin corps (who is likely not perfect, but is almost certainly better-trusted by the community than Beta is) opts to interpret said action as flouting his restrictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know .. but as I said, first an AN/I thread states something is not a pattern, and then it is interpreted by another admin as 'flouting his restrictions'. Again, the WP:BEANS have now been planted to find the pattern that Δ is flouting after this block is expired. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe at this point since there is no definition of "pattern" that Δ's edits in general are a pattern (i.e., 25 edits in mainspace = pattern) which there are attempts to suppress. That's the source of this most recent block; no definition of pattern. Indeed, chaos = pattern [22]. It's hopeless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion: If someone finds that something is a pattern in Δ's edits (however obvious or absurd), then that editor is a) bringing that to an AN or AN/I thread and b) obviously notifies Δ of the thread. Δ is at that point to stop with performing edits that were construed as being part of a 'pattern' (disable it in a script, whatever, just stop it). Either the community answer is 'this looks like a pattern indeed, Δ needs to go through VPP' (note: Δ can do that immediately when notified, even when community is not yet certain if it is a pattern, if it is not really a pattern, if the pattern is absurd, if it is necessary, whatever, going to get it is wise anyway - that can also be done when an editor notifies Δ privately (also wise), but then is not sanctionable if Δ would not), or the community dismisses the pattern as not being a pattern. There will be no blocks applied, even if it is deemed that over the last thousands of edits there were way over 25 of said pattern and the community does notice that Δ did not ask for permission for that pattern (blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern). Note, that if Δ himself thinks certain edits can be construed as a pattern, then he should go to VPP as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do admire the refuge in audacity that is repeatedly suggesting BetaCommand's editing restrictions should be enforced by not enforcing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the 'blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern'? All I try to prevent here, is that less obvious patterns are resulting in immediate lengthy (and technically correct) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not miss that you graciously offered to allow for BetaCommand's current editing restrictions to be enforced using the standard method after a new series of hoops are jumped through. I also did not miss your new blanket retroactive immunity for any edits made up until this new "warning" phase, which suggests that Beta could simply work in 10,000-edit bursts so long as he could complete each run in time to halt it when the VPP thread inevitably turned up. What I perhaps missed is whom exactly you think you're likely to persuade here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got me there, did not think about that loophole. Though there is still a restriction on edit-speed (so 10,000 edits is difficult to attain), and I am sure 50 in a row would be impossible due to the monitoring that is applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We still have the issue with the current restriction above against edits which are automated or appear automated. Delta needs to just stay away from scripts full stop. That's the suggestion. Frankly, I seem to recall more than one person thinking Delta is running automatic scripts or a bot on his main account the way he edits sometimes. There has been a lot of that going on, and it has been causing issues on top of that. Pretending he didn't make those edits or ignoring it won't make the issue go away.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no restriction on Δ using a script. Given that, there's no point to your opposition here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delta is prohibited from making edits which are automatic or appear automatic. This would include using a script if his work appears automatic. It's clearly listed on his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• ...and is completely irrelevant here, because it's not what he was blocked for. That was editing in a pattern, regardless of any automation (and it was fairly clearly a manual script). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You apply the adjective "manual" to "script" as though an exemption, but surely it's impossible by definition for a script to be manual — that is, unless he's a human Perl interpreter, running the code in his head with a Wikipedia edit box and a pageholder bearing a printout of the source side-by-side. I assume he's painstakingly typing the word "Cleanup" with precisely the same capitalisation in each edit summary box. His achievement of 6 edits/min is testament to his phenomenal, computer-like brain; I could, in which case, make a fortune writing his biography. --Tristessa (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you do realise that it is possible to type the word 'Cleanup', manually, a couple of thousands of times in the same way (sure, tedious), and do 6 edits manually with tabbed browsing within a minute (easy, I can do more), and it is even possible to actually combine those two. No scripts involved there. Point is, it is entirely possible to do 100 edits by hand, which are a pattern, and I hope that you blocked him for editing with a pattern without having consensus for that pattern, not for scripted, and not for automated edits (I do agree that the term 'manual script' is a bit strange - script assisted edits or something like that is more likely). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• As a point of fact, I frequently conduct group of edits where the edits are completed within a minute or two, have the same edit summary, and conduct the same work. I don't use a script to do this. I am using an electronic device to assist me though. I'm confident Δ uses a similar device as well. Unfortunately for him, that device hasn't been explicitly authorized by consensus for him to use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta listing edits as vandalism when they are not

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

---

I just came across this revert that Delta has made. He identified an edit on his userpage as vandalism when it was in fact not vandalism. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit that you linked to, way back in June, shows him reverting what was at best a misplaced talkpage notice that ended up on his userpage instead of his user talk; at worst it was also one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" type messages that arguably shouldn't have been placed for him anyway as per WP:DTR and was intended to annoy, or else was the accidental result of an automatic process. I hardly therefore see why it matters whether he clicked the "vandalism" button in TW or not. And, lest this become a forum for generalised whacking of Delta, this is a discussion specifically about his sanctions and recent enforcement, not dredging up every single potentially questionable edit he has ever made to drag him through the mud with. --Tristessa (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not know there was a statute of limitations when it came to reporting objectionable activity. Second, Delta is one of the most controversial figured in Wikipedia, so a "generalized whacking" (as you put it) it not occuring spontaneously but as a result of careful examination of his actions. Third, one generally apologizes when they have done something in error or incorrectly. That does not seem to have occured in this case, indicating that it was an action that was not in error. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it appears to have been mistaken. But it's not actionable. Even in the midst of an investigation into other behavior we're responding to, this is not something anyone is going to act upon.

A pattern of calling other people's edits vandalism would be another thing. But one own user page reversion using an automated tool which leaves a borderline "vandalism" edit summary is not a pattern nor an issue.

We have bigger issues to review, and tiny infractions aren't worth bringing up here. We have to keep things in perspective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Either the IP is actually user Alucardbarnivous, or he's trying to speak for him, neither of which would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither true, actually. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Hammersoft

I was going to just carry on when I made my comments at VPP earlier, but I've noticed that since I've commented there, he's added a whole pile of extremely trivial requests of no specific direction which don't really seem in-line with the intention of Delta's restriction. It seems like Hammersoft is fishing to add all kinds of blanket "Exceptions" to Delta's editing restrictions rather than propose that delta is about to undertake a specific task as would seem to be indicated by the restriction. These edits come across as pointy, WP:BEAN, WP:GAME, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the community, and basically boil down to being disruptive. Despite the fact that out of the first 12 or so he proposed, only 1 or 2 really had any traction, including the blanket "oppose all"s at the top, he's gone and proposed several more. As someone pointed out, it would seem the intention behind this restriction is in a scenario like this: Delta seems an issue with a series of articles. Perhaps all the articles in a project need pictures, but only 5 out of 200 have them. He wants to add a picture request template to the articles. So he goes to VPP and says "I want to make 195 additions of this template to the articles in this scope, what do you think? much as one might propose a bot task. Instead Hammersoft is attempting to add indefinite exceptions of no scope and no time frame to the list of restrictions we already have. And in fact, despite doing that, all Hammersoft is really asking is that Delta be allowed to perform these tasks. He's already allowed to perform, but if he's going to make similar changes to a large group of articles he should just propose it first to make sure there are no preemptive objections. This entire situation reminds me of the mess we have sometimes when someone decides to AfD 50 articles from a single project (like that transformers thing) this is just entirely unmanageable and disruptive per the above cited policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Every requested task are edits that Δ has previously done and someone might construe as constituting a pattern. It is a good faith effort. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. Am I asking for indefinite exceptions? No, but if I were you need only look as far as the first bullet item in his restrictions, which also has no time frame. 20 edits from 2009 and 20 from 2011 can be construed as a pattern underneath that restriction. Perhaps you might suggest a re-wording of the restriction to clarify the issue? What I am hoping to achieve is to avoid situations where an editor looks through a few months of his editing history and demands linking to a thread at WP:VPR showing where he had approval to do edits of a particular type. That's happened several times already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason it has happened is because Beta has refused to follow his restriction, not because the restriction was too vague for him to understand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I understand you oppose Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't oppose him editing. I oppose efforts to enable the particular sorts of editing that he has proven unable to perform productively. Ironically, proposals such as yours to allow him to edit more freely will only result in him coming under stronger sanctions later, because he has shown time and time again that he is unable or unwilling to perform certain types of tasks without controversy. The solution is to find things that he is able to do, not to allow him to dig a deeper hole for himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You oppose him doing maintenance tasks because you believe he's unsuited to them. I believe he is. My opinion is worthless, yours is gold. I am not making ANY proposal for him to edit more freely. You (if I recall) and others have demanded he provide evidence he made requests at WP:VPR for various editing he has done. Now the requests are being made and you cry foul? What the hell is he supposed to do? You are not giving him any way out except to quit the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are indeed making proposals on the village pump to allow him to perform various tasks in an automated or semi-automated manner without further review. Ironically, if I did want to see Beta banned (which I do not), the best way to accomplish it would be to convince everyone to allow him to go back to the sorts of edits that led to the restrictions in the first place. That seems to be what you are seeking in your proposals. The only way to prevent Beta from being banned is to break the cycle of chronically disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't seem to work. He is doing semi-automated editing whether you like it or not. That is certainly the bulk of his edits for the past 3 months. The only alternative to a full site ban is to let him do those tasks that he can code correctly and that are uncontroversial. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If he continues the way he has been, it is clear he will eventually be banned again. Experience shows that he is not able (or not willing) to limit his maintenance work to correctly coded uncontroversial tasks. So I think we mostly agree. But I think there is a chance he could continue to edit if he were willing to change to a different sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is completely counterproductive for Hammersoft to continue to act as Delta's spokesperson and uncritical apologist. How is Delta going to show that he has learned how to express and explain himself and to respond to community concerns and complaints, if someone else is constantly doing it for him? The implicit statement is that not even Hammersoft trusts him to speak for himself. Is there a way we can put an end to this? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. When the last round of problems with Beta's non-free image work came up, Hammersoft argued vehemently that tere was no problem at all. Beta ended up topic-banned from non-free images. When Tristessa attemtped to discuss concerns with pattern editing, HS took over and argued the case right into the ground. A little later, Tristessa blocks Beta for pattern editing. Now HS is once more tenaciously leading the fight to get all these tasks approved and it looks like at least half are being rejected. And that's better than Beta could do himself? Franamax (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So what's next, you're going to ban me from something? I frequently am an advocate for people who are being unjustly treated here. Δ isn't isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Really? You want to go with unjust treatment? Delta brought this on himself over the years of poor behaviour. His repeated inability to not get it, and the direct result of the ever dwindling number of those running around enabling that behaviour. Delta probably owns the record for most chances given, and the current restrictions exist only because of that past behaviour. He has utterly failed almost from the time he was unbanned until now to work within these restrictions. Restrictions he agreed to follow. There isn't anything remotely unjust about the way he's being treated.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So you would suggest Δ receive no help, no input, no assistance...that whatever his faults, nobody can help him? He has to prove he's perfect by all the various insane measures being applied to him, and do so on his own under pain of banishment from the site? Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, Hammersoft, your recent edits say that NFCC#10c content "MUST be removed". The actual quote from the policy is "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Please change your edit summary to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to take up issues with my editing elsewhere. This isn't the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're going to get very little sympathy if you continue misstating policy just because you were warned in the wrong forum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've started discussion on your talk page regarding the edits. Feel free to contribute to that conversation or not. This entire thread is about Δ, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• My talk page isn't the right place to discuss your edits. An AN/I thread about disruptive editing on your part will do nicely, I think.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then feel free to do so, rather than co-opting this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is completely counterproductive is for certain editors to attack the few, like Hammersoft, who try to address greater wrongs, and help editors who are slammed by badly constructed, too broad restrictions. Unfortunately, like in the real world, few get popular by trying to help the downtrodden, while piling in and kicking those who are down - and the few who try to help them - is a much more popular sport. Recommended reading #1 and #2 come to mind, although I recognize well they are just a voice crying in the wild... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. You're saying that after Δ wrote [23]:

This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you find his civility restriction pointless as well, but not because it doesn't get enforced. And perhaps the WP:BOTPOL is useless too. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the language, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. It is absurd that one month a set of edits is not viewed as a pattern, and a month later without discussion he is blocked for the same type of edits. THAT is a facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• It was immediately clear to me he was doing semi-automated edits just by sampling a few around the one that intersected my watch list. I just had no idea he was under community restrictions. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• He is not prohibited from performing such edits. The issue isn't using a script. It's the definition of "pattern". There's some efforts under way to more tightly define what "pattern" is to avoid situations like this in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You have argued to death here that his repetitive tasks are not a pattern. Nobody is buying this theory but you and Dirk Beetstra. Please desist with this nonsense. See for instance how he volunteers that he is "standardizing references"; his edits in that series triggered more than one editor to comment on his talk page. User talk:Δ/20110901#Google Books links, and subsequent threads. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, I've argued to death that the definition of pattern needs to be clarified. There is a huge difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Well in that case wouldn't it be optimal to actually define what a "pattern" is, rather than having a huge and pointless circular argument where everyone makes up their own definition and then claims it to be "obvious"? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I agree with Hammersoft, there is no clear definition of what a pattern is. Until there is a definition, Δ should not be blocked again for "violating" editing restriction #1. I stated my points over at WP:VPP, I believe the restriction is quite ridiculous. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think making it clear is perfectly reasonable behaviour - a large number of people seem to have an issue with clarity - clarity is always good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What folks may mean is where use of automated tools looks probable, without the near-impossible burden of proving it. And most likely the issue is those that are not low key maintenance types, i.e. edits where someone would expect a genuine edit summary of substance, (and the related case-by-case deliberation which that indicates) written for the specific edit. Which may be the answer. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wasn't around when the restriction were drafted, so I use the Webster to interpret "pattern" as:

a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution <a behavior pattern> <spending patterns>

a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts <foreign policy patterns>

