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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher to save space on this page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

Deletion of Transformers articles

I need advice. In the last week about a half dozen editors have taken on the task of "cleaning" up the Transformers ficiton related articles. By cleaning I mean deleting without even trying to improve them. I don't know if this is an organized effort of just happenstance that all of them suddenly started nominating different Transformers articles at an amazing rate, and then voting to 'DELETE for each other's nominations, but it has gotten become near impossible for us few working in the Transformers wiki project to keep up with (many of us just started school and are busy). What bothers me is not a single one of these deletionists has offered any improvements in any of the articles they work to delete, and just today about 30 articles were nominated for deletion by this crew. I don't know that anything can be done get them slow them down as nominating articles is their right, but the limited resources of the wiki project (many of us just started fall classes) means we can respond to their demands for proof of notability quickly enough. I'm sure a lot of the articles being nominated deserve to be deleted or merged to larger articles, but others do not. Is there any thing I can do for couple of articles I know just need additional citations and work, and shouldn't be deleted quickly? Often times I don't even know an article has been nominated for deletion until after the fact as these guys often forget to list the nominations at the wiki project. Would it even be okay to ask the Transformers Deletion Patrol to voluntarely limit their nominations for deletion to a certain number a week to be polite? Mathewignash (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide links to some of the articles in question please? --Selket ^Talk 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with any of the deletion debates, but this recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may be informative. If these Transformers-related articles up for deletion are sourced with the sort of sources up for evaluation at the RSN thread I've linked here, they deserve a lot of scrutiny. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here's some advice: stop throwing around words like 'deletionist'; all you're doing is painting someone who wants an article deleted as someone trying to destroy the project. Placing you as its saviour, I suppose? There is nothing wrong with deleting articles that don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can see the nominations for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Meanwhile, it is my experience that tagging Transformers articles for improvement hardly ever results in them actually being improved. I tagged a large number for non-free image overuse a long while ago and practically none of them have been fixed; indeed in some cases the tags were actually removed. Some of these articles have been unsourced for years, and many have been tagged as such, as well as having other long-running maintenance tags. There are well over 1,000 (yes - one thousand - that's not a typo) Transformers articles (as an example, Category:Autobots has 357 on its own) and the vast majority are non-notable on their own - some might qualify for inclusion in "List of minor characters in..." type articles. But no-one seems to want to do the work there. Sometimes the only way to get the attention of editors that articles are deficient is to nominate them for deletion, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a single article yet nominated that was at least dubious in its notability. Ha, just saw the two very poor nominations mentioned below. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In question here is the sudden constant bulk deletion nominations in such a short period of time by a couple editors, who all vote with each other to delete. It's CLEARLY meant to get the articles deleted without any chance of fixing those worth saving. There are articles worth saving as a couple that have had work done to them have been kept. Deleting so many so quickly is clearly not in the best interest of writing good articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm guessing that the ones being deleted, happen to be stubs that haven't been expanded in months or more. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. Jazz (Transformers) and Soundwave (Transformers) got nominated today. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Wowsers, those articles shouldn't be deleted. Has Wikipedia decided to do away with fictional or animation based articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Bumblebee (Transformers) and Grimlock now too.
      • (edit conflict) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked I was pretty sure Wikipedia isn't run by one person. Please, tell me what's wrong about nominating articles for deletion if you (reasonably) think they should be deleted? Isn't that the whole point of the discussion part of AFD? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I admitted in the opening that editors have a right to nominate. My question was as to whether politeness can be expected in nominating only articles that deserve it (instead of the seemingly random nominations) and if this is an organized effort (it seems to be the same guys over and over) whether they can be asked to voluntarily limited their nomination to those that can be addressed in time, for the sake of improving the articles over trying to get deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Shirik is right, but I agree those two are two very poor nominations - probably two of the most notable Transformers articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Mass nominations tend to catch people eye. Were these nominations brought to WP:TRANS? GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Although I feel that the notice on my talk page is enough, the nomination for the Transformers article was not meant to be disruptive. Just thought I would say this before someone left a message. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • It's not funny. Don't use the AfD process to make a point. For the record, I could care less about Transformer pages in any way, I'm just speaking on policy and common sense points. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and on the AfD pages. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that the AfD process is working. There is healthy debate on those AfD entries and the consensus on several seems to be to keep. If I'm missing something, let me know but it looks like the debate should really be on those AfDs and not here. -Selket ^Talk 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mathewignash flocculated mediocrity of Transformers articles when others try to remove fansites or fancruft. He puts it back and says the article is OK and the sources are too. How are the articles ever to improve if the inclusionist cliché keep putting ever useless piece of fan cruft and saying its ok. He probably objects to my adding Dinobots sources which is alot more than the inclusionist cliché have done. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the nominator of these article, has nominated them in good faith. This ANI report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • ...and hereby is. --Selket ^Talk 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I got an answer. If there seems to be a concerted effort by a small group to delete a project's articles so quickly the project cannot respond, can anything be done by it? Is it considered suspect that suddenly a couple guys all started nominating articles together, and voting for each other's deletions? I know I'm to assume good faith, but I'm not seeing it here. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you can prove editors have specially have ASKED to vote a certain way or some other method you accusations are baseless Mathewignash. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are any number of consensuses that can be achieved through the AfD process. Some examples are:
  • Keep all
  • Delete all
  • Keep some, delete others
  • Keep some, merge others
• etc. But AfD is the place to work that out. -Selket ^Talk 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the direct answer.Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mathewignash, your repeated characterization of other editors as a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" is unacceptable. You are going wrong in two places:
  1. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. There's a gulf of difference between Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs), for example, and other editors.
  2. You are ignoring the warning rumbles about this that were on your talk page years ago.
• I've gone back through the history of User talk:Mathewignash, and in amongst the reams of warnings about non-free content, I find that in September of 2009 you had a conversation with TTN about transformers articles. Instead of thinking "I'll stop TTN dead in xyr tracks and cite sources showing that xyr claims are wrong." you just carried on blithely, regardless, for another year. (I notice, given that these articles are now being nominated for deletion, that Black Kite came to your talk page to talk to you about list of characters articles with too much non-free content back in February 2008. You had another conversation about these multi-character list articles in August 2009.)

  You talk of "writing good articles". Good Wikipedia article writing involves using and citing sources. You've had conversations about that on your talk page in August 2008 and January 2009. You had a further relevant conversation about sourcing for fiction on your talk page in January 2010.

  This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you have a problem with me, that's fine. I'm only a so-so editor at best. This still fails to explain the sudden deletion nomination of 10-30 articles a day for the past week by a small group, which is the subject of this talk. Sadly it's been explained to me that there is nothing I can do but ask that some of the editors slow down so we can address issues. Some have. I appreciate that. Some have even sided with keeping and improving some of the major articles. It's a nice change, knowing they want to improve, not just delete the articles. Thanks everyone for that! Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't get to dictate a narrow discussion focus in your favour, here, Mathewignash. This is very much also about you, and your continuing failure to do something about a problem with the articles that you've been contributing to that you knew was coming for years in advance. Even now, when someone points out sourcing that xe considers problematic, you utterly fail to get the point and completely fail to address the actual issue. You've had years of warning about this. Learn! Or the discomfort and pressure will continue. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Whether Mathewignash fails to get the point does not justy the mass nomination of over 90 articles in a very short time. That seems rather WP:POINTy to me. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This isn't about justification. It's about how this could have been prevented altogether by taking action a year ago, and gross mischaracterizations of a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol", that you, too, appear to be erroneously buying into. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not buyinG into anything. I'm just point out that these mass nominations are very disruptive, if not WP:POINy. No one is going to "improve" the articles if they have to go through over 90 articles at once. It doesn't matter how much "time" Mathewignash was given, there is simply no excuse for nominating so many articles at once.

            And please stop refactoring my comments into a format you prefer. Plain indents are less trouble to work with and looks neater —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

          • You're buying into it right here. You're still assuming that there's one editor, or an organized group of editors, with an organized campaign to "nominate 90 articles all at once". In reality, there are at least two separate, and as I pointed out above very distinct, groups of editors here. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue here is that so many articles are being nominated in such a short time. Is there really an immediate need to nominate over 90 articles in just two or three days?[1] This is simply too much for anyone to deal with and salvage content that is worth saving. The nominators should be told to "back off" for a while. 10 articles per week is a lot of articles to have to cleanup and search for reliable sources, but it is workable. However, 90 articles at once gives noone a chance to look for reliable sources or determine which articles are better suited to be merged into a list. While I do support the cleanup of the Transformer articles, there is no deadline here and there should be no rush. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen that these deletions seem to be planned. One editor will nominate, then post on the other user's talk page that they "may be interested" in these nomination. Now these are to pages that the second editor has never edited before. I thought you were supposed to notify Wiki projects, article creators, and maybe those involved with the editing of an article about a deletion nomination. Why are people notifying those whose only interest seems to be a history voting DELETE with them on other articles? If you look here User_talk:Dwanyewest#Transformers_AfDs you will see an example. someone nominate a bunch of Transformers articles for deletion, then notifies the user with a history of deletion votes about how they may be interested (in an article they never edited before!) a few memoents later votes for delete have been added. What was the provocation to tell this individual about the deletions besides their history of voting delete? Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[2] These kinds of comments are extremely unproductive and uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So I have been told. It was a reaction to coming home and finding 30 articles nominated for deletion by the same group of guys who have been at it all week. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any good reason the article for Sideways (Transformers) is under TWO nominations for deletion at the same time? Mathewignash (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be called an error--looks like a double click on the tool. :-) I've administratively closed the "first" one, the "second" one is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Danke shane. Mathewignash (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• My problem with Mathewignash and like minded inclusionist when someone tries to remove fansites or fancruft. The immediately cry "notable" and claim fansites are good sources of information. I also the resent the what seems like an accusation that there's some sort of cabal of deletionists or the insinuation I just started editing Transforemers. What about about the inclusionist who go notable but will have a article which merely mentions a subject once in a sentence and call it significant coverage as evidence of notability. I have added alot more actual reliable third person sources on Transformers than alot inclusionists have see the edits of the ones I did below if you doubt me. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The Transformers (TV series)
2. Transformers: Armada
3. Beast Wars: Transformers
4. Dinobots
5. Transformers: Energon
6. Transformers: Cybertron

I still don't understand why the other editors who nominate for deletion are notifying you on your talk page that you may be interested in those nominations, when these are articles you have never edited in your life. Why would they think YOU are the person to notify? If it walks like a organized effort to delete, and talks like an organized effort delete... Mathewignash (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't speak for others motivation maybe it like you say there think I will vote a certain way. I neither endorse or encourage others to vote a certain way. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus on outcomes...

What do we really want to see for transformers? I doubt there's really one answer, but a consensus answer is probably going to look something like...

• Separate articles for the most important characters, as demonstrated by reliable sources, with as much real-world commentary (e.g., how Bumblebee was bought by GM) as possible.
• List articles of the fictional characters not notable enough for their own articles, with verifiable content.
• Less plot information than what we currently have, by a long shot.

But for the life of me, I'm really not seeing how a mass deletion crusade is actually accomplishing any of this. I mean, sure, I suppose it's possible to raise the quality of Wikipedia by deleting poorly written articles... but that's like expelling the struggling students to improve a school's average performance. What I really don't see in all this name calling (cruft, deletionist... they're all pejorative) is a way forward to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Transformers characters. Sure, there's some excision due, but this much? In this haphazard a manner? There's gotta be a better way, really. Have we remembered nothing of POKEMON? Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to fully agree Jclemens. I can't for the life of me see why we would delete an article on the character Jazz. Pokemon, betacommandbot... i guess we don't learn. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above, I believe that the rapid-fire nominations are the results of personal vendettas against Mathewignash. That's not to excuse Mathewignash's unwillingness to bring these articles in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but two wrongs don't make a right. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did think I was bring the articles in line - I just don't want them deleted out of hand, and I don't discount every sites as easily as others seem to. You may notice my voting history isn't to always KEEP, I often vote to redirect or merge minor articles. One of the users who is usually pro-deletion just made a suggestion to me as to a source for many of the articles I might use to help improve them. This was helpful. THANK YOU! Perhaps we can keep some of these articles by actually improving them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does it. I can't stand it. I'm not going to keep quite about this any more. I have no vendetta against Mathewignash, and I take offense to such a statement Farix. I only to fix what is dealy broken. I've asked for his help and incite on my proposed edits on the Megatron and Starscream articles, but they turned a blind eye. Second, can't you see why anybody delete or redirect Jazz, DJ?? Is everybody blind??? A lot of the sources there come from fansites like TF2005 and their message board which as I recall fansites are unreliable sources. So what, are we now going to look away cherry pick guidelines that suits us? Sakes alive the articles damaged goods and you know it. How am I or anybody suppose to clean up this mess form and push the usable stuff to GA or FA if everybody's making excuses for such sorry pieces of work? I'm sorry, but I can't take this molycodling of bad articles anymore. Sarujo (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen when others to reorganise or make some editors will object and say its fine the way it is. In regards to sourcing and removal of info. Besides User:Mathewignash you seem partly responsible for some of the proliferation of mediocre articles such as Transmetal Driver, Mutant (Transformers),Longhorn (Transformers). Besides I am sceptical if any improvements can be made because recommendations were made a year ago, [3] but no action seemed to made. We need to have a minimum agreement of what format Transformers articles should take and what needs to removed. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets look. Transmetal Driver, an article I wrote as a newbie 4 years ago, and have not touched in over 3 years. What is stopping anyone from improving it? Not me. Mutant (Transformers) is a page I created 3 years ago to explain a category, and the category was deleted. Then the page was nominated for deletion, I voted to get rid of it! I don't have the authority to delete old pages, even ones I made. Longhorn (Transformers) is also a page I created 3 years ago and have not touched in 2 years. I created as basically a stub when the character was introduced. The company dropped him as a character, so he never got any coverage since then. I never added anything to it, and it's probably deserving to be deleted or merged, as was proposed. I did not vote to keep it. Why are you complaining? Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait are you addressing me?? I have no memory of ever editing those articles. Sarujo (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing Mathewignash. I should have been more explicit. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suggestions for Transformers character articles layout which is shown, divide them into categories. Because certain characters have multiple biographies. What does everyone else think. I would definitely eliminate things like toys and unofficial releases because they are supported by fansites. What is anyone else view on my proposal.? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

--Cartoon-- Sub catogory 1980s Beast Wars Armada -- Comics -- Marvel Devil Due -- Film -- -- Video Game -- Below will others like popular culture

I might go along with this look. A discussion I had with the user named Eh! Steve we were planing a rewrite to the Megatron article. Wouldn't my proposed format be any good? Also you might want to use a No Wiki format for those proposed sections. Sarujo (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your format or mine is good either way the fancruft such as toys and unofficial toys definitely have to go whatever direction is gone needs to be universally agreed. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It it actually an older format similar to one we used before, but we moved to the current one years ago due to the fact that many times a character from one story will share a name, but not really be the same character. First we seperate the character into the different continuities of the character, we do this since many times the characters are completely different characters from one continuity to another.

• Generation 1 character named Ransack (An Insecticon thief!)

• Armada character named Ransack (A Mini-Con truck who is a sidekic!)

• Movie character named ransack. (An ancient Bi-Plane Decepticon!)

In each section we list an infobox, personality, abilies, and the major appearances of the character by the company, in chronological order by when the company started. Therefore Marvel Comics is first, then the TV series (started a few months later than the comic), then the Dreamwave comics, then IDW Comics, etc. Then a list of the toys for the character. If we didn't do this then we'd end up with some mishmash infobox that says Ransack is a insect/truck/biplane who steals thing, is very old, yet is a sidekick... Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest problem I have with what Dwanyewest did is he didn't talk about it just, he just came in one day (under an anon IP) and re-wrote the Optimus Prime page, deleting major sections without ANY talk. I just reverted him as if he was some vandal, and asked that his proposals be moved to the talk page. He seems to have taken GREAT offense at me as some sort of Transformers article dictator. He did not propose any changes to the Wiki project, he just came in and did a major rewrite to a page in a manner that wasn't the way we had agreed to write the articles in the wiki project - so of course I reverted it! Mathewignash (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just what is the point of talking about such drastic changes to an article when you, Ignash, the sole editor available on the project, won't even give your incite on the proposed change? Have you forgotten the time I tried editing Starscream and Megatron? You reverted my attempts to improve those articles told me to to discussion. When I gave my proposal, you fail to respond. So again I ask, what's the point to discuss something when somebody only responds to something that happens that they don't agree with? Sarujo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific I made an attempt to edit those articles on September of 2008 [4] [5] I made some drastic changes to the Megatron and Starscream articles. You came in and cluster reverted them shortly after. [6][7] Then I did a cut and paste of the two. [8][9] After doing this twice, you came to both Megatron, Starscream, and my asking to discuss the with you the edits. So I complied, and wrote a response figuring that you would respond at my talk page as it seem like the right place to do so. When I got no response after seven days as I didn't realize at the time an editor needs to post a "talkback" template on said poster's corresponding talk page, I went to the Megatron talk page to mention that responded in my talk page. Six days pass, so I cut and pasted my proposal there. Finally, you respond and make a sugestion. Okay so I did. I created my own sandbox and started working on a potential Megatron article uninterrupted. So in April of 2009 (seven months later), I sent word on your talk page for your thoughts on my current progress. No response. It's been over a year now. So again, I ask, what the point? You seem to only care when the article aren't being edited your way. So why should I or anybody do a consensus discussion with any editor who's going to turn the other way on any proposition they just don't like? It seem that mass editing, is the only way to get editors, such as yourself Mr. Ignash, attention. Sarujo (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About that Megatron thing, I'm prey sure listing the Predacon alligator as a version of G1 Megatron falls under fancruft, since that's from interpreting the on-package bio which was written without knowledge of the Beast Wars TV show. It's just a minor, unintentional thing. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NotARealWord (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alot of this is gonna be needed to be started from scratch. Guidebooks must be useful GI Joe use it for characters I imagine Transformers have it for their characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Transformers does have a lot of guidebooks. See here. NotARealWord (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CU results

 Confirmed:

• Claritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nefesf9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anton dvsk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blest Withouten Match (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If I have not mentioned an account, consider it  Unrelated unless a reason comes up to justify running a CU. I will leave to uninvolved admins and the community as far as blocking is concerned. –MuZemike 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

er...how is this related to the transformer thing?--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits of all these users. Very sad, I often disagreed with her but this is shocking to say the least Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, that's what I get for following WP:AGF. I'm too much of a softy. Anyway, I think there are still problems with a lot of the articles. What would people think about consolidating the AfDs? That way the community can have the discussion in one location. --Selket ^Talk 02:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The new sock needs to be blocked; two are already indeffed for socking, so no worries there. Claritas is already retired, but if he/she decides to come back they will need a stern warning about this sock history. Maybe a mentoring from Jack Merridew or something. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly disappointing; I always found Claritas to be a rationale, leveheaded writer. —fetch·comms 03:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like any other editor with a pretty firm agenda, it is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that this conduct has transpired. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Very disappointing that someone will be so hell bent on getting rid of "low risk" articles that they would pull a stunt like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is what it is though. We still need to focus on outcomes. Not everyone who argued for deletion was a puppet. --!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selket (talk • contribs)

True, but when people start socking in AFDs, it's going to taint the outcome, even if it turns out to be the correct one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Blest Withouten Match. What length block is appropriate for Claritas? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• To what extent was the socking disruptive? On a crude search I can't see any use of the socks to !votestack, but of course I might be looking in the wrong places.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it has more to do with the fact that the socks were waging a crusade (essentially) against Transformers articles and nominating a heck of a lot of them for deletion. Thus, some of the accusations made in above sections about a "secret plot" to delete them seems to be accurate. Silverseren^C 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Which causes bad feelings for those arguing for deletion, because they all get tarred by the brush of one cheater. And bad feelings for those arguing for retention, because they wonder if more people are stacking the deck against them. And bad feelings for those of us who just want the whole mess to result in better Wikipedia articles, because none of that will be forthcoming due to all the stupid, avoidable drama. Aaaargh. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Can't believe Claritas has been socking. I knew they were nominating lots of fictional articles but socking? And s/he currently has an an article at FAC. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I haven't followed this situation at all, just kind of stumbled upon it yesterday. On the surface, disruption may not be apparent. From the looks of things, it seems that the Claritas account was arguing for deletion/merging/whatever to reduce the amount of Transformers articles (and I had seen them going at fiction-related articles from a few other franchises in the past few months as well). Then, the account "retired" about a week ago. When the apparently previously innocuous sock account picked up right up with Claritas' work, I think that's the point where it became disruptive. The community tends not to like that sort of bait and switch scenario. "Ooh, I'm gone, but look here, my good friend is ready to pick up where I left off, so there must be more people out there who feel the same way I do!" If I were to make four sock accounts, and spend 10 hours per day editing with all five accounts (two hours per day each, or whatever) on the same thing in the same way, why it would seem that there was a small army of active, like-minded editors out there doing the same thing - and, if that thing "we" were doing were to rub people the wrong way, then that would be a problem, wouldn't it? It taints the water in any discussions where people are trying to determine consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this news makes me feel like I just wasted my time. Sarujo (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is the point where it is important to not give up. This is the point where the single person with the disruptive agenda has been spotted and stopped. This is the point where you should be concentrating upon the other discussions, and the points raised quite properly by other, quite independent, people, not part of any sinister "patrol", who have been trying to discuss and rectify problems for years. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I said that Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs) was distinctive, above. (Mkativerata, this is what is known as a bad-hand account. Fetchcomms, this wouldn't be the first time that someone good at writing about subjects that xe likes takes a slipshod and cavalier approach in nominating for deletion things that xe doesn't like, with boilerplate rationales and no research. Good content writing and tunnel vision about what subjects are "worthy" have gone hand in hand before.)