frequent or widespread incidence <a pattern of dissent> <a pattern of violence>

What Δ was doing "standardizing references" seems to fit these definitions for example. And so was removing deleted images. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We could probably take this to ArbCom if there's community disagreement whether what Δ was doing had patterns or not. ArbCom's evidence pages allow more analysis than is normally possible on noticeboards. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• And what benefit would that yield? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can't you deduce from the explanation I gave above? [I just changed my user name, by the way.] ʔ (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the past 24 hours are any indication, taking it to ArbCom would result in 20,000+ words, 60 pages worth of argumentation, and we'd still not have a definition of "pattern" for our purposes. Your dicdef, among other problems, doesn't contain a time frame. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, since we literally have lawyers on the ArbCom (e.g. Template:NYB), maybe they'll come up with a better set of restrictions than the community managed, or perhaps they'll remove them altogether as impractical given Δ's editing focus. Do you think they could handle that? ʔ (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think taking it to ARBCOM is a good idea. The village pump process seems to be producing sane results - it took 15 minutes to respond to all the points there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout any sequence of edits that doesn't have edit summaries specialized to the particular edit? North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we just topic ban Hammersoft from commenting about Betacommand in any way? Jtrainor (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we all chill out? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd buy that for a dollar. As far as pattern goes, I'd suggest that any repetitive task (e.g. deciding to remove all the deleted images from a list of articles is a pattern) or any kind of theme of edits, general cleanup which may be labelled as such but include some variation in each article (ref cleanup, typo fixes, date maintenance, etc) would be a pattern. It would also need to happen over a reasonable time frame. Dirk and Hammersoft have been harping on this whole scenario where they claim someone is going to find 25 like edits that stretch over the last 2 years and have him banned on them. But I've seen no evidence to support that (hence my point about the VPP process being an assumption of bad faith, as it was born out of that mindset), but I'd suggest that if he's going to run his "semi"-automatic script on more than 24 articles in a 48 hour period he should propose it's function and get feedback first.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You imply that two years is an unreasonable time frame, and attack me for posting to WP:VPR in bad faith, and then come up with your own personal definition of "pattern"? So I'm posting in bad faith because I can see people construing two years as a pattern, and you're posting in good faith because your opinion is 48 hours. Do you not see the disconnect? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it's an unreasonable time frame, and this fear that you and dirk have worked up over it seems to have no basis in reality. Other then Delta's just generally poor editing behaviour over the last 2 years (civility, stubborness, that kind of stuff) have you ever seen anyone try to put together diffs stretching over 2 years to claim he was making a specific kind of pattern of edits? No, I don't think you have, and trying to make all these pointy proposals based on that fear is a bad faith assumption. My suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, something I'd view as a reasonable time frame, people are free to discuss it and modify it as the community saw fit. You were using your assumption as motivation for what looks like the issues I laid out above. Two entirely different scenarios.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When I saw this thread and watched everyone's own definition of "pattern", this thing comes into my mind. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several proposals on WP:VPR to more accurately define "pattern". Constructive comments are welcome. Solipsism is probably something we could do without, unless you personally volunteer to physically oversee Δ's activities. Uʔ (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ʔ - I think you did misunderstand Hammersofts (and also my) reductio ad absurdum of 'pattern'. Yes, there are edits which can constitute a pattern, I am not disagreeing on that. The point is, that when you either take out the pattern that is now there, or when you allow certain parts of the pattern, a new pattern will emerge (he is then doing a pattern of edits which is created of edits which are following an allowed pattern - but he does not have permission do to a pattern of patterned edits). a) the word pattern is too vague - b) the timeframe of 'pattern' is too vague - if he does 25 edits in a row which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is a pattern (that is what he did now), if he does 25 edits in a set of 100 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is arguably also a pattern, if he, from the moment that he is allowed to edit, until now does 25 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common .. then one could construe that as a pattern. Maybe I am reducing this ad absurdum, but unfortunately the beta-blockers have that handle with this vague description.

For ARBCOM - I do not expect them to lay out the definition of 'pattern' for us, they will maybe enforce or confirm the restriction, and still leave the definition and specifics of the word 'pattern' to us (they may even add 'broadly construed' to the term pattern, so it becomes even more vague). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Exhaustively defining Beta's editing restrictions to cover every real or imagined permutation is not a productive use of our time. The inevitable outcome is that the restrictions will become broader over time rather than more specific until either Beta stops testing the waters and does something useful with his time or he is blocked from editing entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that, and there will always be cases slipping through. But using some common sense to define 'pattern' (as opposed to leaving it totally blank) is necessary here - otherwise we can just as well indef Δ now and get over it and avoid all future dramah, as that is simply what is the outcome. I know that is not what the general aim is of all people here, but that is what is the general outcome of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The expected outcome is that Beta refrains from editing like a robot, because time and again he's shown that allowing him to do so causes disruption. In that respect, two dozen exceptions to Beta's restrictions which cover things which we could do (and do do) with a Perl script does not help with that at all. His supporters should be trying to wean him off these edits, not simply prevent him from being blocked when he makes them. As for simply banning him entirely, we edge closer and closer to that outcome every time we end up back here, as it does indeed look like the path of least drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ's supporters constantly state that, with respect to Δ's sanctions, no definition of a "pattern" yet exists. They also claim that a usual interpretation of what "pattern" might mean is in fact not a pattern, and it's all a big, tragic misinterpretation on the rest of the community's part. I believe this is simply an attempt to have him exempted from the editing restrictions by forcing as unusual, and as abstract, a definition of a "pattern" as possible; and that their proposed definition is actually "nothing that Δ ever does". In addition, we have heard from CBM (talk · contribs) since this thread opened who helped draft the wording of the community editing restriction, and he clarified that Δ's editing is exactly the sort of thing he was meant to be restricted from doing. The act of applying the same set of "cleanup" general fixes to a range of multiple articles should, I think, more than adequately class as a pattern in most editors' eyes. The existence of "patterns" should be left to individual administrator discretion to determine, a state of affairs that appears to be broken only in the eyes of people trying to help him avoid the sanctions. We have, for once, proper dialogue on the tasks that he is able to undertake with permission at WP:VPP, which means there is now surely no excuse for not bringing automated tasks to community approval. The attempts to include modifications to the sanction to ambiguously permit MoS edits, or redefine the word "pattern" to a sideline meaning not related to the problematic behaviours, are not helping; the correct course of action is already happening. But what I would like to see is more of these users assisting Δ to liase effectively with the community, and less of them trying to find or generate loopholes in the sanctions. --Tristessa (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that each individual discussion is starting with a blanket 4 people opposing each one, I can't see you (generally used) generate enough support for most or any of those to actually go anywhere. About the only one remotely going anywhere is #7, which a bot already does, #18, which a bot already does, and that's basically it. The rest all either have significant opposes in the discussions, or the handful of supports they've gained really don't make an overwhelming consensus in the face of the opposes at the top. Hence why I brought this here, as this was more or less clear before the last 7 or 8 were added.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blanket opposes have little or no basis. It's opposing to oppose. It's like opposing an RfA with a rationale of "because". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize any more tasks, it is bureaucratic to make them say so 20 times. Once at the top is sufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize him, then they should make a proposal to ban him from article space. Blanket opposes do nothing to help foster a consensus building environment, and are antithetical to the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, if the flock of proposals is engineered so that the status quo is not an available choice then it amounts to a wikigame. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The status quo is that Δ can edit mainspace. Blanket opposes are nothing more than an attempt to ban him, without consensus, from editing mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Beta is free to edit mainspace in non-automated fashion. If you're okay with that status quo, then perhaps you'll withdraw your proposals? We shouldn't have to re-vote to affirm the community decision every time Beta tests or violates his restrictions or one of his supporters wants to lift them. At some point the community has made its decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Δ is required to seek permission to perform edits that can be construed as a pattern. These requests are being done in support of that requirement. I will not withdraw them. The problem isn't the requests, it's the definition of pattern. Every one of the proposals so far made can be construed as a pattern, if enough of them are done. Since these edits have been done in the past, moving forward to do any more of them requires approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• And those proposals are being individually considered by multiple editors. Yet when editors register and explain their considered objections, you claim it is opposing for the sake of opposing and should be dismissed. You are the one who decided to make the individual proposals. You shouldn't complain if some or most of them are rejected on their individual merits. Franamax (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blanket opposes are opposing "because". It's not considering each proposal. I have no objection to proposals being rejected on their individual merits. A blanket oppose is no better than a person coming to WP:AN/I and saying "I hereby disagree with every thread here". It's meaningless and empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • They are not simply "because". It is perfectly reasonable for the reviewers to take into account both the request and the person making the request. If reviewers do not feel Beta is suitable to perform the tasks, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation for opposing the proposal. Reviewers are allowed to take Beta's history into account when they look at his proposals - that's the point, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that each proposal is not being reviewed on its merits. Instead, it's a blanket oppose to Δ doing anything. There is no such sanction on the table or being discussed. If someone wants to propose that, fine. But, to attempt to use a blanket oppose to stop all proposed tasks is missing the mark by a mile. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The notion that each proposal should be considered strictly on its merits, in a vacuum, without even the possibility of considering the long and colorful history behind all of this -- to wit, applying the sanctions blindly without considering why they were put in place to begin with -- seems very novel. There was no wording in the sanctions that suggests Δ would be allowed to continue semi-automated edits indefinitely; in fact, it's clear from even a cursory reading of them that he is only going to be allowed to do so where and when he has the community's support, as judged by consensus. If, as you seem to be suggesting, we should discount opposition to each proposal that "is not being reviewed on its merits", how do you feel we should interpret support which apparently does the same? Yours, for example. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. If the requests are made to WP:VPR, there's a problem. If they aren't made, there's a problem. If the requests are made, but we don't consider everything about Δ in each and every request, there's a problem. Nevermind that there's no sanction against him forbidding him to edit in mainspace. All of us have created one hell of a Gordian knot with no possible way for Δ to edit that isn't going to piss off somebody. Δ can't even remove a whitespace anymore. He's in a straight jacket, and no matter how angelic he is he'll receive harsh criticism. The community has left him with no possible way to avoid pissing it off. Nicely done. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

People will complain about any outcome, probably. Doesn't mean we can't move forward. I take the current discussion at WP:VPR as a step in that direction, in spite of the issues that have been raised. You do bring up a good point, though: we needn't take every proposal as a fresh RfC on Δ. Hopefully, discussing several proposals at once will help to avoid that problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've already explained to you, the problem is in the kind of proposals you're making. Delta is supposed to be making requests for himself, about specific tasks he wants to undertake. One of Delta's problems is communicating with the community, he's not gaining any goodwill by having you running around doing that, especially in the way it has been done here. These things you've proposed are not specific focus tasks, so as far as I'm concerned they're not even remotely valid requests to start with. I've already outlined an example of the kinds of tasks Delta should be proposing and others have confirmed that they should be in that vein. If Delta wants to go around and do certain kinds of clean-up, then he should propose a specific task, e.g. "I'm going to clean-up all the articles that have problem X, it's approximately this many articles (because I'm sure he's got a tool that can generate a list), and while I clean up this problem, I'll also fix problem Y, Z, and A. It'll take approximately B hours/days/etc to do so. Any concerns?" The blanket opposes are more than valid because they are maintaining the status quou and don't see any reason to give Delta any blanket, indefinite exemptions of no real scope to Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommend closure of this thread

The block that started this thread expired more than 24 hours ago. There is nothing in this thread that is actionable by an administrator. I am not seeking to squelch discussion about Δ. I believe all of you are having an excellent opportunity to discuss Δ at WP:VPR right now, so you have plenty of opportunity there. I would like to hope someone would be brave enough to close this thread, but I'm beyond such a false hope at this point. So with that, I'm suggesting a straight up/down vote on closing this thread.

• Support closure of this entire thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Good discussion, but this isn't the place. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• oppose as the subject of part of the discussion it isn't really your place to try and shut down the discussion. I still consider your on-going behaviour related to this to be disruptive. And I'm not the only one. You've shown zero understanding of the problem as well.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with Black Kite. If you want to start a thread about my behavior, by all means feel free to do so. I'd certainly welcome it. However, this thread isn't about my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk)

• Oppose, according to a longstanding tradition here, a block of Delta for a time of t is always discussed for a time of at least 10 t. Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not, or else this discussion will have lasted 20 days until it has closed. --Tristessa (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If you want to start a discussion about Hammersoft's behaviour then this isn't the place to do it. But if you do, perhaps you could include editors whose only reason to be here seems to be to throw insults around? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  His edits and this discussion are directly related to the parent issue and entirely relevant here. He's taken it upon himself to be Delta's spokesperson and there is nowhere more relevant--Crossmr (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said above, please by all means feel free to start a thread about me. I would very much welcome it. But, this thread isn't appropriate for it. There's literally dozens of pages worth of debate here, with any comments that might be about me directly intermixed. I'm assuming your purposes are some variety of have me banned from the project, banned from mentioning Δ, banned from NFCC work, etc. Fine, feel free to propose any, all, or more of those. But, your purposes will very much be better served by starting a thread specifically about me. If you don't want to start a thread about me, it's certainly your choice, but your hopes and aspirations with regards to me will not be moved forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure whether anything productive is happening here any more. WP:VPP, if anywhere, should be where the discussion ought to continue (to decide what to do next time). --Tristessa (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block review: Colofac

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have blocked Colofac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for being an unproductive and disruptive account. He had previously been blocked for disruptive editing (here is the previous block discussion). Since the block expired on Sept 25, he has made about 40 edits. In this time, he has added next to nothing productive including [24], openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, andadded aggressive/disruptive user boxesto his user page. Looking at his overall history, he has added nothing but disruption to Wikipedia. Since the block expired, he has had one edit to the main space, and 5 welcomings of new users. That's the extent of his productivity.