I also pointed out that Mathewignash, TheFarix, and others were making the error of tarring everyone with the same brush. Jclemens' analysis of why that leads to further problems bears re-reading. There's no way that Black Kite and Blest Withouten Match are part of a "Transformer Deletion Patrol", and this insidious and entirely wrong-headed idea needs to be stamped out before it further affects discussion and editor relationships. One person deciding to go on a crusade (as was clear from the Blest Withouten Match account alone) is quite different from the other people such as Black Kite, J Milburn, and so forth, who have (as can be seen from Mathewignash's talk page) been discussing the problems here for years. The two should not be confused in any way.

Selket, consolidating the discussions was tried. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Proposed centralized transformers discussion. Yes, Claritas closed and moved the discussion. Perhaps, in light of the above, you should see how many editors are now in favour of re-opening it. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The person behind the accounts has only made it tougher for him/herself. If a new account comes along & re-nominates those articles for deletion? it quite obvious who it'll likely be. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Claritas marked the discussion as closed, but was already withdrawn by the nominator due to gathering no support, and somebody else would probably have closed it within minutes anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for block reduction of the Claritas account

Ok. Claritas has screwed up. Royally. But I'm not certain that this (apparently) one-time going off of the rails is enough to consider them banned. They are indefinitely blocked, but as is often said, indefinite != infinite. OTOH, a block of some duration is definitely in order IMHO. So, the question in my mind are, what are the conditions under which Claritas would/could be unblocked? (And, of course, *only* the Claritas account, not the socks.) A length of time? Some sort of restrictions? What are people's thoughts as to what would/could/should be required for an unblock of Claritas? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• See what they say in a year. They were socking with the clear intent to deceive and stack discussions. That is not acceptable, and we need to draw a really bright line. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say nothing less that the standard offer would be acceptable to allow a return. -- Atama頭 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SO specifically says it's not for extremes. I'd say deliberately messing around like this is an extreme. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an extreme the way the essay is meant to take it, as an example of how "extreme" a situation would have to be, it mentions law enforcement involvement. But my opinion is that nothing less than the standard offer should apply, I'm not against a stronger restriction. Wikipedia inevitably has an Achilles heel in regards to sockpuppetry; it's such an easy way for people to manipulate the encyclopedia in very disruptive ways and nearly impossible to prevent beforehand, and we can't be very proactive against that kind of abuse. The only kind of deterrence I can think of is to maintain that we have little tolerance for that behavior so that editors might want to think twice before doing it. -- Atama頭 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the block length kind of moot until (or really, if) Claritas returns from retirement? I say put it as an indefinite block with an explanation for the block on Claritas' talk page and, if Claritas returns by indication on the talk page or some other means, then a review can be made of the block and a decision for the future worked out then. Silverseren^C 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Claritas isn't retired, s/he is merely using sockpuppets. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from Claritas earlier today (before her indef):

Email

Hey, I saw the thread at ANI. I've had a lot of problems with good-hand/bad-handing and socking from the start (several previous accounts - check Adorno rocks). I've coupled the creation of good content on one set of accounts (this one, Adorno rocks, Blest Withouten Match) with outright hoaxing and deception on others (check the article on Paulius Galaune). I've decided to come clean (demonstrated hoaxes on Nefesf9). The principle reason I'm retiring is that I don't think I'm positively contributing to the project, but I'd like, as a token, to get William H. Prescott's article to FA. Could you exempt me from the auto-block so I can answer questions in the candidancy ? I don't mind being indeffed afterwards, and you can check that I don't edit any other page. I'm not going to come back in the near future, because I need to learn to treat the project in a mature way. I'm an aspie, and tend to be obsessed with "gaming systems" (I know about NOTTHERAPY). I hope the Wikipedia community has enough faith in me not to question my contributions on this account. I'm emailing you because from your comment at ANI it seems that you've appreciated my previous work, but you can put this up anywhere if you think anyone else might want to read it. All my previous alternate accounts have been blocked, apart from Claritas-test, which you might want to (just used to see what welcomecreation looks like). Many thanks, Claritas.

I do not think that, based on the consensus here, unblocking would be a good idea, especially due to this admission of using even more socks. I have also blocked Claritas-test (talk · contribs). I am just posting this message on here as xe indicated on xyr talk page that xe was unable to communicate due to the block. Thank you, —fetch·comms 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer (that is, one year with no socking) seems to be the best that could be done for this account now. You might want to add other conditions (full disclosure of all socks, etc...) but i haven't looked into it enough to say more. As for his desire to bring an article to FA -- well, if he has a friend in goodstanding here, they can proxy for him if they care enough. But the kind of socking involved shouldn't be tolerated -- ever -- and his personal desire to "just do one more thing, so please conditionally unblock me" should be refused.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• SO is an essay and one with many issues, can't support it. The block is indefinite and any unblock discussion needs to be had in a central place and a consensus formed. The community was abused, the community can decided at some future time if they want to let her back in.--Crossmr (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the email provided, there is no choice but to permanently ban this user unless and until they undertake to not do what they did. In a year let's revisit this. As to the FA... this is one of those cases, I think, where the good of Wikipedia is best served by allowing Claritas to comment. Use a specific section of their talkpage and transclude into the FA nom as needed. → ROUX ₪ 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should prejudge. Let her conduct during the FAC be a test. I am glad she has come clean, if indeed she has. Then, if she asks for an unblock at some future point, we will have evidence of conduct after the block to help us make a determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles so far claimed to be hoaxes created by the bad-hand accounts, in the above electronic mail quotation and in discussions elsewhere, are:

• Paulius Galaunė (AfD discussion) — cleaned up by Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jonas Asevičius-Acukas

Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• If Claritas has willfully disrespected the project in such a way, why are we entertaining giving this user the undeserved respect of allowing them to fulfill a personal desire within the project? I think exploring this road leads to exceptionism. With the long history of deception shown by this user, admitted to above, what guarantees do we have that this opportunity would not lead to further unforeseen abuses? What message does it send to other disruptive puppetmasters if we grant this exception? I feel this is a demonstration of one of the most severe abuses on the project; a user who tries to sneak their vandalism (see hoaxes above)and bad faith (see AfD nominations and discussions) behind our backs by creating a good editing history on selected puppets. It's shameful and makes a mockery of the project. It's not just disruption, but disruption beneath layers, cloaked by the protection of WP:AGF. I see no reason, no matter how good the contributions of the puppetmaster were, to allow her the privilege of her request in light of the evidence.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm rather disturbed that Claritas' screed on their talkpage talks of how the project is broken and seems to shift responsibility for their own actions away from themselves. Until they can show some internalization of why their socking was a bad thing instead of some attempt to show up "the man" I don't think even the SO should apply. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• At least standard offer. Sockpuppeting is bad and we should not tolerate it. Also, looking at User talk:Anton dvskit seems like he/she was disrupting as part of some "experiment". I'm pretty sure that's not allowed here.NotARealWord (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Albsolutely no unblock under any circumstances. This is not a silly newbie mistake. This is an experienced account who knew exactly what they were doing and chose to use several accounts to actively and deliberately disrupt and sabotage Wikipedia. I'm especially unimpressed with the talk-page rant, the gist of which essentially blames Wikipedia for letting them get away with it, and the email quoted above which tells of an "obsession with gaming systems". Well, no thanks. This user is poisonous to the project and should not be allowed to return under any circumstances. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• No No way, no how. I can live with people vociferously arguing to delete things--there are plenty of people who do that all the time, they're called deletionists. I can live with people "crossing the line" to sock once--I expect we've all been tempted to do so at one point. I can even live with people who disparage our good-faith editors who've lovingly invested in trivia and plot summaries for fictional elements. But I cannot countenance the willful falsification and game-playing that has been admitted above. I don't care what mental defect Claritas' human has: he doesn't get to return, ever, based on his . Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Initially I was fine with Claritas getting off with a stern warning, but given the attitude that has come to light since then, I'd prefer if they stayed gone. Disrupting Wikipedia for fun is even worse than disrupting it to prove a point. We'd have to see some real demonstration of a change of heart, and at some distant point in the future for my feelings to change on that. BOZ (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• No. I dealt with 2 socks (Nefesf9 & Anton dvsk) who created hoaxes. I am a "softy" and I do believe in second chances, but not this time. Even when the user decided to "come clean", s/he still lied in subtle ways. The hoax was also subtle -- hard to notice even if you tried and you were specifically looking for it. After revelation that these were Claritas' socks, I lost any trust in anything the user says. I would not be surprised if there were hoaxes/questionable material added under the main account also. Someone should go thru a sample of edits with a microscope. Renata (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Per this comment at his talk page, I think that two years without touching the project with any socks while making good content as an extended standard offer is a reasonable enough request. If socks are found during the two years, or if he does not abide by any editing sanctions after the two years, he can be blocked without another chance. Claritas has done quite a bit of harm recently, but he has also done quite a bit of good writing, and has recognized what he has done wrong. Two years is a long time, and if the community will try and have a little faith in 2012, this could end up very well, like Jack Merridew has. Claritas seems already to be telling the truth (no sleeper socks or AfD votestacking seems to have been found so far per my quick skim of the below section), and he at least is not so incompetent that he doesn't know what he did was wrong. —fetch·comms 04:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unless someone is wildly abusive or attacking others in real life they should get at least one chance for redemption. A 3 month block would be long enough for me, combined with a 2 year ban from AfD and prodding. Then we could retain the benefit of their excellent writing without the deletion sprees. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember that Claritas' biggest problems weren't anything to do with AFD, they were with (very sneaky) hoaxing in article space. Keeping them away from both AFD and article space doesn't leave a whole lot of room to contribute to the project, and anyone who needs that much restricting, handholding, and monitoring (presumably to include regular checkuser "checkups") would be a net negative for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And yet we let MisterWiki/Diego back in.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Momma always said that two wrongs don't make a right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe- let's see how we all feel, and what Claritas says, in a year or two. If Claritas expresses a desire to return. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-created AfDs