I welcome review of this. It might seem to be too long/aggressive, but I have seen very little that is productive out of this account in its 2 months here. The account is just her to stir up and participate in drama. only (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, with this edit he is bluntly stating "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" so at first glance this seems like a sound block but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then again, aside from his userpage he hasn't had any edits since the 5th. I'm curious as to how this user was brought to your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a conversation with this user at another ANI discussion a month or two ago, and when I saw him blocked, happened to watch his talk pgae. Then these edits to his user page popped up today (for which he had previously been warned) and that triggered in my head. only (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Colofac has responded and requested unblock at his talk page. only (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about putting material in quotes when that material wasn't stated by the user. Some may think the statement " I've been slighted on this site far too many times for me to want to build it" expresses exactly the same as "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" but I see a difference. The actual statement made sounds like an expression of frustration, an underlying desire to build an encyclopedia that has been beaten down, and a hope that someone will address the issues so the user can return to the real purpose. The second sounds more definitive, and an explicit statement that one's goals are in opposition to the WP goals. I don't want to debate whether some see the two as close enough, but the user didn't say what was in quotes. We would not allow a paraphrased statement in an article in quotes, why should we allow it here?--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• unblock I agree that it seems unlikely that this editor will be staying here long, but I do think that a fair trial with input from the community is required to impose an indefinite block like this. Productivity is not an argument - editors are volunteers and do not have to fill any quota of "production". Disruption is an argument but the previous block was supposed to be a wake up call, and it doesn't seem that he has caused any disruption after coming out of the block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the gravedancing, the diving back into drama-discussions, the self-SPI to "clear his name" and the user page statements (for which he was previously warned) that have all occurred since the block show a continuance of the pattern already set before the previous block. Those examples all come from about 40 edits so it's clear to see a non-intent to reform. only (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock The "gravedancing" doesnt appear so to me and the SPI seems good faith but wrong procedure. Despite the diffs above the user has made a constructive edit. The userboxes need to go though.--v/r - TP 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention above that he had a productive edit plus several welcomings, but it does not seem like much compared to the rest of the sample since the previous block. only (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock per TParis. I don't see how that diff can be construed as gravedancing, but agree the userboxes need to go. Kcowolf (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - I have to go with only on this one. First of all, they clearly have some sort of agrudge against Wikipedia and have openly stated that they have no desire to help build it (Pillar #1). Secondly, considering the vicious history between this user and user:ChristianandJericho, I certainly do agree that their edits to that page were "gravedancing", which they were appropriately warned for and provided a totally inadequate excuse. They've added to ANI drama, they've added borderline hate speech to their userpage, and what's the tradeoff? One edit to the mainspace? In my opinion, this user isn't here to contribute constructively to the project and is a net negative. I'm all for second third fourth chances, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were unblocked. It just seems that an unblock now would only be postponing an inevitable reblocking of this 'problem user' in the near future. Swarm ^X 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Very weak unblock, mostly due to WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block If users are here to build an encyclopedia they can demonstrate that with their actions and he clearly hasn't. We really don't need to be wasting endless time with disruptive users as we are sometimes want to do, so it's nice to see an admin putting their foot down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Even the users advocating unblock above admit he will not be a net positive to the project. Why should we let him drive a few good faith contributors from the project before getting rid off him? We have few enough editors as it is.Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Looking at the evidence relied on by the blocking admin to block this editor, which confirms the correctness of that decision beyond any doubt, I cannot comprehend how we are even considering an unblock without a credible indication from the user concerned of behavioural change. Making constructive edits here and there is not a licence to do whatever else you like.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment IMO the gravedancing bit links to the wrong diff. While modifying the comment may violate TPO, and I don't really see why Colofac cared since it wasn't negative, I can understand how it might a bit frustrating if you are named and feel you can't respond (and if Colofac had left a response, it probably would have been seen as worse). However[25] does seem like grave dancing.Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - If an editor admits to not being here to improve the encyclopedia, there is clearly no place for them here-- we are not a debating society, and should not encourage drama for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Unblock- per WP:ROPE.OIFA (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Have they not been given enough rope thus far? Is a fourth chance really warranted? Swarm ^X 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. Yes, he does appear burned out, but some his actions were in good faith. He requested SPI against himself to prove his innocence. Although the English Wikipedia doesn't allow that, it's not an unreasonable request, and is even allowed in other Wikipedias. See reply from admin [26] We need to see more serious evidence than this kind of mild disruption. Not everyone takes the time to read the huge and often poorly written policy pages. What happened to "blocks are not punitive"? Do you truly think for instance that he is going to file another SPI on himself after he was told "no"?! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And people should stop edit warring over his fringe politics user boxes [27]. That is disruptive and a waste of time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And if unproductive editors are your concern, head over tothis RfC, where there's evidence of umpteen times more unproductive chatter (and that's a polite understatement) + IDHT, yet no blocks have been issued.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. My word, I thought this was a no-brainer. There is no policy that says that a user has to make a certain number of edits to mainspace to be allowed to stay. I don't think I've made more than half a dozen in the past month! I gave him the talking to regarding gravedancing and he backed off. I agree he should not be showing disruptive userboxen and he should be blocked (for a time period) if he keeps replacing them as that is disruptive. But blocking him indefinitely because he hasn't done enough good - especially when he hasn't done that much at all - that seems like a dangerous ball game. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC) - Update: If he isn't interested then nor am I[28] - I won't go so far as to support the block, but I no longer oppose it. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock for insufficient grounds. Simply being an "unproductive user" is not grounds for permablock - or any block. There are a truckload of FAR more "unproductive" users that should be getting the axe long before this guy. On top of that - while his userboxen might not be acceptable to a user or three, they absolutely, 100% do NOT wiolate WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA as claimed in the reversions to his page, as there is/are no specific editors that are targeted by those. While I appreciate the spirit of the reverts and the grounds - it does not fall within the letter of WP policy, despite what some admins might think. If you want to block this cat, you are going to have to come up with far better reasons than being offended by his position and claiming he is "un-productive". If we were to whack all the unproductive accounts there would be less than 1/3rd the current active accounts. If you start with this one - don't stop until they are ALL done. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Very first bullet point of the policy you linked, WP:UP#POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).This falls squarely into that criteria. It doesn't require that a specific editor be named to fall under that criteria. - SudoGhost08:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock so long as the editor agrees to keep this off of his userpage, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Other than the userbox issue I'm not seeing any gross disruption (the gravedancing was out of line, but it was discussed with the editor). While these behaviors might warrant a shorter block, I'm personally (from a non-admin standpoint) not seeing anything overly warranting an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (See below for why I no longer support unblocking) - SudoGhost 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, one thing is clear to me: he lacks the emotional intelligence to take part in editing Wikipedia without hoisting himself on his own petard every so often by starting pointless fights. Because of that, I think he will ultimately be indef blocked or banned, if not now, then later. I no longer support unblocking him because he fails to recognize that his actions were a big part of this drama, and because so far he has not given any indication that he will not restore those boxes or engage in similar behavior. But I cannot support this block either because it was doled out too easily relative to the proximate offense. A RfC/U would have been more appropriate given how similar behavior of other editors is commonly dealt with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Shorten the block to two weeks. His previous block was for one week, so this seems an appropriate intermediate measure. I support immediate unblock iff he promises to stop provoking fights with polemical statements, including in user boxes.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The following snippet from his talk page is indicative of the problem we face here, and also a reply to my comment right above, so I'm copying it here:

I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Wikipedia, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 [29] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [30]. That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once.Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I have copied here all his replies addressed to me as of the timestamp of this message, so I'm unsure what he means by "selective presentation", but I won't engage him anymore per his clear request. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh, I actually missed one:

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support block. The fact that the blocking admin chose to phrase it in terms of "lack of productivity" makes me squirmy, but the fact is that Colofac appears to be here to fight, and pretty much only to fight. He has repeatedly failed to engage in a constructive manner, as evidenced by the history of his talk page for the past month or so - calling other editors namesoh bugger, that wasn't him in that diff. I'm off to find the right one, sorry about that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC), making discriminatory nationalistic and sexist comments, and generally refusing to get the point when other editors ask him to stop doing these things. Block for not being productive enough? No, we don't really do that. Block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and in fact appearing to be here to help tear one down? Yep. Amend the block reason to reflect that and let's turn our energy to editors who show some sign of wanting to work collaboratively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct diff for "calling other editors names" was intended to be this one. 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous block & warning

Blocking admin noted in [31]:

As a consequence of your inappropriate conduct, I am blocking you from editing for a period of one week, and strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interacting with other contributors in the future; otherwise, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Kirill Lokshin to comment here because he seems more aware of the background here than most other commentators.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting as it was prematurely archived, without resolution. Unless there is further input on this - it would appear the consensus is to unblock and for Colofac to ensure he will refrain from reproducing the objectionable material. Final or further thoughts? Srobak (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, we seem to have a hung jury. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's definitely not a clear consensus to unblock here, at least at this point. Srobak, please keep in mind that because you're friendly with Colofac, you may be interpreting what's said in this thread in a different manner than other editors might. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

* date tag here +1 week to prevent premature archiving - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think that simply unblocking Colofac merely because the particular userbox in question has been removed is a particularly good idea. The fundamental problem with Colofac's behavior—which Colofac has yet to acknowledge—is that deliberately trying to make one's fellow editors (whether they happen to be gay or Chinese, or some other group) feel unwelcome is simply not in keeping with the standards of collegial behavior that Wikipedians are expected to follow. The fact that Colofac has chosen, in this particular instance, to do this via userboxes is not particularly important; so long as Colofac refuses to recognize and correct the underlying problem, we are going to continue having incidents of this sort.

  Having said that, if the community feels that he must be given yet another chance, then so be it. My only hope is that the cost of doing so does not become too high; we should not forget, after all, that the editors whom Colofac so blithely attacks may choose to find a more welcoming project rather than continuing to contribute to ours. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps admins with experience in mentoring like User:Worm That Turned, who support(ed) this unblock, should mentor or monitor Colofac? (I'm still not sure how that stuff works.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think my style of mentoring wouldn't really help here, as someone needs to encourage Colofac to start participating in the encyclopedia in general, whilst I generally work on increasing understanding and helping the "young hotheads" understand the dispute resolution process. I'd happily help out, but I think that Colofac wouldn't be amenable to that. As I mentioned, I was the one who told him of for gravedancing, and I've already helped out ChristianAndJericho quite a bit, two factors which would mean he'd find me difficult to work with. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Given Colofac's behavior on his talk page after supporting an unblock, I'm hesitant to continue to support unblocking the user. He seems to have a battleground mentality concerning Wikipedia, and without any evidence that his behavior will change (which he has not given in the slightest), I think unblocking the user at this point would be a mistake, as his behavior towards other editors is extremely likely to driver other editors away. Given that he has already demonstrated this behavior multiple times and shown no intention of changing this behavior, I think that the very likely cost of unblocking the user by far outweighs what would be gained by unblocking the user at this time. - SudoGhost 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what changed my mind too. I tried to be frank with him and told him what behaviors he needs to avoid regardless of whether he thinks he is right (e.g. provocative user boxes), but alas the message didn't get through. Someone else should point him to WP:Free speech, as I'm apparently not welcome on his talk page anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block- Does not seem to be a positive to the project, still assuming WP:AGF, but he does in fact state that he has no intentions of positively contributing--SKATER ^{Is Back} 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Though he's been unproductive in the past, the editor hasn't actually caused too much trouble recently (apart from an offensive userbox on his user page). Deserves a fair chance to choose the straight and narrow with input from the community. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block. Colofac's attitude toward other editors and the project is directly (and possibly intentionally) damaging, with almost no positive contributions to weigh against. Any attempts to help him have been abruptly turned away, often with an equally harsh tone. He's made no indication he understands there's a problem, and as such there's no reason to believe he'll begin acting differently if given the chance. Even if he's acting in good faith, he's only serving to harm the project as a whole, by intentionally discouraging other editors based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors he personally finds actionable. His presence here serves only to dampen our collegial atmosphere, and drive away positive contributions, and as such I strongly disagree with unblocking, unless he directly and clearly represents that he understands his behavior is problematic, promises not to continue, and seeks help to achieve that goal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support block per Mann jess. --John (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. When an editor states that they have no intention of contributing productively here, why are we even having this discussion? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Block Throughout this ordeal, Coloflac had ample opportunity to simply accept that his behavior was inappropriate and to make a statement assuring the community that his attitude would change and that he would work harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. Being that he hasn't done this, the block is appropriate. What matters here is not the extent of his offense, but that his attitude in general is not appropriate, and this block is preventing his contribution unless and until he shapes up a bit. I'm more than happy to AGF and change my block to an unblock if he makes an effort, but something that he has to accept (regarding his user boxes) is that this isn't a social networking site on which to share your extreme views. We accept anyone here regardless of their views, but if their views are deemed to be offensive by the larger community, we can and do curtail their advertisement. If someone is here to edit - as oppose to proselytize - they should not have a problem with this. N^oformation ^Talk 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block – Colofac does not appear to wish to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia; therefore, he/she should remain blocked. —mc10 (t/c) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Whilst we have WP:AGF as one of our solid tenets here on Wikipedia, we are not obliged to extend editing privileges to the ranks of the unproductively belligerant. This editor appears to be a net negative to the project and is likely to continue dramatising his various personal issues here rather than get on with articles. I really see no other course of action given discussion has been attempted to no success, as was escalated enforcement, and his response at every juncture is to continue being combative. Unless he has a very profound change of heart, there is nothing to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Nitpick: he was productive in his belligerence, just look at all the drama here. You probably mean "unproductive except in their belligerence". Uʔ (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefblock. I was actually going to close this, but esp. early in the thread there is a somewhat surprising number of editors supporting an unblock in various flavors of strength. I think my support for the block puts it at 8 unblock and 14 block or thereabouts. Not yet a crazy overwhelming consensus, but it's getting there. To get to the point: this editor is no benefit to the project, and I fully support the indefblock. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Both the user and the project would benefit from a separation. If, after a suitable period, Colofac would like to help build the encyclopedia, they are welcome to put a suitable message on their talk page (preferably with an explanation of how future issues will be avoided). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

View from afar

Why would the original poster block somebody if they weren't sure it was the right thing to do? If a block is questionable, better to review of the situation beforehand. If a block is clearly needed, we should avoid a long, needless discussion about the action. Our goal is to do what is necessary with minimal fuss so that people can concentrate on writing great articles. I recommend this discussion be shut down and we let the matter be worked out on the blocked user's talk page via the normal unblock request and review by an uninvolved administrator. If that process deadlocks, then come back here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

User:DeeperQA

Resolved

DeeperQA (talk · contribs) has somehow managed to upload an illustration, even though he's blocked. I recommend (1) deleting the illustration; (2) removing his talk-page privilege; (3) blocking the sock that uploaded the illustration. He's already been indef'd, and I've been trying not to respond to him, so someone else can notify him if they think it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to File:Sock-pupper upload.jpg. It was uploaded through Commons. ;) Goodvac (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've asked for help over there also. His absurd rants are one thing. But uploading that stupid illustration is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

His talk page access has been revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He's now making legal threats over on commons. I think the admin wheels grind a bit more slowly over there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Now indef'd on commons also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic IPs

Some IP in the Philippines has been vandalizng various articles on reality TV shows, similar to how the previous one I reported (adding false results, MOS-violating modifications, and also some BLP vios [32], [33]), and does so on a much more frequent level. IPs who have been behind this vandalism are:

• 49.145.115.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.127.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.115.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.103.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.126.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.97.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.127.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.124.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.2.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.61.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.181.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's currently on the 49.145.64.0/18 range, but was previously on the 112.205...range. Clearly this guy cannot be allowed to keep vandalizing the pages as he does, and he looks like he's fairly contained.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• There'd be collateral, so blocking the range isn't realistic. IP blocks and page protection where necessary is the best thing. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you positive that there is enough collateral on the 49.145.64.0/18 range that it would negatively affect the project? Because this guy hits so many pages that protection, in my opinion, isn't a realistic option.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • A /18 range equates to 16,382 host addresses, and the range is registered to a large ISP. Even without factoring in network address translation at the customer's end, that's just too big a chunk to shut down in one go. If there were specific patterns to the DHCP lease, several smaller rangeblocks would be an option, but I don't see a definitive pattern to the list of addresses you've provided. So, unfortunately, the admins are left with Whac-a-Mole™ as the most effective recourse. Sad how one miscreant can bollox the works so badly. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
      • That's pretty much it. WilliamH (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • An /18 does incorporate that many addresses, yes, but how many are in use that are not this guy? Because he came back today as 49.145.112.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 49.145.64.0/18 for 3 months (after user:HelloAnnyong kindly lifted the limit on his range tool). Nasty range in a problematic region, but it is just a subrange of wider ISP. Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Many-single purpose accounts of quantum mechanics

• WP:SPA Willempramschot (talk · contribs · account creation)
• 145.18.226.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 213.10.212.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 145.18.244.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Talk:Many-worlds interpretation 20 October 2011

WP:SOAPBOX I used {{inappropriate comment}} to hide the various copies of his physicsforums.com posts promoting a poll of "the happy few" who responded to his emails:

• 14:16, 20 October 2011 "Sorry to put some questions on your beautifull dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth. … You are so obvious biased, that it hurts. I'm really serious, with all the good faith in the world. … By the way I don't really care about getting it published, I care about the truth and so should you. … I don't know if you're aware that wikipedia has influence on the opinion of people, and if you have any ethical standars what so ever. Or that you are just completely blinded by your heroes, or a idea that's not generally accepted. But please be honest to yourself. Look in the mirror, and think really hard. And ask yourself the question 'Did I do good'? … I'm affraid I speak to a conscience and a rationality you just don't posses. So I will leave you to delete all the criticism and posts by me and others you so kindly call harassment. And with a song that captures your attributions on this site perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLu"

YouTube won't play the song in the US due to a copyright issue, but it's "Arctic Monkeys - Dance Little Liar (humbug version)". By harassment, he's referring to an alternate WP:SPA/SOCK? who makes WP:SOAPBOX pos ts to the talk page, see Talk:Many-worlds interpretation#Special Difficulty with Improving This Article - Harrassment. Maybe they're friends, but I'd be surprised if they turn out to be socks, this WP:SPA was more his style, or this one. Anywho he didn't leave it there "I'm on the brake of being banned here, so let's just make it happen." So I'm hoping someone will accomodate his request for a nice loooong block.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know I referred to SOCK, because for me that wasn't clear. My message was ironic, because I got a warning for a block. If you see the site you will see that reasonable suggestions on the site are brushed away with really strange arguments, and are sometimes deleted by quoting all sorts of fallacy's that aren't relevant, without further clear explanation. Also my personal opinion is that this site is very subjective, but everyone of course can be the judge of that.

I posted the song because the main editors in my opinion didn't listen to reason, so I made a reference to something that may catch there attention. Of course this could be deleted. But to block my account, would be the world upside down. To say that my account of wikipedia is a single purpose is account would be a little bit soon, because I just got it. And I don't have any other accounts.

p.s. I also did a reference to a completely reliable poll I conducted that hasn't been published yet (that he quotes happy few, is just a sign of my honesty, not against it), I posted it on the discussion site (not the 'real' site), because I thought it was a useful contribution (and more reliable than the vague polls currently on the site). Of course this can be deleted (though I think the reason given aren't relevant at all).

My email wasn't a single purpose email, it was also to inform all the participants of the poll (to which I have mentioned my name explicitly) about the results.

I put it on the site to give the people that wanted to know more about the poll some information, because I put a summary of the poll on the discussion site. My poll can be refutable, because I mentioned the names clearly. Of course there could be more people who reacted, and I could have deleted those. But then again I posted my results to about 30 very prominent physics, so the risk of some prominent physicist saying: Hey I was in this poll, why didn't he mention me, would be awfully big.

But then again it hasn't been published, so it can be deleted I guess. So I will not go against that decision. (I do think I could post my questions about the reasons why it's got deleted, but if someone wants to delete that to. Be my guest.)--Willempramschot (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 10:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ironically, that was your most helpful suggestion yet. You seem to comprehend the strange and irrelevant reasons well enough. Your amateur poll is original research. Simple as that. Of course, permission to use a subject's name and email wouldn't have been necessary for an anonymous multiple choice question. Grateful Physh irony, nice. However, it remains unclear how littering the talk page with all that useless WP:OR can be construed as a sign of honesty on your part. I've never suggested it was a sign of dishonesty. Much like your speculations about my philosophical beliefs, my moral failures, my heros, my lies/fallacies, my incapacity for reason/understanding/sympathy, etc. etc., you seem to have difficulty separating your vivid imagination from your collaborative expectations. You insist that you're right, often irrationally, and while you simply dismiss objections and advice, you passive aggressively retaliate, despite being aware of the strict policy against personal attacks, you sermonize in multiple installments about imaginary aspects of my person. Your invitation to be "your guest" and delete your polls, is a bit too blasé considering how frequently you accuse me of deleting, when the truth is I've never deleted any of it, not even your polls, and I haven't touched your opinions, your screeds, your character assassinations, or anything else, as you perfectly well know, I merely hid the polls right were you left them.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've included a link to this discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you for the ample demonstration, apparently you can personally attack those users with impunity.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted them 3 times in different sections because I thought that they wheren't in the right place. One time I didn't saw it anymore and I didn't knew it was deleted so I posted it again. this I believe was in one day.

My posts aren't irrational. There is a person who said he picked random books, and noted reactions of regarded physicists, you said something in the lines of 'well I guess you could go on with that' and 'I'm sure if you note mwi-haters tell a lot of smack about mwi no-one would object.

So opponents in the line of John Bell are 'smack talkers'. Ok.

Then my amateur-poll know has now got reactions of eminent physicist that say they have no objections about getting it published, Frans Wilczek said he had no one problems with getting his views out in public, (Carlo Rovelli) thanked me for the useful exercise and had no problem to get his comments and vote in public. One said he didn't want his name mentioned, but has no problem with this poll in public. (that's an argument for deleting it, I guess).

But to call it an amateur poll is nonsense. Look at the poll, look at the reliability. This what you do is called an authority fallacy. Look it up.--Willempramschot (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will give you some information of why I posted the comments.

I visited the wikipedia website of mwi. I saw a reception that was mostly postive, with some negative comments that respected the mwi. Only one quoted person didn't respected mwi (Asher Peres) but he didn't respect any quantum mechanics interpretation.

So I thought to myself, Wow is this true, is this incredible idea so well established?

Then I looked at the talk page which suggested a reception page (wich said to be based on randomly selected books) that was really negative. So I didn't know who to believe.

I decided to also select randomly books in the libary, and also I got a very negative image of the reception.

But then again I wasn't sure. So I decided to conduct a poll. The poll with randomnly eminent theoratical phycisists and astrophysicists also had a negative reception for mwi . So I decided to post it on the talk page. :::I did it with the background informations, and arguments to show that it was a reliable poll.

I would have expected and accepted, that it either stayed on the page, or either to get a comment like ' we don't accept original research , so I will delete it but very interesting tell me more about it.'

But no it was 'nonsense', it was 'an amateur poll'. Etc. Etc.

So that really got me thinking, is this site really interested in showing the best possible (I mean based on facts) reception at all?

Therefore I thought my questions about the motives of the editors of this site where legitamite.

(by the way I'm Dutch, so there can be linguistic mistakes, but I think I make my points fairly clear).

--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My questions aren't a fallacy (in my opinion) because they aren't used as an argument against mwi. (Though I will admit I think mwi is false).

To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (I normally don't like this kind of quoting, because I think fallacy's are prety much there for common sense, and you do fine whithout quoting them. But in this case I will make an exception)

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5]

--145.18.244.70 (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

--Willempramschot (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Forum Shopping, Disrupting Talk Pages, Failure To Assume Good Faith...

User:Redefining_history has made it his personal mission in life to change the way Wikipedia handles "Esports Atheletes". I've lost count but he has taken part in somewhere around 15 different conversations about the same sources at this point. His edits are highly disruptive such as this one where he copied a massive wall of text into an RFC [34], the first reply here sums up the situtuation nicely. [35]. He has however not slowed down one bit, his behaviour on IRC was summed up here [36]. At this point the editor has been told the same thing dozens if not literally close to 100 times. He is arguing from ideology and out to prove us all wrong on his campaign to bring justice to the world on behalf of "Esports athletes". I would love to provide difs of everything but in a week this editor has managed to rack up hundreds of edits all on various pages all about the same sources for the same topic. Tonight he started this topic [37], he then pasted a bunch of unreliable sources into an AFD, and now has gone to a closed AFD trying to figure out how to keep arguing about sources [38], he is now back at Reliable Sources bugging them again as I type this [39]. It is clear he has no self control and will not stop on his own. I feel at this point there is little left to do but ask for a topic ban. Ridernyc (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I would like to support a topic ban regarding video games for this user. He has been active in ##wikipedia-en-help ^connect several times, has posted bits of IRC logs with out consent of participants, and has been repeatedly told on IRC that wanting to know if his sources are reliable and help with notability is disruptive as answers were provided to him. When his questions were answered in a way that did not suit him, he continued to demand answers and refused to be quiet until he got them. He had to be silenced on IRC because his refusal to accept the answers by helpers and demands for his questions to be answered was disruptive and we were not able to help other new users. Beyond that, this user has been warned on the reliable source notice board and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that he was forum shopping and being disruptive. And today, he is back on the Reliable source noticeboard despite the warning right above. --LauraHale (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding my comments: Salvidrim (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Mass creation of single-topic content:
    • PROD'ed, contested, AfD'ed: Zou Yitian, Ivan Shinkarev, Jacob Toft-Andersen, Benedict Lim, Wu Sheng, Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer), Bu Yanjun
    • Redirects to these pages: Maelk, Vigoss, Artstyle, Hyhy
    • The International (Dota 2 Competition)
    • Category:Professional DotA Players
    • File:The international.png, File:Champions navi.jpg
  • Opening multiple discussions on the same topic:
    • The AfD's of all the above articles, some still ongoing
    • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Esports_news
    • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Professional_eSports_Players
    • Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Professional_eSports
    • Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_professional_eSports_players.
    • A number of UserTalks: User talk:Inkwiry, User talk:The Interior, User talk:Sergecross73, User talk:Ridernyc, User talk:Odie5533, User talk:Jipinghe, User talk:Cameron Scott
  • Disruptive Editing:
    • Trying to add sources to a [closed AfD]
    • On gaming forums (on one of the sites he strongly pushes to be admitted as RS), he has requested help from other players and fan of the subjects to create the articles, and most importantly to try and keep them from being deleted. This is one such thread, this is another. Also stated intent to recreate the pages as-is against deletion consensus (that's why i've saved copies of the wikicodes to post them again when the argument is over.), leading to at least one of the AfD'ed article being salted. Also admitted to having copied an article from the player's Facebook page (lol the maelk one is a copy from his facebook page). Claimed to have "admin approbation" (admins has no problem in articles for dota players, i approached them. and this is why i posted here, i wanted to let the community handle this). Made attempts at meatpuppetry, but after being warned on here, edited in his post(s) "ninja'd / "meatpuppetry" isn't allowed on wikiepdia.".
    • General complete opposite of a dispassionate approach and consensus-seeking attitude.
    • Upwards of 90% of edits done in articles within a narrow single-topic spectrum.

In addition to everything presented above and by the other commenters, I am strongly in favor of a topic ban. Salvidrim (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I can verify, and I support, what Ridernyc and Salavadrim have been saying. Time and again, "Redefining History" asks a question, receives an answer he does not like, and either complains and carries on and on about it, or asks the same question somewhere else, gets the same response, so on and so on. He seems totally unwilling to learn (or even acknowledge) basic concepts such as reliable sources or notability, no matter how many times he's correctly informed on them. I too support a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

By this point, I think it is necessary for Redefining History to take a step back from the electronic sports articles. Not only is it disrupting the Wikipedia community with his relentless discussions, but he beginning to draw some negative attention to esports as a whole and as such, endangering some otherwise fine esports articles with deletion, due to this new negative perspective from senior editors. What I can say, however, is that he is a very passionate editor and if he were to use that to learn about Wikipedia etiquette more, as well as how to properly format pages and find appropriate sources, we could have some very positive results elsewhere.