Should the AfD discussions started by Claritas and sockpuppets be closed? NotARealWord (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some of them probably can, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumblebee (Transformers), which is practically a SNOW keep case. But there are others that are renning towards delete consensus and shouldn't be closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, they should be closed with no prejudice to renominating them in small groups after a weeks time (to give the other TF AfDs time work through AfD). —Farix (t | c) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• More importantly what about the AfDs that Claritas has previously started which have since been closed? Given the admission of widespread socking above, is that sufficient probable cause to checkuser Claritas vs. everyone else who ever participated in any AfD in which he !voted? Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would definitely fall into the  CheckUser is not for fishing category. T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No. There's an admission of widespread sockpuppetry. If there's no socking, there's no problem, and no changes needed. On the other hand, the abuse of process appears to have serious ramifications. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Closing now based on that would be a needless invocation of bureaucracy. The bulk of this stuff is unsourced, non-notable fancruft, and apart from 2-3 actually notable subjects, the bulk of the lot is headed towards certain deletion. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're excusing his behavior and discounting the damage it's done to the process, just because you don't think the material is appropriate for Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not what he said and don't you think reinterpreting someones words to cast their views in a certain light is hardly behaviour that will reduce the temperature round here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec)I'm employing common sense. Please give us one good reason why, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackpot (Transformers) should be aborted just because of who the nominator was? Several users have weighed-in with policy/guideline-based reasons to delete the article. The nominator's ulterior motives, if any, have no bearing on that. Tarc (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, the processes have run long enough that it would be stupid to stop them at this point. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing a spot-check on some of the underlying IPs (keep in mind I am currently pressed on time), I'm not really coming up with anything else aside from the four accounts I reported above. I am also reluctant to "fish" indiscriminately through every account who participated or even !voted a certain way in AFDs. If I get time later, and I'm in a good mood, I'll make a more-detailed sweep, but I'll tell everyone right now not to expect anything more.

To comment neutrally on the deletion discussions in which Claritas or socks have started or participated in, as Jclemens noted on my talk page, will the discussions have made any difference with her removed (i.e. did the socking/deception make a difference in the outcomes of the AFDs)? I'm sure the question will come up: would the articles in question ever have been sent to AFD if they weren't nominated by Claritas or any of her socks, despite said discussions that resulted in consensus for deletion (i.e. what Tarc mentioned above)? Traditionally, we tended to let go discussions initiated by banned users (in violation of ban, of course) especially if others have taken the reins of said discussions; this is consistent of our policy of deleting pages created by banned users, i.e. we don't delete said pages if they have had substantial edits by others because of the fact that the community has absorbed the stuff into its collective bloodstream. –MuZemike 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, that is an appropriate clarification and what I had in mind: If socking is found to have affected the outcome of AfDs, those should be reopened and revised. If the CU's say that there's been an appropriate level of scrutiny and that they're satisfied any actual damage has been dealt with, I'm good with that. I would never advocate that an XfD be thrown out based on the existence of socking which didn't affect the outcome, and agree that would be an unreasonable result. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When dealing with this kind of stuff before (Ocean Mystic Researcher and his attacks against RAN come to mind), I've always closed discussions that had not received a delete argument. If someone else has argued for deletion, it seems parallel to the case of a significant edit made by an unknowing user to an article created by a banned editor: to delete the AFD would deprive that editor of his voice.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As MuZemike says, it's standard practice to reopen any closed afd where the socking affected the result. In this case the socking is so extensive that is had affected the atmosphere in dealing with articles on the topic. This discussion has certainly affected all current AfDs . I think that is certainly enough reason to close all ongoing AfDs without prejudice to relisting. It might well be reason to revert any previous deletions on this general topic area. The original idea of having some common discussion remains a good one, though I';d suggest we wait a few weeks. Even though I have usually been opposed to complete deletion for these articles, Claritas was certainly right that something must be done about them. They're overelaborated to the point where even the game fanatics should realize that for Wikipedia, they must be combined and contracted. The misbehavior should't interfere with finding a solution. (And, in a general solution, those article that need to be undeleted to be merged etc. can be dealt with also, thus eliminating the need to reopen them all. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2010-09-09 19:23:54 (UTC)

• The sockpuppetry is extensive, but it is not specific to transformers. The Nefesf9 (talk · contribs) account has contributed to exactly three AFD discussions, none of which were Transformers-related, and two of which were a blatant attempt to wave the bad hand actions in everyone's faces. The Anton dvsk (talk · contribs) account has no AFD discussion contributions at all. That leaves the Claritas (talk · contribs) and Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs) accounts. Pietrodn's tool at the toolserver reports that their contributions intersect at only two user talk pages.

  I agree with Starblind and Tarc. Whilst there's the obvious case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumblebee (Transformers), a mass closure would throw the baby out with the bathwater in some of the other cases, especially a mass closure that isn't even limited to just the single disruptive sockpuppetteer. Yes, the misbehaviour shouldn't interfere with finding a solution. But closing "all ongoing AFD discussions" because of it would be to let it have a disruptive effect. Tarring discussions started by Black Kite, NotARealWord, and others with Claritas' brush would be letting the disruption succeed. Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any vote stacking; wikistalk shows no unpleasant overlap. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • My point was to go back to Jclemens earlier suggest at the head of the section: Focus on outcomes. Regardless of the socking, we still have to deal with the transformers articles, and a centralized discussion remains the only reasonable way to do this, no matter who started or contributed to any previous or past AfD. A degree of inconsistency cannot be avoided with Wikipedia processes, but we should seek to minimize this. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Proposed centralized transformers discussion bears revisiting. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any good reason to overturn any affected AfD deletions. Without !votestacking (no-one is suggesting there was any) it's hard to say the outcomes were tainted to the extent that they should be revisited. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar nit-picking on discussion pages

Resolved

 – User blocked for one week by Fram and cautioned against future similar behaviour. –xeno^talk 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing kerfuffle involving Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) at the Reference Desk, where any errors of grammar or spelling draw him to offer sarcastic corrections, disingenuous questions feigning confusion, or even long-winded tirades wherein he insists that other editors are deliberately misusing "it's" versus "its" (or is it the other way around?) in their writing. C3 has been encouraged to vent his grammatical spleen on Wikipedia articles to his heart's content, but advised to leave minor errors in discussion pages and talk page posts alone: User talk:Cuddlyable3#Reference-Desk woes. Currently, he's actively harassing User:APL on his talk page (User talk:APL#Bottle shape) where he has continued to post on APL's talk page despite being twice told not to (in that thread). APL made a third, explicit request yesterday to C3 to either cease and desist or take the matter to a higher-level forum ([10]); I was hopeful that that would settle the matter. Unfortunately, today C3 instead decided follow up with another salvo on APL's talk: [11], [12].

While I would normally just write this off as a contributor being silly over nothing and encourage him to have a cup of tea, this particular case is part of a pattern. In the last week or so, C3 has started at least three threads on Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk, bemoaning the state of grammatical knowledge among Wikipedia editors in general, or specifically attacking and belittling other Reference Desk volunteers.

• 30 August: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#IT'S is the contraction of IT IS
• 1 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#In the beginning was the Word (uncollapse the box for absurdity).
• 6 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Unpopular guideline? (uncollapse the box for more absurdity).

Additionally, on 30 August I asked him not to make snide posts on the Ref Desk itself when other editors made minor (but utterly comprehensible) errors of grammar. The thread is currently at User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Please don't post snide comments about other editors' grammar on the Ref Desk, as C3 is unwilling to retain any posts critical of his conduct on his own talk page.

Despite being told repeatedly to just move on, he just can't help trying to keep making a disruptive WP:POINT. I was on the receiving end of attacks from C3 in July (in yet another, similar overreaction, C3 responded to an editor calling him a "grammar nazi" by slapping up pictures of Gestapo victims, called another editor who removed a non-free image a "Holocaust denier", issued a timed ultimatum for another editor to consent to mediation over unspecified issues, and called me a "Nazi trivializer") so I don't feel it would be appropriate to issue blocks myself.

Regrettably, C3's grammar obsession has reached the point where it is disruptive to the Reference Desk — not only is he repeatedly clogging the talk page with long screeds on the same topics, but he is also harassing the other volunteers who offer a great deal of their own time and effort to help respond to visitors' queries. Asking him over and over to stop hasn't worked; I am now asking for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you pointed them to the talkpage behaviour guideline section, where the first two sentences are, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. "? As it is part of the WP collegiate environment not to harrass other editors on grammatical lapses, then it might be pointed out that they are being disruptive rather than just pointy - and that sanctions are a real possibility. Personally, I think they should be given one more chance, now being aware that it is they that are in violation of WP practice, to amend their behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I issued such a warning. I should think that if it continues, any admin may enforce a short block in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk)

He is well aware of that guideline. He reads it as only prohibiting outright editing of others comments, while providing unlimited license for snide remarks and ranting tirades. Algebraist 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I likewise don't feel I'm in a position to act as an administrator, but I think we're easily past the point of initial awareness. C3 knows, and has known for some time, that the community disapproves of his behavior, finds it disruptive, etc, etc. His response has been to escalate the conflict, twisting policies to support his crusade. I'm not objecting particularly to "one more chance", just noting that the rationale LHvU has offered is (while worthwhile) not terribly applicable. — Lomn 13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict) I am slow to post; I had written this in response to LHvU's note.) Not to mention that this is a serious problem under the civility policy: "belittling a fellow editor". For one example, "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". This is absolutely unacceptable. I agree with LessHeard vanU, but if this contributor has already been specifically advised of WP practice would think immediate sanctions not amiss. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) He has posted at least twice a selected quotation from elsewhere in that guideline (the 6 September thread on WT:RD, and the thread linked on my talk page); I don't think the problem is a lack of policy awareness. He reads the passage "Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say" as meaning that he can and should post an snide question in response whenever he sees a grammatical or typographical error, no matter how unambiguous the meaning of the passage might be from context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ten... please tell me the section title was meant as sarcasm?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good lord — I wish it were. That's what I get for typing before coffee. The worst part is that C3 will think I was being an idiot deliberately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with an anchor so I don't break any incoming links to the section. Gah. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators may refer to the talkpage guidelines from which LessHeard vanU has correctly quoted.

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

If anyone feels I have violated "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" then I offer my abject apology, which they may have directly if they will be kind enough to provide a diff that shows the offence. A separate subject of apparent mistaken homophone contractions, or more lucidly "messed up apostrophes", is addressed in the last two sentences of the guideline quoted above. I think it would be good now for any admin who is not involved in work at Ref Desk to advise whether the guideline is adequate. Until that happens, it is a guideline that was kept up to now by consensus. I have no argument with that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That guideline should be understood in context with other policies and guidelines - such as WP:CIVIL, which asks us to participate in a respectful and considerate manner - deriding other editors with rude and disrespectful commentary about minor grammar isn't really on board. Kindly cease out the behaviour in question. –xeno^talk 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly you seem to be being awkward and violating the spirit of the community. It could even be judged as uncivil. Secondly the first line states: so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. This is quite clear in not referring just to editing but to correcting someone generally. Persistent correction of their grammar in the wrong forum is definitely uncivil and in violation of that guideline. Is what you are saying adding to the conversation? Is it helpful or constructive? Is their meaning unclear when you make these comments? From a quick review the answer is no, not really. Such action is, again, against policy. Finally, there seems a strong consensus for you not to do this, I advise you stop. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel you have violated the policy Wikipedia:Civility by belittling fellow editors and have linked to an example above where you said to an editor "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". Contributors are not required to be perfect in writing; however, we are required to deal respectfully and civilly with other contributors. In addition, your persistence seems problematic under the policy Wikipedia:Harassment, as it "appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor (Cuddlyable3) for one week for harassment and disruptive editing (including continued wikilawyering). His comment in this discussion makes it clear that no change in behaviour is to be expected, despite the multiple discussions about this and the fact that many editors have indicated that his behaviour is unacceptable or at least very unproductive. As always, if there is consensus to overturn this block, or if someone feels that a reasonable unblock request is made, then I have no objections to any admin changing this block. Fram (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some indication of understanding the issue, that seems reasonable to me. Previous history of harassment blocks suggests that this is not a new approach to working with others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Reference desk (the main refdesk project-space pages, not just their WT: counterparts) are discussion pages, visited by lots of non-fluent English speakers (including some very knowledgable mathematicians at the math desk) and nobody should care about imperfect use of English there. If someone ask an English grammar question at the Language desk, that's the right place to address the fine points. Otherwise don't worry about it. There's enough trolling at refdesk already without this extra nuisance. Endorse WP:TROUT with admin sanctions to follow if the problem goes on. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Fram's block (with the conditions specified) is fine. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuddly's argument seems to be that we need to respond to questions in perfect English, in order to (subtly) better educate the questioner. I think that's a laudable goal in theory, but that he carries it too far in practice. As discussed on the ref desk talk page, he should take his complaints to the responder's talk page rather than doing it on the ref desk, and he should be much more gentle about it. And if someone tells him to stop correcting his usage, he should stop, with that particular user. Correcting other people's usage "in public" is extremely rude. I'm also kind of a stickler for usage, at heart, especially my own, but I almost always let it slide when I see it in others. I'm always glad to hear from Cuddly when I make an error. But some others would just as soon be left alone, and that's their right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument sounds close to trolling. I'm a mathematics refdesk regular, and several math experts answering questions there are non-native English speakers who make English errors all the time, but their mathematical advice is invaluable no matter how bad their English is. Bugging folks about their English in contexts like that is about the dumbest thing anyone could do. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." –xeno^talk 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually, yes, surely; I merely plead that we not robotically slave the RD rules to whatever policies have been agreed upon for article talk pages, which exist for a very different purpose. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In any event, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT are universal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; as I wrote above, I'm not disputing any measures taken above. I'm only trying to head off any future classification of the Reference Desk as an article talk page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The ref desks are kind of a special case. They are clearly not articles. They're structured like talk pages. But they're not quite talk pages either. Cuddly's error is in his notion that the rigors of English usage in articles should apply to the ref desks just because they are technically not talk pages. But they are closer to being talk pages than to being articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support this block. Pages and pages of interminable pointless conversation have made it clear to this user that his behavior is disruptive, and she's been warned to stop by several people, including myself. Since neither discussion nor warning has been effective in stopping the unpleasant behavior, the block is necessary. (To be honest, I had rather thought she would stop, and stopped reviewing her edits after a few days past my warning. I'm disappointed to have been wrong.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

She? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose a novel solution. Unblock the user, and allow them to continue on their former path. If any of their posts contain a grammatical error or spelling mistake - even the most trivial typo - block them for a week, and then a month, two months and so on. That'll learn 'em. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a fantastic idea. → ROUX ₪ 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside frombeing both punitive and pointy, you mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TenofallTrades has posted a condition for unblocking on User talk:Cuddlyable3. As of this post, he has not indicated acceptance or rejection by commenting on his talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has said something, which could be described as incivility. It seems they don't care that what they did was wrong. A week almost seems too short, with the above. Even after a block, they're still nit-picking peoples' grammar/spelling, and even further, poking fun at it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask the user that Cuddlyable3 mentioned whether he thinks it is incivility. I do not view it as incivility. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera - Image issues

Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a troublesome editor who just doesn't seem to get the message about uploading non-free images. As of right now, I have counted 47 unheeded warnings that have been posted to his talk page, most about images that he's uploaded. He has also been involved in several content disputes but the main issue here is images. Editors have tried to provide advice over that provided in warning templates,[13][14][15][16] but he has ignored the advice, going so far as to place a warning on his talk page to other editors, telling them not to complain about the pictures he's uploaded.[17] Most recently, he uploaded a new version of File:Homicide life on the Street.jpg without updating the source information for the file. I reverted the change and warned him.[18] Instead of following my advice, he simply reverted the to the image he'd uploaded, still without updating source information.[19] With so many similar warnings over the seven months that he's been editing here, he should have gotten the message now but hasn't. It seems that he needs a more firm advice push in the right direction than I can give him. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed their contributions, I'm seeing a general lack of willingness to communicate overall, despite being warned multiple times that this isn't appropriate. If Langston continues to be unresponsive to discussion about the issue (including this thread), I think a block may be in order, but I'll leave some time for them to weigh in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing over 10 uploads of images without providing any source - CSI NY & CSI Miami. I'll work at reverting and deleting them under F4 (no source). My opinion is that a block would be in order given the ongoing response to the multiple warnings. Skier Dude (talk 04:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Langston Bonasera has been conspicuous by his absence since this discussion was commenced and this discussion fell off the page without being resolved. I hope I've restored it to the correct position. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvienience, but from the site that is using the FBI Seal illegally I don't think you have the right to critisise, so in the words of Bonasera, "I'm gonna make this easy for you. I Quit." I'll hand my badge (user account) in ( leave it abandoned ). Langston —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

The "FBI seal" isn't an issue. It's all of the other images that you've uploaded that are of concern. As for quitting, I'm not really convinced that your claim is genuine based on recent edits. Not long ago you created a new account and said you were going to use that instead.[20] After using it for a short time you "abandoned" it and returned to the old account. Today, less than half an hour after confirming that you're quitting,[21] you're back to using Rizzoli Isles again.[22][23] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the talk page of the new account. If they continue with problematic uploads, they should be blocked. Fences&Windows 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with Langston for some time. After this discussion, this user wrote on their Langston Bonasera page "Replaced content with 'I <3'd this Wikipedia account, but you've all ruined it, thanks guys. I hope you all get cut by very sharp knives, forks and spoons". It was removed as inappropriate by another user, but perhaps this and the "I quit" then promptly using another account are indications this user must be watched carefully for further trouble. I personally would like to see them become a good contributor, but have some doubts from responses and lack of response to polite direction I and others have given them. I am sure age (mid to late teens) has something to do with this, but is not an excuse for refusal to comply with rules as well as the rude and petulant behaviour. Trista (cannot log in at work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

use of pages in userspace

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.