On a side note, we should take a look at The International (Dota 2 Competition); it may be about a notable event, but it's unencyclopedic and needs to be redefined, (no pun intended), in the very least. DarthBotto _talk•cont 17:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment This account is less than two weeks old. I agree with the opinion that this user's approach is disruptive. But these a rookie mistakes. I left some pointers on discussion etiquette on my user page, and RH did take them to heart, and revised his style somewhat. I would feel very uncomfortable topic banning a user this soon after they have joined the community. The user wrote several articles on gamers, and over-reacted when they were found not to meet our guidelines. They have quite a bit to learn about WP process, but they should be given a chance. The Interior (Talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree he has not taken anything to heart. He promised three different editors that he would stop. He then went nuts again last night, he didn't even last 24 hours. He has show no abilty to listen and comprehend what is being said to him. This is not about bad faith, this about someone with a total inability to act in a rational way with others. Ridernyc (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

However, I agree he has shown to be, purely from a content-creation side, rather competent. He has created a lot of articles from scratch. I think he could be a great asset to Wikipedia, and have tried to help him realize that to no avail. I would be in favor of a limited-term topic restriction, hoping to give RH some time to explore other areas of the wiki and learn the editing process. Hopefully it will only help him re-focus. :) Salvidrim (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree he is amazingly competent at editing -with the exception of talk pages where he just creates a giant mess-. The simple fact that he has managed to find so many different places to to lobby for his sources amazes me. I feel maybe he is a bit to close to this issue and if he wants he can show his dedication to the project by working on something else. This is why I bring up a topic ban. If he can demonstrate self control and ability to learn in other areas, he can always approach the admins to lift his topic ban. Ridernyc (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

IP user making accusations of vandalism on a BLP article

Resolved

 – for now at least, the IP has been put on ice for 72 hours - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

IP user 192.89.123.41 added a supposed alias to the article Josh Sawyer without a source,[40] so I reverted him, asking if that alias was for real. He reverted me, claiming to have undone my "vandalism".[41] I reverted him once more, explaining in my edit summary that what I did was not vandalism, and that since a source was provided, readers could not tell that this alias was for real. He reverted me again, claiming once again that he had "undone vandalism" on my part,[42] so I reverted him once more, and left a note on his talk page requesting that he stop accusing me of vandalism, and that he needs to add any information to a WP:BLP article with a source, which was what I was asking him to do.[43]. However, he ignored me and reverted me once more, again repeating his claims of having "undone vandalism" on my part.[44] I think he is trying to make some sort of claim that Sawyer and Brian Mitsoda are the same person, as he has been doing the same sort of thing on that article, and other articles. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

They're also doing something similar to the Brian Mitsoda and The Age of Decadence articles. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 14:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:G90025 creating a battleground

Just spotted a major edit war on 27 Club going on -- it's now been protected by User:Nev1, but one of those involved is creating an incredibly hostile battleground. For starters, the 13 reverts is clearly wayyy over the top (and there's a notice at the edit warring board for that), but this user has been accusing others of edit warring when only on their second~ revert, seemingly in an attempt to scare them off reverting him further [45]; accusing others of harassment [46] over a notice left on his userpage [47]. To his credit, he did start a discussion on the talk page of the article, but not after far too many reverts, and is now pushing his POV instead of relying on sources to make the point: [48]. There's a serious lack of collegiality here, and he's using reverts and user talk page templates to make his point, creating a pretty hideous battleground in the process. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I can tell you exactly what the deal is. There was a discussion a long time ago on whether or not Amy Winehouse should be added to 27 Club list and the community was amicably working on reaching consensus UNTIL some rabid Winehouse fans DELETED the discussion and kept adding her before any agreement was reached. Since they deleted the discussion, it apparently went dead and Winehouse's inclusion on the list went unnoticed and unchallenged for some time. From day one, the people who insist she must be included have shown blatant bias and appear to be fans of hers who are doing this as a way of mourning their idol. I understand how they feel but in an attempt to keep the article accurate and historically relevant, only unbiased inclusion based on reliable data and evidence should be considered. And because that article has been the subject of edit warring for a long time, I feel that community consensus is the only way on which everyone can at least agree that there was an agreement, or that more people voiced an opinion one way or the other. User:Muboshgu, by the way, jumped on me, not knowing anything about this issue. If he and the others would have initially taken the time to discuss the issue on the talk page in a reasonable manner, everyone wouldn't be reverting everyone else. Anyway. Now, finally, people are semi-amically discussing the issue on the proper page so it should work out fine when some time has gone by for the community to reach an agreement. G90025 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, your attitude has been completely beyond the pale. You've placed harassment notices on the user or talk pages of users [49][50] in retaliation for them placing notices on your talk page [51][52]. Then you've repeatedly re-added them even where they don't apply, saying "please don't remove warnings on user talk pages until they expire" (which is false, see WP:REMOVED). And all the while you remove them from your own -- which is, of course, fine, but evidence of you trying to apply one rule for yourself and another for everyone else. This attitude is disruptive, counter-productive and not in keeping with building an encyclopedia. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree that tempers have been flying on here this afternoon and that I perhaps could have directed others to the discussion on the talk page and possibly avoided an edit war. Perhaps I did not initially explain the situation correctly or in a manner whereas the others would understand the history of the article and what happened before, and why, at least in my opinion, that a consensus needed to be agreed upon. Because of that pre-existing condition, I do believe that some of those users were making destructive edits and one kept making edits with misleading edit summaries which is clearly an intent to deceive. So anyway, there are probably no innocent parties involved but everyone seems to have calmed down, including myself, so I don't think this will cause the destruction of Wikipedia ultimately. G90025 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, what are you calling for, Buttons? The battleground mentality is plain to see. That G has been removing material against the wishes of at least four other editors (five, if you count me, but I haven't edited the article, I think, at least not for this matter), that is obvious. I've been removing specious warnings they placed on the user pages of editors they disagreed with--about a half a dozen, I think (just look at G's history). Then there's a specious warning on User talk:Wizardman and a few other talk pages. I've looked at their edits on other articles, and leaving Caylee Anthony alone, as we all should, I see the repeated insertion against consensus of some trivial and unverified internet rumor on Fred Rogers. Where is the net positive this editor is contributing to the project? We have a fully protected article and a giant waste of time and electrons. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel I have clearly explained the situation and what has happened going back for months and months on 27 Club. Please see the paragraph above. I have no idea what you are referencing about Caylee Anthony. I recall making some minor edit on that article after watching and researching the trial in great deal. I would say I know more about it than most people. As far as Fred Rogers, the rumor is not trivial and I *did* verify it by citing. It is relevant because it involves an extremely common false notion that Fred Rogers was somehow in military service. That idea goes beyond the Internet and has existed for decades. People wonder if it's true. The inclusion of information, with citation, to show that it is not true is extremely relevant to the article. You are accusing me of a lot of things, Drmies, which are meritless. While I admit that the 27 Club thing got out of hand on the part of all parties, I'm a pretty well-educated person who makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia. If someone thinks otherwise, they have every opportunity to question contributions, edit them, or discuss them on talk pages. G90025 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: not "on the part of all parties"--only yours. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm surprised G90025 hasn't been blocked for edit warring yet, considering how far beyond 3RR the user went before the page was protected. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to people like you who kept insisting on including biased material and ignoring a previously-existing discussion on whether or not to include the musician on the list. That article has been ravaged by Wikipedia dictators for a long time who have ignored any attempts at a reasonable coming together of the community minds. Maybe you should consider your own behavior also when you are accusing others. G90025 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not she should be included, you violated 3RR several times over. I did not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually warned User:G90025 about breaking this rule after he had made three reverts, as I could tell he had no intention of stopping there. The message was removed by him around 15 minutes later, but it is still avaliable in the page history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G90025&oldid=457504289 12bigbrother12 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly worth bearing in mind, but a block at this point would harm ongoing discussion. I think it's simple enough to say that any further edit warring once the protection expires will be dealt with harshly. I'm inclined to impose something along the lines of WP:1RR for the next while. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The merits of the content issues are not up for debate here, but over on the article's talk page, as you should be aware -- you've even contributed to that discussion, for which I'm glad. But bringing those issues here does not help. A "reasonable coming together of community minds" does not include 14 reverts and false accusations of edit warring (while committing it yourself and blanking any and all mentions thereof), vandalism or harassment to try and get editors to back down so you can have your version of the article included. This is a discussion of how you have acted towards others, while bringing a battleground mentality to the encyclopedia, which I believe to be completely incompatible with our aims for the project, and ignoring the spirit of civility and collegiality. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who's never visited the page, talking about 'wikipedia dictators' is generally not a good way to convince people there's any merit to your argument, particularly if you've reverted 13 times against multiple editors in a situation where it wasn't justified (like a clear cut WP:BLP violation or vandalism) and also edit warred to keep warnings place on a user page rather then a user talk page despite apparently knowing (by merit of removing them from your own page) there is no requirement they be preserved even when properly place on the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How this user avoided a block is miraculous, but bottom line here: page protected, no further action is needed for now. He's been formally warned, and if the edit warring continues after the protection expires, G90025 is almost certainly going to be blocked. Swarm ^X 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel like ANI tends to produce odd results. That might've been the most severe violation of 3RR I've ever seen, and the user doesn't have any repercussions? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Blocks are preventative, not punitive", etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And yet blocks are used for cases of edit warring, when page protection would prevent the behavior without blocking. Rules is rules. (Please don't respond with any variation of WP:IAR.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is you can either use page protection or blocking. Once the page has been protected, a block would not normally be necessary. While not everyone agrees page protection was the best call here, most are willing to leave it up to the discretion of the admin who did chose to protect. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Davis100: He Must Be Stopped

For several months User:Davis100 has continuously vandalized pages, adding information that simply is not true. He has been warned in January, February, March and August of this year and yet he has continued to vandalize pages. A permanent ban would be justified in this situation as it seems all he has done is vandalize pages. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Do you have any diffs pointing to this behavior, preferably recent ones? Also, you should have notified the user--I have just done that for you. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• How is this series of edits worthy of having the editor banned? Drmies (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Both are now blocked for edit-warring, suggesting that this was a grudge complaint. Let's assume that this thread won't be resumed and if it is, it better be with some decent evidence. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I had posted a note to that effect, but I think it must have gone in an edit conflict. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop has posted an unblock request with something of an explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• (EC) Looking in to the August warning, I don't know if I'd call it vandalism. It appears to relate to edits like [53] [54]. From what I can tell, there really was character called Maxine played by Cherie Johnson. Our article on the actress says she was recurring and in one of the edits Davis100 themselves admitted the person did not appear in the credits so the change was probably unwarranted but I wouldn't call it vandalism and would be even careful in labelling it 'information that simply is not true'. It's more of a content dispute and while Davis100 was in the wrong they did seem to stop and may have stopped earlier if it was explained main cast would only be those that appeared in the credits regardless of whether certain people think they are main. Davis100's bigger problem appears to be edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • When "He Must Be Stopped" is in the subject header, the WP:BOOMERANG is usually already in flight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • And sometimes one hits two birds with one boomerang... Drmies (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:DeknMike edit-warring, incivility, and refusal to accept sourcing policy in a new 'Church Planting Movement' article

Church Planting Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DeknMike has been edit-warring to remove templates I placed in the new article Church Planting Movement, noting problems with weasel-wording, and with sources affiliated with the subject. [55], [56], [57], [58]. I came upon the article by chance, and gave what I thought was a civil response to a request for help on the talk page, by indicating that sourcing was a major issue. I have repeatedly attempted to explain the problems on the article talk page, but DeknMike has chosen instead to edit-war, after I pointed out WP:3RR in an edit summary, to post a warning regarding the same on my talk page. He/she has also repeatedly accused me of bias (and of 'vandalism' in an edit summary), and seems completely unwilling to either accept policy regarding the need for independent third-party sourcing for the article, or to raise the matter elsewhere if he/she thinks that I'm misinterpreting policy. It seems to be a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I think that admin intervention may be needed to get DeknMike to respond in an appropriate manner. DeknMike is not a new contributor, and surely is familiar enough with policy by now to understand that edit-warring over valid templates etc is totally inappropriate, and to understand Wikipedia sourcing requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good luck working things out or coming to any kind of reasonable compromise or conclusion with DeknMike. Long experience shows that he gives not a damn about Wikipedia's policies. He just wants articles to read the way he wants them to read and will do what it takes to make them read that way. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, these same issues have come up regarding a completely different article: you can find the discussion at Talk:Messianic Judaism#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care about Wikipedia's policies, but that I care they are fairly administered, and that verifiable sources are included, not just thinly-sourced documents that claim things that are not true, and editors who make unsubstantiated claims and then - rather than dialogue about them - impugn my character. I asked for instances of weasel words, and when you could not verify your claim, I considered it specious and removed it. You asked for sourcing and I added even more. You falsely claim that the sources are the originators of CPM, and I have repeatedly shown you that you are mistaken. If you don't want to hear, I can't help that. You may think Christians are empty-headed dolts and bigots, but I forgive this ignorance and press forward.--DeknMike (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"You may think Christians are empty-headed dolts and bigots". I don't. I've seen dolts and bigots involved in all religions, and in none. I have a great deal of respect for honestly-held beliefs, but I see no reason to accept the words of believers when it comes to factual assertions about the spread of their beliefs. All I asked was that assertions about the success of the Church Planting Movement be verified from sources other than evangelical Christians. You have not only failed to provide them, but have consistently attacked me for even asking for such sources. I only became involved in this article in the first place because you asked for help on the talk page. The next time you ask for help, I'm inclined to suggest that the actions of the Priest or the Levite, rather than the Samaritan may be the proper response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap and disruption at Talk:Tooth fairy

Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is appearing to be purposefully disruptive at Talk:Tooth fairy. This pattern of edits/discussion has been on-going for the last month or so. He previously reported himself for disruption there. At that discussion, it was suggested he just walk away from the article with a self-imposed topic ban. He did not, however, disengage. He posted this earlier today, for example, to ANI. Further disruptive edits today include [59] [60]. He's mocking others who are "against" him on the article's talk page and mocking the discussion process in general. Further disruptive edits today include [61] [62]

He posted just a short while ago that he wanted a topic ban on himself previously but none of us fulfilled his wishes. Is there any chance we can now? His attitude and actions there are doing more harm than good. Similar issues were raised with regard to his comments at Talk:International Space Station a few months back at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Penyulap_and_the_International_Space_Station. only (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a topic ban Penyulap needs. It's a firm warning that either he starts interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project. There is no obvious reason that he cannot alter his behaviour to suit community norms. Mentorship would be very warmly appreciated given his enthusiasm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Danger agreed to mentor/adopt him after the ISS discussion in late June. Don't know how much "work" was done there. I'll drop Danger a note to see if any insight can be given. only (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(inserting comment) This is how much work I've done there Penyulap _talk 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that either I'm not very good at mentoring (highly likely) or that Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I'm skeptical that mentorshop can be effective when the misbehaving party is blaming their actions on everyone but themselves. But, as I said, I'm not very good at this. Danger (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that for mentoring to be helpful, the person being mentored has to understand there is a problem with his or her behavior and be willing to accept help to change that. I'm not fmailiar with the ISS situation, but I am not seeing any evidence in the tooth fairy one that Penyulap has any desire to change. A polite request from me to stop the sarcasm was soundly rebuffed. LadyofShalott 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it that I am being accused of exactly, the complaint is not clear. What does a dismissed ANI complaint from a month ago have to do with anything ? I brought it up in GF, was told I could do as I wanted, I was not topic banned thank you very much, no recommendations were made. I can't see what you are saying here, would you please be specific. Are you suggesting it was frivolous, if that is the case, why is exactly the same proposal being considered now ? are you making a frivolous proposal on a subject that has already been rejected by ANI ? I think so.