WP:STICK, heat >>> light --Jayron32 04:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

This section is a good example of something that needs to be addressed. I warned user about not using Wikipedia as a social network and user tells me to "get off my back and fuck off!" Meanwhile, user has continued to use talk page as a forum in follow-up edits. Civility and policy issues with this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• More neutral title and, given the context I see no reason for admin intevention here. If I were in the same situation I would undoubtedly react to your unwarranted lecture in similar ways. The user is contributing to article space and has wide lattitude, as does every other user, to use their userspace as they will within reason. This was well within reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur. You left a rather abrupt template on her talk page, and then complain when she doesn't take it with a thank you? There's a reason WP:DTTR is good advice, and you needed to have followed it here- or even better, to have investigated the situation some more before inserting yourself into it. If you have a problem with an experienced editor, some discussion goes a lot farther than a newbie template. Courcelles 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Editors will sometimes communicate in a social or friendly manner in their userspace. I have editors I know IRL or off-wiki, and discussing things of a personal nature, from time to time, does not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The issue is the number of social edits as relative to the number of project-relevent edits. This is I don't see where this user is any kind of a problem at all. This user is a good content editor, and I see no reason they should not be left alone. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Especially given the sensitivity of the post referred to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I would also have told you to fuck off, and stop templating people who are in mourning for sharing their feelings with their friends on Wiki. I'm disgusted that this was your response to reading that post. If you had to say anything at all, words of sympathy would have been appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be spitting fire and venom if someone did that to me; I'd probably use even stronger language than that. I don't like sympathy (directed at me) much, but templating me would be far worse. I can AGF that the OP was just taking NOTMYSPACE a bit too seriously, but I hope that they don't do this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTMYSPACE, as I see it, was created for people who appear to regard this place as a place to network— beyond that, I'm fairly sure we're allowed to have lives that interfere with editing once in a while, and to express that. We're a community. sonia♫ 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I should also point out WP:IAR. A little friendly communication once in a while can go a long way towards cooperative editing, which leads to improvement of the project. I'd say as long it's not a user's primary purpose on this encyclopedia it's more than acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I know this is marked "resolved", but I think there's maybe an opportunity for another bit of resolution. I once templated a good-faith content editor. They'd requested article protection at WP:RFPP, I lectured them about something entirely different, there was a heated exchange, and then I stepped back and thought about things. I went back to the editor's talkpage, apologised, and suggested we start over. We started over. I learned a huge amount of background stuff about serious issues on-wiki that the editor was dealing with in the course of her content work. Embarrassingly, the editor forgave me, and came to regard me very positively. I still have to remind her that I was a WP:DICK. She doesn't care. The editor? DocOfSoc. My point, obviously, is that this can end positively for both parties. Atlantabravz has behaved far better than I did, so I'd suggest an amicable resolution is a very real possibility. TFOWR 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Retired

It appears, unfortunately, that the sound advice expressed in some of the replies above has fallen on deaf ears. It's a shame, really, because I know that it wasn't the intention of any of those that commented for Atlantabravz to reach this conclusion. —DoRD (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shame. Clearly templating was a very bad idea but (s)he did have a reasonable point to make. :( --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable point, yes, but the choice of place, time, and method for making that point couldn't have been more poorly-chosen. Nonetheless, Atlantabravz seems to be a rather productive editor so I hope that, in time, he rethinks his decision. —DoRD (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He made a report that didn't go his way. Who here hasn't? To "retire" over it... this is past the "fourth grade", and no one needs to "coddle" him back here. He's been here since March of 2007. Please... Doc9871 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is terrible. Getting told to "fuck off" is unacceptable, and not only did AN/I not reasonably address his complaint, more than one commenter said they would've said worse(!) No wonder he left, this is like going to the police to report a rape and having the police chief say "Too bad, I would've raped you twice." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if you walked up to someone and punched them in the face, they punch you back, and you go crying "assault!" to the police. Atlantabravz has some serious fucking nerve IMO dropping that warning template into the middle of DocofSoc's talk page comment about autism; it was rude, terribly inappropriate, and the response was exactly what he deserved. I'd have to wonder just how Atlantabravz came upon this talk page topic in the first place. Have these two had prior interactions? Given this bit of harassment by a banned user not long after, something doesn't sit well here. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We can walk around with analogies all day but at the end of the day Atlantabravz did something silly, Doc responded in an unacceptable way, Atlantabravz went on and took it to AN/I inappropriately and... AN/I failed to AGF and swung an axe. Lets just let it lie. Doc is now aware of the accepted policy on the use of user space (even if not in the best way) and Atlantabravz is chastised (even if not in the best way). [EDIT: FWIW I agree with/support Atlantabravz's point] --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be let lie. We lost a valuable contributor because ANI failed to respond appropriately to a perfectly reasonable complaint. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I regret that Atlantabtavz decided to retire, but he absolutely was *not* in the right here. Doc left a post on his own talk page, noting that his granddaughter has died (from a seizure induced by her autism). Atlantabravez responded by dumping a "not a social network" template on it, which is appalling. Yes, Doc should not have dropped the f bomb in his response, but Atlantabravez got flamed at AN/I for being in insensitive clod. Retiring is a disproportionate response, but obviously others disagree. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is a terrible event for Doc (she has written about it before on her user page a number of times). But Wikipedia is not the place for grief therapy. We should be willing to support members suffering, but this entire episode is a reason why updates/commentary such as Doc's should be discouraged. I recommend off-wiki contact via email as the best way to go and a slap on the wrist to Atlantabravez for insensitivity :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. An editor posts a few graphs on their own talk page commemorating the death of a granddaughter 10 years ago, speaks a little bit of their grief and the difficulties imposed by the deceased child's extreme lack of empathy (as a consequence of autism)... and gets a "not a social" network template slapped on them by some jerk (completely lacking empathy themselves, it seems).. do i have this right? And then the template slapper storms off in a huff because they got a rough response for their thoughtless intervention on the other editors talk page? Good riddance, I say.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I still think the AN/I response was inappropriate. Telling him he acted like an insensitive jerk is fair; what was said is not. Atlantabravz had correct advice to give; (s)he was not particularly insensitive about it, but the whole reason for having such guidelines is born out in this thread. It is sad and silly. It is inappropriate to abuse a good faith action, even if it was a mistake --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a good faith action - an incredibly stupid, insensitive, and nasty good faith action. The sort of action that makes us look like martinets and bullies. A fuck-free response might have been more appropriate, but the mood and tenor of the response was entirely appropriate. I certainly wouldn't have wasted more than two words to communicate my response to such an insult. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize you're doing your best here, but do understand that in any adult, professional environment, Atlantabravz would be facing the full wrath of HR. and Starblind's rape metaphor could have serious consequences. No society, workplace, environment, or project can sustain itself while actively punishing people for a moment's grief. 70.120.174.67 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all a perfect example of why the civility policy matters. Most of the time the little throwaway unkindnesses are just that; sometimes, they lead to grossly exaggerated drama and people seriously hurt and sometimes leaving.

Original (now departed) poster failed to understand that their message was brusque and rude and violated civility. Response was rude, however justified it was, and that made it worse. A number of people up above were rude.

To those of you who were casually abusive above - Think about what you did. The messages could have been communicated in a non-abusive manner. You didn't have to go push someone off Wikipedia to make the point you were making.

Him leaving was not a predictable result, and you're not at fault for that (his decision), but you all certainly contributed by creating a hostile environment for him.

Casual abuse is never good. Please don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The casual abuse was the template. And cruel. And thoughtless. The response -- telling the abusive templater "to fuck off" in a moments grief was no big deal.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absolute nicest way possible; it appears Doc's niece died several years ago, and her sister in March. I am sure she still feels awful grief for those moments, and my sympathy goes out to her - but the ongoing updates to WP are inadvisable, for exactly this sort of reason. Atlantabravz just picked completely the wrong way to raise that point. It does not excuse the responses above which were extremely uncivil (Doc's response can be excused, the above certainly can not). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries still hurt. So what if time has passed? This is a classic case of valuing civility over common sense. If you behave in a hurtful and insensitive way and them ask for feedback you can't complain when people are honest in response. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I might misunderstand, but you appear to be arguing that the ongoing updates to WP are inadvisable because someone might abuse her for them. The ethical response is not to silence DocofSoc, but confront the user who placed that abusive template, and then the admin who compared her to a rapist. I do agree that the situation is not best served by the "casual abuse" of Atlantabravez; a formal, final warning, followed by a lengthy block if the templating was repeated, would be best. 70.120.174.67 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sorry but I have no sympathy. The OP acted in an insensitive and careless manner that would have inevitably brought the recipient pain. Their reaction to this arrant stupidity was human and understandable in the circumstances and prattling on about civility completely misses the point that human interactions lead to human responses. What if the original template had driven off the recipient? No-one would have cared then because decorum would have been maintained but it would (unfortunately) be further evidence of what a po-faced over serious and self-important place we have become. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sums up nicely why the civility policy as it's currently policed is such a childish waste of time Spartaz. It might as well be renamed the naughty words policy. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Having rules requiring civility and avoid personal attacks is a good idea, but the policies aren't as black and white as you make out. WP:NPA has this sensible advice: "Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all." If the OP had simply realised that their templating was insensitive and had backed off, then they'd not have retired in a huff. Instead, they made no attempt to discuss it as advised ("If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page") and came here demanding sanctions. To retire based on this incident is totally disproportionate - but we can't legislate for poor judgment. Fences&Windows 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree DocofSoc posted a blog-like entry , not a comment to someone nor text for an article and this actually does violate WP:NOTMYSPACE, sections 1 and 4, to be exact, and yet, he's getting flamed for enforcing policy ???

Yes, I understand policy , in many cases , isn't black and white and some leeway can be provided and that yes, it can be done with community consensus. However, Braves followed what is the current written policy and not only does he get flamed for it, but docofsoc gets excused for an incivil post ? If you want to change the policy (and it looks like that's what has happened here, per consensus) then change it, but don't flame him for enforcing the policy that's in place now.

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the disagreement. Section 1 prohibits personal web pages: this was one post on a talk page. Section 4 only applies in the main article space. TFOWR 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Enacting Community Bans

I just banned Libb Thims after a discussion at AN. Ryulong raises an interesting point about whether my block notice should include the boilerplate about how to appeal a block. I'm not sure what the policy is on that and would appreciate views on whether this should be removed and whether banned users are allowed to post unblock messages. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of mercy. Should he request unblocking, let it be assayed on it's merits. MtD (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that banned users were not welcome to edit here at all, which includes their former user talk pages. Ban appeals can be made by email to Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this isn't a ban imposed by ArbCom, it's a thing that has been done by a handful of worthies on AN. All I'm suggesting is that should he post a block appeal, we should consider it. Just coz. The quality of mercy and all that. MtD (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bans imposed by "handfuls of worthies" are not in a different category from Arbcom bans (or indeed Death By Jimbo). They're just bans, and in this particular case good ones; the user apparently devotes his online life to pushing his fringe science, so it is beyond unlikely that he's going to be able to edit constructively here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Except it would be misleading to tell a banned user that they can only appeal to ArbCom by email when (in fact) they are not the only body that has standing to consider such appeals (see also banning policy). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "only", I just said "can" - which is basically what the ban review policy says. It's one of multiple options. The point was that editors who are not welcome to contribute here don't need to keep their user talk privileges for the purpose of appeal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well why don't we see what the wretch does? Should he decide to appeal to ArbCom, so be it. Should he decide to throw himself upon the mercy of the community -- well let's hope he can throw that far. Whatever we should not be punitive, rather we should give in to our gracious selves. MtD (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to community bans, ban appeals are not limited to AC, and users are permitted to post unblock requests - but administrators are not permitted to accept them in the absence of a community consensus to lift the ban. The reason for this is if the user wants to appeal the ban, it's usually the administrator who notices the unblock request who will need to forward the appeal to the community. This part may not be clear from the theory outlined in policy.
• All that said, in regards to the talk page notification, a polite and less bot-like message ought to be typed and a standard block notice should probably not be used. The talkpage notice should mention the duration of the ban (if it is a definite duration), the link to discussion, and must refer the banned user to Wikipedia:Ban#Review_and_reversal_of_bans on how to appeal the measure taken (unless there are additional appeal terms in the text of supported ban - for example, some bans specifically include "may not appeal before 6 months of the ban has passed" in which case this should be specified in the notice too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Community bans have a number of procedural problems on their own, but we shouldn't make it worse by denying them basic due process. Notice and a chance to be heard are basic principles of any fair system (and a few not fair ones). We'd be a joke if we didn't allow a reasonable opportunity for an editor to be heard.

I might also add that I agree with some comments earlier this week that there are way too many block first and ask questions later. Editors that aren't clearly pure-vandals deserve a chance to respond. This kind of decency shouldn't be new to most of the regulars here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It stands to reason that community banned editors should be able to appeal to the community, as Ncmvocalist discusses above; if allowing them to edit their own talkpages as an exception to the ban would encourage gaming, perhaps they should be directed to email unblock-en (or whatever the exact address is), at which point those monitoring that list could post the ban appeal here. Skomorokh 14:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned users have an option to appeal, via e-mail to ArbCom. They can also communicate with other editors via e-mail or IRC and ask those editors to post an unban request here or at WP:AN on their behalf.

"Fairness" does not require multiple outlets for appeal, simply that appeal be possible, and banned means banned - a banned user's contributions are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear about this... There's a distinction between whether or not the banned user has an opportunity for appeal early on in the process, before the ban (or immediately after it) and appeals some time later, weeks or months. The former needs to be in a less cumbersome, and more open, method than arbcom emails. If you're point's only about the latter then I agree with you. But it would be a mistake for the only avenue for appeal at any time to be arbcom. That method is not open, doesn't involve the wider community, and simply won't generate the attention required. As big as this encyclopedia and community have become, the farflung policy pages don't always get a very wide selection of editors willing or able to comment, and that's a serious problem, especially when things move quickly. That is, fundamentally, my main hesitation regarding community bans. Shadowjams (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I think you have missed the point of my comment and some of the discussion preceding it; community bans ought to be able to be appealed to the community. ArbCom should not be involved unless something has gone awry with our standard methods of handling matters. Skomorokh 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not missed the point, I have disagreed with you. It is sufficient that community bans be appealed to Arbcom, or that an appeal to the community be brought up by a third party. I see no necessity for a banned editor to be allowed to directly appeal their ban to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that sweeping sort of approach isn't helpful. It would be another story if user was trying to circumvent the ban (testing limits), or has misused their talk, or it's an exceptional thing (eg personally identifiable information, other privacy issues), or the user needs/wants to use another appeal body or off-wiki venue. But where none of that is applicable, and the user has complied, I see it as needless bureaucracy if an user is forced to use an off-wiki means to simply appeal to the community. That is, where we are asked by a subject to modify/remove something we ourselves imposed, it's we who should consider the matter due to procedural fairness. In those circumstances, there is no reason to make us less accessible by forcing users to use email/IRC; I don't see any wisdom in discouraging on-wiki transparency in favour of secrecy and mouthpieces. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a social justice workshop, it's a privately-owned publicly-oriented website which exists for the specific purpose of creating an encyclopedia. It has every right to protect itself from disruptions which prevent that from happening, including the potential disruption of a banned user making public appeals to be unbanned. A banned user has already been deemed, by the community, to be a disruptive element, and therefore can not be trusted to use that appeal wisely. Let the banned editor take their appeal to a duly appointed committee which can act, if necessary, as a check on the community's judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the same way that Wikipedia has every right to protect itself from disruption, it has every right to give users an opportunity to demonstrate that since the ban was imposed, they are both willing and able to improve the project (or that they can be an asset). Where you mention that a banned user was deemed as too disruptive, you miss the crucial part that the user was deemed as too disruptive at a particular time and in a particular context. Consensus can change anytime after the circumstances change (consensus is not immutable). If someone wants the community to review its judgement on something, it should be able to do exactly that without being bound by undue reliance and unnecessary bureaucracy - which Wikipedia is not. Chances are that the community will fix any genuine mistakes much more effectively than other users or bodies will because the community is more familiar with the past circumstances. The same goes for where the community's judgement was sound but circumstances changed, and where judgement was sound but circumstances have not changed. I think the community should not give up that right for dubious reasons, and that both routes should remain.

All that said, I think stats on the following would be useful: "how many users has the community banned each year (over the last couple of years)", "how many of these users talk pages were protected", "how many of these users appealed - how many to the community? how many to ArbCom? how many to both?", and "what was the outcome of each of these appeals?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for this page?

Please excuse me if this is the wrong venue. My rationale for posting this here is that it would affect those(meaning admins) that commonly check this noticeboard.

.. To the topic,

I notice that time and time again, users post here when there is an AIV backlog. What if we simply used a template to post a notice to the top of this page when AIV became a certain size in bytes?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Without dismissing this idea, it is not a case of administrators simply being unaware that backlogs exist; we already have WP:BACKLOG for that. In many cases, a personal plea, for all its admitted faults, is a lot more effective in drawing volunteers (speaking from personal experience). On another note, the header sections of these noticeboards are bloated at least five times more than is appropriate; if there were an automated digest, I'd rather it was added as a section or footer. Skomorokh 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BACKLOG doesn't appear to contain lists for administrative-based things, like AIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How often is it really backlogged though? They may pile up every so often, but does it ever get out of hand to the point of being truly backlogged? Jmlk17 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See the administrative subcategory and linked pages. Skomorokh 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Daedalus raises a good point, even though those other mechanisms exist, it's clearly not preventing the frequent backlogs that arise.   Thorncrag  21:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point above; ceteris paribus, no amount of automation will. Skomorokh 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it  :-)   Thorncrag  22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are also probably right, but I'm not convinced this is a better way of not ignoring it than the existing method as described by the OP. Cheers, Skomorokh 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What if we used a div to float a box in the bottom left, or right, displaying the notice?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With a hide option?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like there are already places where the backlog notifications get posted--the backlogs happen anyway because nobody looks in those places. That includes the headers of this page (which probably don't get looked at much either). So they get posted as ANI threads, because people do notice those. Main alternative I can think of is a subscription bot that delivers notices to usertalk pages of admins and others who want to receive them. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've whipped up {{AIVBacklog Notice}} which will place a floating notice in the bottom-left corner if AIV is 6000 bytes or more.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this thread by Daedalus969. Just in passing, I do not have much to add, but would not be opposed to the idea. I doubt it will really get in the way, and it may prove helpful to those who choose to head over to AIV when the see it. Just my 2 cents though. Tiptoety ^talk 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:213.33.31.120 @ Gaza War

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

I am requesting the rollback of IP User:213.33.31.120 and a short preventative block on editing from the address. The IP has made very questionable edits:

• [24] (removal of sourced info with additions of unsourced info contradicting it)
• [25] (what appeared to be more trolling)
• [26] (some more with the removal of a source)
• [27] (the only edit that isn't blatantly terrible. The POV is a little much, though)

I have asked the IP to provide reasoning numerous times.[28][29][30][31][32] It might be a troll, it might be a sock (he appears to know about templates), or it could just be a new IP. Regardless, the edits are just too questionable.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And now the IP is edit warring to get something he deems as most important to the top of an article regardless of general layout practices.[33][34] The whole Yesha Council thing was his provided reasoning over at Gaza War.

This is an obvious case of disruption and needs to be taken care of.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And this one doesn't even make sense [35]. Obvious disruption is obvious. As the diffs pile up I might just take it to the vandalism board.Cptnono (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are starting a vandal witch hunt. It is way past midnight your time, go to sleep. It will clear your mind. --213.33.31.120 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for vandalism. Competency and POV may also come into it, but vandalism works for me. The IP's comment above sealed the deal. TFOWR 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is back now to try avoid his block. [36] LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.11.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Blocked for 3rr from this IP itself, I didn't look at AN/I or its nearby IPs for a deeper pattern or evasion. Other admins feel free to lengthen or rangeblock. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He is continue to edit war and vandalise can someone please do something about that? LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also this one is another [37] LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • 213.6.46.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      • Was blocked recently. This is either a sockfest or IP rotating or somesuch. Loooong-term problem with similar wording in talk-page whines (in addition to WP:DUCK of the edits to several settlement articles). WP:COMPETENCE indeed. If the settlers aren't people (NB: not even "people who happen to be settlers), there's really nothing except WP:RBI and move on. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Sheesh, give these twits access to the internet and you never hear the end of 'em... HalfShadow 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by GregJackP