You've diffed another GF request from earlier today where I suggested there was a problem with Sexual content on the Tooth Fairy (TF) talkpage. It was found not to be a concern, I considered the matter resolved, and it was closed. No recommendations were issued, nothing imposed, but now you are diffing this and saying there is some kind of problem, would you be specific, as it was found by ANI earlier today, and everyone involved that there was no problem with sexual content on the page, and the topic, brought up by SummerPhd was Ejaculation, which is precisely related.

What else ? am I not allowed to have second thoughts about a picture proposal ? I have uploaded it three times today and I'm still not satisfied, but 'pesky wiki process', if more people like the image than dislike it, my embarrassing attempts at visual arts are on wikipedia for all to see.

this edit is a simple response to this how else could I possibly deal with SummerPhd's suggestions whilst assuming good faith ?

this is the same, this is the pumpkin referred to, how can I possibly respond to these remarks from other editors in any other way except good faith ? I think you are wasting ANI's time, just as you seem to accuse me of. This is just pushing your POV into ANI, when it should be handled on the talkpage. So you don't like the proposed picture, you've had your say, and I am working with others who thinks the idea is good and are making constructive comments to improve the poor current situation. As far as I can see you are complaining about the wiki discussion process because your not getting your own way. Whilst I also have second thoughts about my embarrassing artistic attempts, I think it best to leave the proposal to other editors. This belongs on the talkpage not ANI. Penyulap _talk 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread is because you basically said "Hey, I should be topic banned" so everyone just said "Great, no need to great a formal ban, just go ban yourself." So rather than waste our own times in debating a topic ban, we figured we'd actually take you at your word. Topic banning you was never rejected, it was just never discussed because you said you'd ban yourself. THAT is why the topic is relevant now. It is especially relevant because even a few hours ago you said you thought a topic ban would be a good idea. only (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why the topics and comments you posted today are disruptive and with poor judgment, then you need to reevaulate how to contribute collaboratively within this environment. only (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just realize, I did not respond to the comment about the ISS, that was a similar case to the Tooth Fairy article, except that it was a FA status article, with more than one admin owning the article, sitting on it so I couldn't address it's multitude of problems, the editor who brought that complaint, I haven't heard from for a long time, since just after he accused me of taking away the FA status of the article single-handed. I did start off the FARC process, and it went down unanimously. I've been completely overhauling the article ever since, working with new editors who have real suggestions. I haven't had any trouble in the 17 other languages I contribute in (which is at least dozen more languages than I can speak). I have only encountered Tag-teams on the english wiki. Anyhow, if someone can at least point to a bright line I've crossed, or point out something less vague, I'd be HAPPY to modify my behavior. I've done it before. It is only fair, that if people want me to act differently they should at least have the decency to try to explain in clear terms what the problem is. Is there abusive language ? personal attacks ? foul language, please be specific. Penyulap _talk 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand your point here "The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread" are you saying I broke a ban that was not imposed ? Would you please be so kind as to diff any commitment I gave in relation to that request. I'd like to formally ask ANI if I have ever had any restriction of any kind imposed upon me to clarify what you are saying. Penyulap _talk 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Thumperward, when you say "interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project." I would like to ask, just how old do you think I am in real life ? secondly, can you please point to any clear concern you have such as personal attack or any 'bright line' ? Penyulap _talk 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with my mentor that ' Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior ' as I am having trouble understanding what it is I am being accused of, I think a very long time ago, I used the word troll, which is used elsewhere on the internet, but not on wiki, after someone mentioned that, I didn't use the word anymore. (except just then). As far as I can see, I have made some proposals about a better picture for the article, and am working with people to improve a proposed image. Some people do not like the idea of improving the image, they think it can't be done and are outraged that I continue to work with other editors, rather than accepting what I consider to be a ridiculous assertion, that is, that no improvement is possible. Plus I think thumperward has objections to my being humorous, but I think that's a good thing for collaboration like this. Anyhow, I think this whole complaint is tedious, and suggest that closing it should be considered. Unless someone can make any sense of the complaint, I would love to hear any ideas on what it is meant to be about. Penyulap _talk 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this: please explain, in your own words, why other editors are objecting to your image proposal at Talk:Tooth fairy. I certainly hope you can do better than "Some people do not like the idea of improving the image". – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap seems unable to discuss a subject on the talk page without constantly and sarcastically discussing other editors. Incredibly WP:TE. I would say that if we allow them to continue editing they should be admonished for speaking of other editors and essentially should agree not to as a condition of continued editing privileges. A trout for Penyulap and a barnstar to the editors who have very politely put up with it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The continued commentary about users being "clones," that the only way to deal with us is through sarcasm, and that we all need to "get over" ourselves doesn't help either. Clearly shows tendentious editing. only (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Santin, I think that people make too many inappropriate and cryptic remarks, like SummerPhd, refers to 'Please stop beating the straw man.' and invited me to view graphic sexual material, which I did not, I was very offended by that inappropriate behavior and requested that SummerPhd remove such a remark on her talkpage, which she wouldn't. Is Beating the straw man masturbation ? And wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article saying "So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. " I have no idea what she is trying to say there. Thumperward says 'Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop.' am I supposed to be breaking a rule by being a naturally humorous person, can I change that any more than the color of my skin ? Being funny is better than being a pervert. Am I supposed to stop the proposal because thumperward says 'In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway.' So thumperward is objecting because he feels excluded from the creative process ? but this image is improving according to suggestions by editors who have researched the appearance of the Tooth fairy. He suggests that no reliable sources exist, but google has 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, so how can that be.

I warned SummerPhd that the word 'fantasy' would attract vandals, and it did, it's not a necessary word, as 'Folklore' will do, but she teases the vandals in her writing style, and displays a scorecard on her userpage in a contentious manner and claims there is no connection between the state of the article and vandalism, despite so many editors saying otherwise and vandalising it too. She just keeps pushing her Pro-Vandalism stance.

She also claims or implies anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged. Penyulap _talk 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As the user is now blocked, I've responded to their comment on their user talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, NOW USER:ONLY IS COMPLAINING THAT I AM TALKING TO MY MENTOR ON A SUBSECTION OF MY TALKPAGE, A SECTION I CREATED MONTHS AGO SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE MYSELF AS AN EDITOR. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE MYSELF WITH STUPIDITY ON SUCH A MONUMENTAL SCALE INFLICTED UPON ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)

Yup...quite the hole being dug here. Any uninvolved admin like to step in here? only (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "beating the straw man", please read straw man argument. She's saying you are arguing against things she never said. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)"Beating the straw man" is not a reference to masturbation (though your reference immediately before that, to "Mrs Palmer and her five daughters" probably was). It was a reference to your debate style: Rather than addressing what I actually said, you attacked a mocking representation of me (claiming, repeatedly, that I believed the hand with teeth photo is a representation of the tooth fairy). I don't think thumperward feels excluded. Rather, it seems ze feels there is no consensus on what the tooth fairy looks like. Reliable sources are a specific type of sources that Wikipedia accepts as trustworthy, most of the 461,000 hits returned by a google search are not reliable sources. The list ("WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on") refers to various of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I believe your attempt to create an image for the article runs against. I did not claim or imply that "anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged". You inferred it. Had you asked about any of this, I would have explained it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After spending a good bit of time digging through the relevant posts, all I can do is shake my head - and, for disruptive editing and incivility, block Penyulap for 24 hours. Following that, I strongly recommend a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Propose that User:Penyulap be topic-banned from editing articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Just clicked "edit" to create a new subsection called "topic ban proposal" and here it was waiting for me! Penyulap essentially asked for this, though I'm not sure of the motivation. User:Only offered a topic ban but apparently Penyulap wants it to be official, so here it is. N^oformation ^Talk 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support--I had the same experience as Noformation. I also fully support Bushranger's block and was tempted to do the same thing. This editor is an utter waste of time, and I foresee a proposed broadening of the topic ban in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the assessment of all three above me. Thanks, The Bushranger, for starting the topic ban discussion and implementing a block. only (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support with some regret - this does seem a reasonable move at this point, and is essentially what Penyulap originally came to ANI to request. I'll note that Penulap has started a subpage at User talk:Penyulap/edit to request feedback on his/her editing style. Perhaps some good can come of that. I suggest the editor use the block time to become familiar with the policies linked above. LadyofShalott 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have a (not)vote here. That said, in the hopes that Drmies is wrong, I hoping someone uninvolved will offer some very direct suggestions here. While some of the issue here seems to be about the editor's headlong, gunslinger editing style, I think there's a largish helping of not understanding our policies here. I seem to have been defensive at times and my comments, as a result, were not read. Wikipedia is sometimes perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as a lawless Western town. Some firm direction to our pillars might be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, you have an opinion worth listening to, and it's not really a vote anyway. And I also hope (against hope) that I'm wrong this time--it happens often enough. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support if only for temporary relief—while it might be ok to suggest putting a made-up image to illustrate tooth fairy, the lack of understanding and unhelpful responses at Talk:Tooth fairy show that a topic ban is the minimum required. Given the fuss surrounding this archived ANI discussion, a good case for an indefinite block could be made, with the block to be lifted after the user explains how they will avoid mistakes from the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm being candid, I think an indefinite block until the user agrees to a list of requirements is in order, but I didn't want to suggest it since the topic ban discussion was already going. If it was proposed I would support it. Just to iterate the point though, I think that even a superficial promise would be acceptable as it would give grounds to further block the user if the behavior continues. Another alternative would be to find a mentor who would not mind going over some of the user's comments with them so they can understand exactly what the problem is. What ever the case is, if Penyulap does not stop this type of behavior then it's unfair to the editors of the pages they edit for them to have to engage in these long winded, pointless discussions. Hopefully the topic ban will give the desired results, but I cannot say that I am optimistic since I don't think that the Tooth Fairy is really something to get upset over, rather I think it's more just part of their personality to act this way. N^oformation ^Talk 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - ask and ye shall receive. Danger (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is addressing the wrong problem. There's been no evidence presented that there is a need for all "articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed" to be covered: just tooth fairy. However, Penyulap previously exhibited a very similar set of problems with collaboration on Internationa Space Station, a topic rather far removed from the tooth fairy. A more appropriate response would be to wait to see Penyulap's response to Luna Santin's comment on his talk page, see how he acts after that, and if necessary re-block him with lengthening durations until either he adopts a more regular interation style or he fully exhausts the community's patience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I thought I recognised Penyulap, linking to the ISS case brought back unfortunate memories (not involved, just saw the case on ANI). While I'm somewhat symphathetic to Chris Cunningham's POV, having seen the problem in Tooth fairy myself when I helped out with archiving (and from Penyulaps first complain a few weeks ago) I think something needs to be done. The editors at tooth fairy have been incredily patient but need to be given a break. Considering the comments, I don't think the sanctions are too wide although I'm not sure whether they'd really have the necessary effect. In other words I wouldn't oppose wider sanctions myself and as with CC and Noformation, I'm not sure whether this will work but it seems clear something needs to be done. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's behaviour is reminiscent of Jack Sebastian's in discussions about Santa Claus and alleged time travel connected to The Circus. I am not claiming the account is Jack Sebastian's sock. Edit times are all over the place, so the user might even be from a different time zone. But it looks like we are being trolled by the time-honoured technique of taking policies literally to the point of absurdity. The images currently on discussion at Talk:Tooth fairy also suggest sophisticated trolling to me. This behaviour needs to stop, and it will be no help if it just moves over to Easter Bunny. Hans Adler 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I briefly interacted with Penyulap back in June when they were brought to ANI with regards to their editing on the International Space Station. I'd left a suggestion on their talk page on their approach to interacting with other editorsm, but it looks like their hot headedness has got them into hot water again.. A topic ban at this point may seem the course to pursue, but I fear that Penyulap will simply move to another area outside their topic ban and begin anew. I saw that Penyulap has a pending unblock request on their talk page. I suggest that an unblock be granted only with the strictest condition of continuing with their mentor for a minimum 6 months. --Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on a different page following 3RR warning

Resolved

 – Though not directly related to my original complaint, Equalizer2011 has been indef blocked as sock of Dweeby123 (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Equalizer2011 (talk · contribs) was involved in a very lame edit war on Take That ([63] [64] [65]). I warned both users regarding edit warring [66] [67]. A little bit later, Equalizer entered another edit war, this time over redirecting the article Brana Bajic [68] [69]. As a side note, Equalizer had prodded this article but it was ineligible due to a past AfD, which is how I came across this user in the first place. I'm not sure what the policy is on edit warring on a different article following a 3RR/edit war warning, which is why I brought it here instead of WP:AN3. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Despite checkuser saying the accounts weren't related when I opened an SPI three days ago, I'm fairly sure Equalizer2011 is a sockpuppet of Dweeby123 (talk · contribs). The edit summary styles and the articles he's edited (British BLPs & soap opera characters) are the same as Dweeby and his other accounts. Today Equalizer performed very similar edits to Dweeby's last sock, BVRT11 (talk · contribs) - [70] and [71]. BVRT/Dweeby previously edited the Take That article and reverted Yids2010 - [72]. Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who can see the behaviour of Equalizer is very, very similar to Dweeby and his other accounts? - JuneGloom Talk 23:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When I saw "British soap" the first person who came to mind was User_talk:Dodgechris. After he was blocked for socking and disruptive editing he vowed to sock if we kept him blocked, and he generally edited articles about British soaps. I don't know if this is enough for a CU, but he's a blocked user anyway and Equalizer2011 looks like a blockworthy candidate anyway, so might be worth a look. N^oformation ^Talk 01:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Dohezarsersdah problematic editing

User:Dohezarsersdah has gotten into an extremely lame war on Theocracy removing content on the basis that websites cannot be used as sources. Despite numerous warnings and pointers, he is continuing to war over this. I have an RPP request in but it has not been acknowledged as of yet, and enough is enough. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

An indef block for disruptive editing should be considered, but it is reasonable to wait for a response. (He has been notified of this discussion). He has made five nearly identical reverts at Theocracy over several days and appears to be ignoring all feedback. His account was created three weeks ago. He has been editing aggressively on other articles as well. His recent contribution history is full of reverts. This edit is plain vandalism. Might this possibly be a sock? The edit summaries do not suggest a new user. His talk page would contain 20K bytes of warnings by now if he had not been constantly removing the warnings. That's pretty fast work for a three-week-old account. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I must second your thoughts. I'm taking a look at his contributions, but haven't found any other accounts sticking out as of yet. Note that this account was created on 10/2, but didn't edit until 10/8. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The editor has been as flexible as a bot in his/her edits. Dohezarsersdah violates 3RR, edit wars, then blanks the warnings from his/her talk page. I feel this editor will not understand the fruitlessness of editing this way and the usefulness of editing via talk page discussions from anything short of a block. The time off also may help the user in the form of a wikibreak.--Louiedog (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see forcing a wikibreak as a good objective for a block as that is not what a block is intended for, but I don't think this user will stop the destructive habits unless a block is enforced. It comes back to simply protecting the articles from him. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I blocked the account for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule before seeing this thread; if someone could kindly copy any comments he makes on his talk page to here, that would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think this account may be a sock. His edit summaries are a bit perverse, eg [73] where he wrote "source needed (it's false anyway)" (note that it was sourced), [74] where he deletes references and says "no references", [75] where he deletes a source and writes "DON'T DELETE SOURCES", etc (eg one where he removes a source from this century saying it's antiquated while elsewhere he uses a 1909 source. That he has a nationalist agenda is clear, eg his edit summary "undoing a turk's changes" and his edit-warring to remove a well-sourced comment that someone born in Iran came from a Turkish family. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is his response:

This is ridiculous. From basically my first edit, I have been harassed by "trigger happy" admin who have reverted my edits on site, and left "warning" messages on my Talk page saying "your edit on x page doesn't seem to be constructive". They usually then, without exception, realize they've made a mistake, and then moved on, without apologizing. Apparently though I upset the user "Dougweller" to such an extent that he and a set of aggrieved admins decided to dedicate themselves to my undoing, with no regard for the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, but continuing to edit war my contributions which are all only to IMPROVE the accuracy of the articles (topics on which I have a great deal of expertise) in order to pursue their petty vendettas. Is it too much to ask for a "Oops, sorry I was wrong there, I didn't mean to assume you were being disruptive"? Obviously it was. So I returned their acidity, and continued to click the "undo" button as often as they did.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), Yopie's edits (3 reverts) actually degrade the article. I have no problem with the section, but it must be accurately referenced. A random website called "jewishvirtuallibrary" is not a proper source - neither is an opinion piece in a newspaper.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) Dougweller (an admin) and Kafka Liz (a senior member who has been on Wikipedia for "4 years, 2 months and 17 days") have been edit warring to remove ESTABLISHED FACT that Bektashi was Persian (he was born in Persia, spoke Persian, and wrote in Persian... the Betkashi's elders are called "Pirs" for christ's sakes, a Persian word) and REMOVING the source I worked to find and that they were apparently too lazy to find themselves (The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, No. 3, Jul., 1909, (p. 343).

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Bektash_Veli) Dougweller (the admin) apparently followed me and carried on the same behavior.

You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world), The Mark of the Beast (an admin?) and Metricopolus (another admin? - i don't know, they all posted "warnings" to my page) did the same thing. I had to fight "tooth and nail" to restore the correct information.

So yeah, I apologize if some of my comments haven't been particularly "civil". But when all these admins and established users edit war and "warn" me of "vandalism" when I'm only trying to improve articles on topics they clearly know nothing about, it gets a little old. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty disturbing that an admin, Dougweller is allowed to behave this way. He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689) Way to "pratice what you preach"! Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded as follows on this talk page: In any case, saying "He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689)" is not accurate. What actually happened was that the edit I reverted was [76] which removed the sourced statement that his family was Turkish rather than add something else also, as I suggested. What I was trying to get across was that the sourced statement that his family was Turkish should be left in, but if we had a conflicting statement that his family was Persian that could be added as well to indicate that this was uncertain. As for following anyone, yes, like many other editors when we find an editor vandalising (as was clearly done earlier at Peaches Geldof and Off2riorob (talk · contribs) who is on my watch list, we look at the editor's other edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other complaints of his, the result of Yopie's edits at [[Theocracy was to leave the article in the state it was before Dohezarsersdah edited it, so I can't see how that degraded it. Dohezarsersdah objects to using The World Factbook, saying "websites can't be used as sources," and to [77] which he calls a random website although the author (and director of the Jewish Virtual Library is Mitchell Bard, who certainly looks like a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Dohezarsersdah is truly paying a lot of attention to any of what is being said. He writes "You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken." - first of all I am not an admin, and second of all, what is "realizing that he was mistaken"? I didn't revert myself; just didn't happen to want to war with him over something meaningless to me. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock trolling Knox articles

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.

Resolved

 – 32alpha4tango and his sock Porkchop n Applesause have been indef blocked. Please file future SPI cases under the 32alpha4tango name. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

---

...and trying to create as much drama as possible to stir things up. Several editors have reverted so now he has created an attack page here.

• Special:Contributions/32alpha4tango.

As he came on during March with the influx of other Knox socks, a checkuser would be a good idea to see which sock he belongs to. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Knox socks" ??? are those the editors who were banned for trying to use honest reliable sources, and for not toeing the line, and who've ultimately been proven right? --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The editors who were indef blocked were being disruptive, socking, edit-warring and violating other policies. The opinion piece that you've read is wrong on multiple counts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually had no interest in this article - a couple of times I tried to read it to figure out what was going on and the article never made sense. Finally, after reading enough external sources, I realized that Amanda Knox was convicted with no reliable evidence, no motive, and no priors. The European press and Italian prosecutors engaged in character assassination for lack of evidence, and Wikipedia swallowed it - hook, line and sinker. This really needs to be explored. --32alpha4tango (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. can someone please point me to User:John's rfa. It's not listed here. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Jimbo had intervened in this matter to overturn to unfair banning of editors, but I do think an investigation in the editing of the Kercher murder article is in order. This case is a good test case to see if Wikipedia functions correctly, because Knox was acquitted based on the known facts that were available in the media for quite some time. Therefore, nothing dramatically should have changed in the Wiki article before and after the acquittal, other than a paragraph about Knox being acquitted. The editing history of the article shows much more changes than just this, which points to a serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, in looking through the talk page history, Jimbo was ignored for months. It's up to us. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, hello, whichever Knox troll you are. Feel free to create a page throwing random untrue accusations around if you want, but I do know that all those editors who were blocked (bar one which may have been a false positive per WP:DUCK, and was later unblocked), were blocked for the correct reasons. Have fun now. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I really seem to have struck a nerve. --32alpha4tango (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors tried to use wikipedia for advocacy, and that was not appropriate. Hence, they were swept away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a previous SPI case for this? WilliamH (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because the vast majority of the accounts were meatpuppets recruited via off-wiki means, and hence Checkuser-proof. Having said that, the majority of the blocks were for disruption and gross incivility rather than meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. WilliamH (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Some (but by no means all) details at User:Pablo X/spa. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the block log of the likely sock. The opinion piece that he linked to did not state the names of the admins but he has insight on who blocked him. The author of the piece is PhanuelB.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like alphatango is violating his block. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So why do you think I'm PhanuelB? Simply because I'm asking some uncomfertable questions? What exactly is your evidence that I'm a 'spa'? Perhaps it's more likely that I was made an administrator in 2003, created tons of great content and hundreds of articles, and left the project in disgust because of idiots like you, occasionally returning to see if anything has changed. --32alpha4tango (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Left in disgust, why? Because we wouldn't let you abuse wikipedia for advocacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, seems I've struck a nerve. Now, you are acting like the Phanuel that we know...already stooped to incivility. Where did you get the admin names that you are questioning about? The opinion piece didn't include them and you say that you didn't know much about it. Interesting that you call out this particular set of admins.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just another white knight from the Amanda Knox fan club. One would have thought that since the object of their devotion was able to skip out of Italy that this sort of angry advocacy would have subsided, but I guess we're just seeing the post-PR game now. Tarc (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It's the "told ya so" game, betraying that they remain clueless about what wikipedia's purpose is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a few hours now, so could a Checkuser please confirm whether or not a CU was run on me and what the results were. Thank you. --32alpha4tango (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? You got a plane to catch? :) Checkusers have lots to do, and generally they will work on a given case at the level of urgency that they deem appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noticed that 32alphatango has been removing Baseball Bugs's comments from this thread. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, does anyone honestly believe that the removed Baseball Bug comments add any value at all to this conversation. He's a troll. --32alpha4tango (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We love Bugs! He has a way with people that is irreplaceable. It's kinda funny that you are calling him a troll.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, that Baseball Bugs sure does like to get into the middle of a lot of drama, but I wouldn't call him a Troll. More like one of those annoying lawn gnomes that we all love so much.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Warned for refactoring - a warning promptly removed from the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noticed that 32alpha4tango has a history of animosity with Bugs. He was blocked earlier this year for this attack on him. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I thought that editor's name sounded familiar. So now he's called editors here "moron" and "idiot". We're waiting for the time-honored variant, "imbecile". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noticed that 32etc has created User:32alpha4tango/Censorship at Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He still hasn't answered the question about why he singled out those particular admins either. Claiming that he didn't know much about it and then listing them specifically comes across as dishonest. Phanuel is here to self-promote.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The admins were listed in the comment section of the article, which you apparently missedPorkchop n Applesause (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's be honest, that article was pretty shabby for a long time, and probably represented one of Wikipedia's most notable failures in the past few years. Why shouldn't that be discussed? If it shouldn't be discussed on the talk page, where should it be discussed? I won't go crying "censorship", but rather, "Wikipedia editors aren't willing to honestly assess what they did wrong". Buddy431 (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it should be done by people who are not sockpuppets of blocked editors. --Jayron32 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(re to Buddy) He wasn't there to discuss the article. Where did you get that idea? He was there to try to open a dialog on blocked and banned editors and attempt to lynch admins. He was told that the article talk page was not the place and his comments were precisely removed because it was inappropriate. He didn't mention the article or suggest any edits.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a crap whether or not he's a sock, the user should have been indefinitely blocked for his outright blatant harassment of everyone he comes across with. Having blocked him some 4 months ago, it's bloody obvious he's not going to change his behavior one single bit. –MuZemike 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours; the blocking admin had a simple cut-and-paste failure when providing a diff; he removed it from his page while calling said admin an idiot [78]. I've extended the block to 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case for this, just to get to the bottom of this. Not even sure who the master is... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually semi-oppose the extention of the block. I don't expect people to be happy or polite about being blocked, and I am certainly a big enough boy to take being called an idiot with all the due consideration and gravitas the comment was made with. It is in fact true that I apparently cut n pasted the wrong diff. He can vent there to that extent without causing me any impulse to extend, though I'm not going to undo the additional time myself under the circumstances...

In terms of long term behavior, I suspect that MuZemike is right, but I think a SPI is the best venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI case has been closed, and 32alpha4tango and his sock have been blocked. Resolving discussion. --Jayron32 15:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Racist vandalism to User talk:Malik Shabazz

A series of IP addresses is adding a photo of a noose to User talk:Malik Shabazz, several of them, over and over again. Is semi-protection necessary? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Semi'd for 3 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the geolocation of the IPs, I'd say that was some sort of raid. WilliamH (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is anyone who deserves a ribbon and a raise for being sent the vilest of crap and still continuing to do valuable work here, it's Malik. Do we have a Wiki Nobel prize? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the the talk page of that editor, that seems to be a result of his own request rather than any wrongdoing. Uʔ (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Persistent negative vandalism by User:Undertakeranshu

This editor blatantly moved the film article Ra.One to Ra.One (flop). He, like User:Guru coolguy, is showing severe bias towards the film, most probably in relation to his dislike for Shahrukh Khan. I suggest immediate blocking of the user from all film-related articles. Please note that this will be the second time that the said user has been hauled up for blockable behaviour, which caused him to be blocked previously. In light of this, I see no change in his attitude and strongly suggest him to be barred from Wikipedia. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 05:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Was originally blocked for 1 week, but after this from a sock of his, I have ramped up his block to indef and placed a rangeblock down. –MuZemike 06:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

173.19.32.22 moved from AIV

Original report, moved from AIV:

• 173.19.32.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (diff):. Repeated addition of unsourced material after numerous warnings (and several blocks for the same thing). SummerPhD (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a little more review might be healthy. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a long term abuse sockmaster that has an obsession with Disney articles and this IP seems to fit their MO. I cannot for the life of me remember the account name but they are community banned and are to be blocked and reverted on site. Damn it, it's on the tip of my tongue. I will update if I can think of the name. N^oformation ^Talk 06:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are thinking of Bambifan101 (talk · contribs). The IP has already been reverted and blocked. Time to ignore. N419BH 06:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AdminHelp - Is this thing on?

Over 12 hours ago I requested that admins look over an escalating dispute on a project's Talk page using the {{adminhelp}} template. As far as I can tell this yielded no response; the conflict consequently escalated. I tried to moderate it, but frankly I think the window of opportunity is probably past now, and I ended up backing out of the situation entirely after User:Jclemens chastised one editor for their incivility while letting others' incivility (notably one editor saying "fuck civility") pass. I'm not asking that anyone necessarily be chastised (certainly not without an admin looking over the discussion), and consequently am not notifying the involved editors. My primary concern is that I did ask for adminhelp using the appropriate template, with apparently no results. If the template is no longer considered useful, I believe it should be indicated as such. If it is considered useful, I have to ask why I received no response for over 12 hours. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doniago (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As another editor who has tried to weigh in and mitigate this dispute a bit (I tried to focus it back on the content) I'd request that anyone who weighs in on this look at the talk pages of the editors involved. There is some pretty disgusting behavior going on ("incivility" is to polite a term) that is being allowed to ride. Like Doniago, I'm pretty much walking away from it. Millahnna (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the time zone you're requesting help from. 12 hours ago would put it at 3am GMT so UK based admins would not be able to respond, not to mention it's a working day so it may be some time bfore admins in the UK might respond. Generally, you'll find that you can get a faster response either by posting here, the admin's noticeboard or at the dispute resolution noticeboard --Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It was well over 12 hours ago, at some point in the afternoon (before 5 pm) Eastern time...actually, 20:00 universal, I think. In any case, I'm not sure what the point of the template is if the bottom line is that, if someone wants a prompt response, they should just post here in any case. The text of the template implies that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming", but that doesn't seem to be the case. As-is, and I acknowledge I'm being a bit picky now, no admins actually have acknowledged the note on my Talk page. Not meaning to be whiny, I just have a concern that I think is genuine about editors using a template that they are led to believe will yield a fast response if that isn't in fact likely to be the case. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone needs to be "warned" about civility, but some walking away on all sides would probably help. Everything will still be there in a couple of days. I note that "fuck civility" (Moni) is not the same thing as "fuck you" (RAP), but no one is an angel here, and things kind of spiralled out of control. It seems like it might be dying down now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted I'm hardly impartial at this point, but given that the "dying down" involves two editors who tried to moderate the conversation basically running away from it and an editor who I'm assuming is good-intentioned but received little but flak for their efforts similarly backing away (granted they ultimately gave as good as they got), the end result strikes me as a net failure. The message would seem to be, "it's fine to bully people as long as you can get them to incriminate themselves as well and you have more people backing you up than they do." I have to question whether that's the message we really want to send. I acknowledge, though, that I'm not necessarily fully aware of the repercussions of the situation, only commenting on what I've observed on the project's Talk page and the Talk page of one of the involved editors. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This project lists civility as one of its lofty core principles, but doesn't uphold that. Would many intelligent people continue to volunteer with, say, Habitat for Humanity if they found that organization did nothing to exclude those who routinely belittle and swear at anyone who disgrees with them? I wonder why the Foundation imagines the project it controls would be different in that way?

It's not like this kind of immaturity has to be tolerated to get a very high-quality result from a volunteer group. On any of Mark Shuttleworth's crowdsourced projects, for example, anyone who acts like an aggressive nine-year old will be politely asked just once to grow up, and then be permanently bounced if he repeats the behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. For an admin to say "fuck civility" (or any of the 5P for that matter) is nothing short of unacceptable. But the response to the admin who called them on it, both from Moni and the gang of lackeys who swiftly rushed to her defense (surprise, surprise), was disgusting. Swarm ^X 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The message that appears to be being conveyed, however unintentionally, is indeed that once you've become a "valued contributor" to Wikipedia, Civility becomes an option rather than a requirement, especially if one can argue that they were somehow provoked into being incivil. I truly hope this isn't how the admins actually feel. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The inevitable analogy (would non-profit, volunteer organization X allow this-- this time, Habitat for Humanity) is old: Habitat for Humanity would not give adult duties to under-age volunteers and then expect adults to stick around and clean up the ensuing messes. Habitat for Humanity would give reasonable tasks and duties to children, commensurate with their age and ability, and then expect adults to supervise them. These analogies never work, and the problem continues. Wikipedia is not "the real world", and this inevitable comparisons always miss the mark. And yes, there is a big difference between an exasperated "fuck civility" and "fuck you" specifically aimed at one individual. And no, the "civility becomes an option" argument is no more valid, either-- no one has said that. At the point you made the original request, the "fuck you" came from one party, not the other, and he got a warning (from me)-- it's not right to present this as if the original "fuck you" was not one-sided. What we have here is one party understanding Wikipedia's notability policies, and the other not-- at what point will we stop expecting knowledgeable and experienced editors to spend all of their time defending articles according to Wikipedia policies against poor edits? Some understanding of the severity of the underlying problem-- and how it is affecting Wikipedia content contributor and content in ever-increasing magnitude-- is all that is asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And, believe it or not, there's also a big difference between calling someone on inappropriate behavior and disruption. Swarm ^X 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful. Swarm, I'm most curious to know if you consider those who advocated that the message had been recorded and further poking wouldn't help improve the situation as a "gang of lackeys", or if that "gang" includes those who defend content and Wikipedia policies, or just what you mean by "gang of lackeys". It's a rather unhelpful characterization, and I'm wondering if perhaps you aren't as alarmed as some of us are that there at any given time half a dozen or so of these situations going on, where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content have to take inordinate amounts of time to deal with those who don't. The rate at which knowledgeable editors are giving up is worse than I've ever seen it, and the rate at which those leaving are being replaced by those who should be on the playground is a concern. If any of us pretend that the demise of Wikipedia's content as result can be stopped, it would be helpful if we started listening to each other rather than characterizing those who are concerned about this growing problem as a "gang of lackeys". It's a real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't forget any additional notifications this discussion may have generated by mention/claim of other editors' involvements since this discussion has started. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I lost a long response above in edit conflict, will re-type, but yes ... Moni3 has not been notified of this discussion as far as I know, and since I am apparently now part of a "gang of lackeys", neither have I -- I chanced upon this because I was beginning to gather statistics about just how bad this problem has gotten. I will now re-type my response to Swarm above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to have latched onto the "gang of lackies" bit, you might as well take a look at my response to Floquenbeam on my talk page. Swarm ^X 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, have you considered that your "unhelpful" comment is in itself unhelpful? "if we started listening to each other" - Please let me know when you start, and I will too. You're one of the last people I'd want to make an enemy of, I have great respect for the work and research you put into this. But I'm not impressed with your behavior when you talk about how adults act versus children and then you defend Moni's behavior.--v/r - TP 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Sandy, starting a blood feud with you is the last thing I want to do here.--v/r - TP 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't know how to respond this 'cuz I don't think in terms of "blood feuds"-- your comment above is decidedly unconstructive, so I guess there's nothing I can add to it. Been to Swarm's page, but I'm not sure it's helpful to spread this discussion all over creation. In fact, I suggested hours ago that we are in need of an essay page for a place to begin to discuss this serious problem-- and I'm sorry you don't agree with me that the issue of experienced editors increasingly being replaced by immature ones is serious, but ignoring that problem or being muzzled on the topic will not make it go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said I disagreed with you that it wasn't a very serious problem. I just disagree that it excuses certain behaviors. If you think my comments on Moni's page reflect that I devalue her contributions, you'd be wrong. Perhaps an essay targeting long-standing editor retention would be great.It may address how to deal with editors stressed out at having to defend their hard work, and include advice for those editors feeling like their work is "butchered", but that essay could not fit within Wikipedia policy or guidelines if it included verbiage excusing incivility. --v/r - TP 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy regarding this: "where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content"

Part of the problem in this specific situation is that several (in fact most) of the related articles did not, in fact, comply with policy or guidelines that pertain to writing about fiction in general, and the TV and Buffy projects specifically. A few of them really only needed some tweaks to be brought up to snuff (a general refocusing towards real world information and away from in-universe plot summary problems) and Rusted seems to understand now that he went too far with his bold edits, especially in regards to those articles specifically. But when we were able to bring the conversation at the project page back to the content problem on the articles that are problematic, the responses indicated to me a general lack of awareness of the guidelines and policies about fiction related articles. So while I understand editors who have worked on that project much harder than I have, being defensive about decent articles getting redirected, I don't see much of the "defense of content" that was going on as being about particularly valid content in terms of quality. And then to see the editor that started everything realize his mistake and try to refocus his efforts only to be repeatedly attacked, mocked, and bullied? Yeah the whole situation is whacked. Millahnna (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is just incorrect, but I don't think this is the place to get into the mistakes. Who has looked at the sources, and who hasn't? Expecting Moni to do all the work (which involves knowing the sources) when others hadn't even looked at sources is what the problem was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to close this in a while once I've read over the discussion. FWIW, Jclemens appears to have contributed to the discussion as an editor rather than an admin (or indeed an Arb): he's certainly not got the trust of the community to act in an elevated role as regards discussions concerning the notability of fiction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you planning to close a topic that Moni wasn't even advised of (until I did so a bit ago)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I meant passing an uninvolved comment on the dispute in an admin capacity, not this ANI thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. I have been involved with this dispute and as a result have been labeled Moni's "guard dog" and "lackey" (and notice that the latter word has been used here, too). I have never defended her behaviour and actually asked her to get a grip (though I did start to lose it eventually, myself), and never even got to the point where I had an opinion on the actual need for the re-directs because he wouldn't provide a list of articles he wanted dealt with. I got dismissed out of hand as a "lackey", while trying to communicate to RAP that the guidelines for making such sweeping changes were there for a reason, and that's what my question to all of you is about: Since this whole thing started because someone with insufficient experience to understand the ramifications of his actions made an executive decision and then re-directed 10 or so articles on his own, without beginning a discussion or researching the history of these articles, or having the first clue of the amount of follow-up work that would be required after the re-directs, is there not some way to make such an action off-limits to just anyone? I would never have attempted such a move myself without asking for lots of help, advice, feedback, etc., well in advance, and would have started by saying "I was thinking this might be a good idea." I think the Habitat for Humanity analogy is apt in that someone pointed out that inexperienced volunteers would not be entrusted with advanced tasks, and that's what we had here. Now clearly the roof really won't fall in this case, but my own attempts to inform RAP about what his actions were going to lead to were ignored, as were my notes re the protocol for such a move, and that's where my own frustration level rose--if newbies won't learn, or at least won't say they've taken note of the rules and now get that what they did was a problem (usually because they're entrenched behind defensiveness), how do we deal with them? I consider myself a newbie in some ways and am completely inexperienced in many of what I would call structural issues of WP, but am old and wise enough not to attempt anything outside of what I know how to do. We don't seem to have any built-in defenses or warning systems or anything to give pause to someone who, as he said himself, did what he did because he "saw others doing it and thought he should do it, too". Is there a way to limit such actions? I realize that there are all sorts of guidelines available to those who go looking for them, but those who are inclined to ignore such guildelines never go looking for them, so I'm wondering if there is an alternative. --TEHodson 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The kind of essay I'm looking for is not how experienced editors and admins can deal with stress-- it's how we can get the admin corp to deal more effectively with disruptive editors. RAP's actions here were good-faith, well-meaning, but misguided disruption, and we see that increasingly as the norm, it's everywhere now, and it's causing experienced editors to leave in numbers higher than I've ever seen. To pretend that it isn't related (although not entirely caused by) the increasing numbers of child editors would be naive-- it takes a certain amount of scholarship, and hours of research, to recognize the error in the redirects that led to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Jclemens notified here[79]. Thanks SandyGeorgia for the other notification. Was running out the door and didnt have time for more than the request above. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Original question

The original question wasn't really addressed: should the template be retired, yes or no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, a 12-hour window isn't alarming.--v/r - TP 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Friedman

We need more eyes on this page. Alan Friedman was the head of FBC Media, a PR company, which is now undergoing bankruptcy procedures in the UK. This has apparently angered some of its former employees, some of whom have taken to making the Alan Friedman article an attack page [80][81][82][83]. Keep in mind Friedman's own PR men have edited this page to remove information about a scandal FBC was involved in earlier this year [84][85][86][87][88]. Hopefully some admins can stay on top of this WP:BLP issue. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for a few days now, and most of the registered users doing these inappropriate edits appear new, so I requested temporary semi-protection. CityOfSilver 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Tnxman307 has semiprotected the page for ten days. CityOfSilver 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mickie James edits

Can I get a admin to act as a third-party to take a look at Mickie James. Curerntly present at the article is this statement: "She is currently in a relationship with fellow TNA wrestler Nick Aldis, better known as Magnus", which has as it's ref the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. We had for a time a very persistent IP address who would remove the statement without leaving any explanation. Given that the anon editor had been bouncing between several IPs (124.150.73.254 ([89]), 124.171.237.142 ([90]) and 124.148.49.9 ([91])), I semi protected the article. With that the IP created a user account (User: Mickiefan2005) and started Talk:Mickie_James#Edit_request_from_.2C_26_October_2011. They've also left a string of insistent edits on my Talk page - see User talk:Tabercil#Mickie James info.

As I said, can I get a fresh set of eyes on the situation? Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its Not True Because Other Wrestling sites haven't reported it yet means nothing its just rumors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiefan2005 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment- It doesn't matter if other sites have not reported it, Wrestling Observer is a Reliable Source.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, note left on the talk page. Problem here is that the Observer is generally considered to be a reliable source for wrestling-related topics; I've suggested that if the editor opposed to the comment has any sources stating the opposite, they present them for rational discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. <G> Tabercil (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that are subject to AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Copying across from talk page) I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Can someone please take a look at the actions of Mideastunity (talk · contribs)? This edit appears to be a legal threat. And his edits to Walid Phares suggest edit warring with multiple accounts/IPs including 96.25.239.17 (talk · contribs), JudgeDred1975 (talk · contribs) and TEOS2011 (talk · contribs). Peacock (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The explicit threat does appear to have been removed by the original author, although the "libel and defamation" verbiage remains. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They removed the worst of it, but what they left still crosses the NLT line.

I have indef blocked both for legal threats and separately for being a single-purpose advocacy account (NOT, SOAP). I also left a ARBPIA notification, should they retract the legal threats and agree to stop pushing the agenda / soapboxing to the degree they are now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George. Since the article in question, Walid Phares, is a BLP this user may have a valid concern. The material he was removing was critical of the subject, but it is referenced. I don't feel qualified to evaluate whether this material is compliant with our BLP policy so it would probably be a good idea for a few more eyes on the page. Peacock (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression of the content - it's negative, but not accusing him of committing crimes or serious personal failings. It's referenced, but by B-grade references (websites rather than print media, etc). It's relevant to pose questions about its quality, BLP suitability, etc. It's not a clear yes or no.

That said, the last thing we need is dedicated SPAs wading in with legal threats and edit warring in this topic area, BLP issues or not. They need to be addressed by people willing to discuss the situation, review the material and Wikipedia policy, and act rationally and in a consensus-seeking manner. Even if it's determined that the BLP aspect was valid, that doesn't excuse the specifics here in any way.

If possible, review by other uninvolved editors/admins on the article talk page would be ideal. Having had to wade in on the NLT / behavioral issue I prefer if the content side is resolved by others - avoid appearance of conflict of interest, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)