There is no consensus to overturn the article ban (instead, six administrators have supported a general climate change topic ban of GregJackP of up to six months in length) and the discussion is beginning to devolve into yet another climate change battleground, so I am closing this appeal as declined.  Sandstein  11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Article ban on Climate change alarmism, imposed at GregJackP's talk page, logged at WP:GS/CC/L#Log of sanctions Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notification of that editor NuclearWarfare notified [38], William M. Connolley notified [39], Wikispan notified [40]. Statement by GregJackP NuclearWarfare imposed a sanction that was in error. His sanction stated: "This is ridiculous. You are going probably going to cite this action as an example of my abusing my admin tools or something, but: consider yourself banned from Climate change alarmism. When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. Doing so otherwise is blatant disruption. NW (Talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)" First, my only edits to the article as to this matter were: [41], reverting a removal by William M. Connolley and adding a source from a peer-reviewed article and which was reverted by WMC; [42], reverting WMC, with a request to discuss and come to a consensus; and [43], adding material and a source from a peer-reviewed article and which did not revert any other edits, nor remove any material. Following the last edit (which was subsequently reverted by Wikispan and which I did not contest) I had made no other edits to the article, confining myself to discussion of the material on the article talk page and on the ArbCom PD talk page. At the time of the sanction, NW had not complied with the requirements of climate change probation, which states: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." (emphasis added) NW did not provide any warning (a prerequisite for a sanction in this area), nor any steps to take to improve editing in the area. Additionally, this ban seems punitive, stating that I was "continuing to edit war" when I had not touched the actual article at all since it went to discussion on the talk pages the day before NW imposed the sanction. I was under the impression that we were supposed to go to the talk pages for discussion, rather than continuing to edit the article when there was a dispute. This seems punitive in nature, and my actions violated no established rule or policy as there were only 2 reverts on my part. It also seems as if the sanction was biased, as WMC had made 4 reverts [44] and was continuing to edit war, but without being sanctioned. @Count Iblis. I appreciate your efforts to come to a solution for this. In this case, I made two reverts and then confined myself to talk page discussion. The problem I have with this is that I was banned from the article for disruption/edit warring when I had in fact gone to the talk pages for discussion. I just want to be treated the same as everyone else. Am I not supposed to go to the talk pages for discussion? Should I have continued to revert WMC? Does that mean that I should have just shut up when WMC disagreed with me? All I was doing in this case was presenting my view on the matter on the talk pages. I really don't understand how making 4 reverts is OK, but merely discussing it on the talk pages is not. It seems that it is encouraging one to go straight to the article and edit war, and this is very troubling to me. It smacks of groupthink, where no opposing opinion is allowed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The following copied from the 3RR page. "Without commenting on the actual content dispute, I don't think William M. Connolley's edits alone warrant sanctions. Discussion is ongoing in (multiple) places on the use of sources, and blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion. I'm watchlisting the page, and won't hesitate to impose a 1RR restriction per WP:GS/CC if y'all can't work it out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)" Note the comment that "blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion..." I have asked him to comment here. GregJackP Boomer! 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades. Please re-check the history of the article and the diffs. WMC removed global cooling which was sourced by another reference. I reverted that, and added the peer-reviewed source in question. He removed it, and I restored it one time, at the same time asking for discussion on it. That's it. One restoration of reference with a request to discuss. The remainder of my involvement was on the talk page. I did not restore it further. Please correct your comment to show the facts. GregJackP Boomer! 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment - I can't say this any better than TGL said it at the ArbCom PD page, so I'm quoting him here: "Okay, am I missing something here? I'm only going by the diffs that WMC provided and from what I can tell he is upset that Greg added the words "or global cooling" to the article? Is that a fair assessment? If those were the words added then they are clearly supported by the source[45]: "Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today." "The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself" For heaven's sake the paper has a sidebar listing a lot of literature at the time and trying to debunk their findings, but you can't debunk what they were saying. Here is a quote from the siebar about some more literature at the time: "The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050" I didn't even read through the entire paper, and scanned through the first part and found dozens of examples of "climate change alarmism" from the 70's based on global cooling. That WMC and his friends are arguing that there wasn't alarmism in the 70's is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain, but fully expected by those with fully functioning equipment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I reinserted it and asked for discussion. The entire paper was about dispelling the myth of scientific consensus of global cooling, and cited the above examples of popular media alarmism in that regard. That is what the paper said, and I'll be happy to provide a copy to any admin that wishes to read the entire paper, including sidebars. I wasn't even looking for anything by WMC, but an Ebsco host search using the term "Global cooling" brought it up. It wasn't until I began to format the {{cite journal}} template that I even noticed who wrote it, and I will admit that I thought it was humorous, since WMC had been steadily removing global cooling material. I was attempting to follow the appropriate rules, had not 3RR'd, went to the discussion page and stayed there - this is what the policy required, or so I thought. The block was a day later and punitive, but I don't guess it matters since the lynch mob is forming. GregJackP Boomer! 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @TOAT: I read what the paper said, in plain English, and asked for discussion. I find it hard to believe that we go on an editor's personal knowledge and opinion instead of what is actually written in the paper. I took it to talk for discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) WMC deleted "global cooling" and its associated source. I did an Ebsco host search and found a peer-reviewed source. It happened to be co-authored by WMC, which I did not even notice until I was preparing the cite journal template (and which I thought was funny). There is an entire sidebar that covers the alarmism about global cooling in the popular media. I put "global cooling" back into the article, WITH A FOOTNOTE that the article was about debunking the myth of global cooling scientific consensus, and that the article cited numerous examples of alarmism in the press. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. I did not misrepresent it, and anyone that says that I did is intellectually dishonest. I'm not the only one that thinks that this is what Peterson, Connolley and Fleck said, see Bedford, Daniel (2010). "Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation". Journal of Geography. 109 (4). The National Council for Geographic Education: 159–165. ISSN 0022-1341. Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). See also Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Charnovitz, Steve; Kim, Jisun (2009). Global warming and the world trading system. Peterson Institute. p. 115. ISBN 9780881324280. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age) I used the same examples as noted by Bedford and Hufbauer! Please also note that since WMC's article has only been cited 13 times, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware of the fact that his article had been used to support the material in exactly the same way that I was doing. Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) See also Perkins, Sid (2008). "Cooling Climate 'Consensus' of 1970s Never Was: Myth Often Cited by Global Warming Skeptics Debunked". Science News. 174 (9). Society for Science & the Public: 5–6. which stated: "When these skeptics mention previous concerns about global cooling, they typically cite media reports from the 1970s rather than journal papers - "a part of their tremendous smoke screen on this issue," says Peterson. Among major magazines, Time and Newsweek ran articles expressing concern about the previous decades' cooling trend, juxtaposing the specter of decreased food production with rising global population." I don't want to be topic banned any more than any other editor, and the comments that have been made spoke of other sources saying the same thing that I did. I'm providing those. Now, because I'm vocal that I don't want to be banned, some are saying that this is a battleground mentality because I'm not "playing dead" - all I'm trying to do is defend myself when it appears that everyone wants to ban me. I would also point out that I explained the position of WMC's in a footnote, that it was to debunk the myth, but that the article had cited a number of cases where the popular media was alarmist in their presentation of global cooling. That is what the paper said, and what others have stated that the paper said. GregJackP Boomer! 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Statement by NuclearWarfare TenOfAllTrades seems to have gone into sufficient detail about why I chose to ban GregJackP, so I won't waste people's time in repeating his words. GregJackP is well aware of the standards in this area, having been heavily commented on the Proposed Decision for the Climate Change Arbitration Case. While he may not have been formally sanctioned before, this would be akin to someone who had extensively commented at WT:IPCOLL being blocked under Arab-Israeli discretionary sanctions and then complaining that he had not been notified about the existence of discretionary sanctions or how to improve his behavior. I recognize that I usually take a more hardline approach than most administrators, which is why I shall be stepping back for now. Whatever other administrators wish to do is fine with me, but I do want to say that I am seeing far more wikilawyering than usual in this case, which I certainly think should be taken into account. NW (Talk) 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Shell Kinney's comment on this may be of interest. NW (Talk) 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the appeal by GregJackP Comment by Count Iblis I wrote about a possible voluntary restriction GregJackP could stick to: I don't think blocking editors is a good solution because other editors with the same behavior will then step in. It is better to think of an agreement for the editors who find themselves in frequent disputes along these lines. If Cla68, GregJackP, William and a few of the other involved editors would stick to a variant of this, then what would have happened is that e.g. Cla68 could have made the edit about global cooling and William could have responded on the talk page. Then others could have continued the discussion and continue editing. GregJackP could have made his comments too, but he could not have reverted back to Cla68's version if others had changed the text. By keeping Cla68, William and GregJackP involved, you actually prevent an influx of new editors editing in a disruptive way, because any such editor watching the discussion from a distance can see hat his/her points are already discussed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Note that my point of view on this issue is supportive of what most other editors wrote in that section. So, I share the sentiments that make some of them say that GregJackP should be topic banned from the climate change area. However, as I explained, that doesn't really solve the editing disputes in these pages on the longer term. From GregJackP point of view, it seems to me that the choice on the longer term is between eventually getting topic banned when the community is fed up with his editing style (most likely to happen after the ArbCom case concludes and the discretionary sanction regime comes into force), or putting himself under some voluntary restrictions now and getting used to editing under that regime. Count Iblis (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by A Quest for Knowledge Without commenting on the content issue (which I didn't look into), I am concerned that this appears to be a punitive sanction by NuclearWarfare. WMC was clearly edit-warring.[46][47][48][49][50][51] yet NuclearWarfare chose to only sanction GregJackP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman: How did you arrive at a 6 month topic ban? I'm not mistaken, for the past nine months, the established consensus of uninvolved admins in the CC probation area has been to give a warning or 24-hour block for a first time sanction. If you're trying to change the sanctions regime so that they are tougher, I think that's good news. In fact, I've been saying for some time now that the admins should be crack down on both warring factions. But in all fairness, some advance notice should have been given that the sanctions regime was going to be changing. Further, I hope that tougher sanctions are applied consistently. I note, for example, ScienceApologist is also misrepresenting a source.[52] Except that it's in a BLP which is even worse. That request has been open for two weeks now and still no action has been taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It should be pointed out that I asked Jehochman on his talk page to respond to my post here,[53] and he responded by deleting my post on his talk page.[54] The larger issue of why Jehochman is arguing against existing consensus remains unresolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades: I have read through the paper WMC co-authored and it certainly seems to apply to this article's topic. Can you please explain what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? So far, I'm not seeing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Observation by TenOfAllTrades Let me see if I understand this. The source in question (T.C. Peterson, W.M. Connolley, & J. Fleck. "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus", Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 89:1325–1337) appears to be used in the article as a source to support the opening sentence of our article, which purports to define the term 'climate change alarmism'. On examining the source, it doesn't use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere. The sole use of the word 'alarmists' is where the paper reports the words of a politician, as part of a description of how that politician had engaged in selective (and deceptive) quotation from published literature. In this case, William M. Connolley removed the citation of the paper from our article's lede, because he knew it didn't actually support the statement it was attached to in our article. Dr. Connolley is eminently qualified to evaluate this, because he was one of the paper's three authors and is presumably familiar with the words that he wrote and published less than two years ago. What I see is GregJackP twice reverting the author of a source when that author explicitly states – in his edit summaries, and on the article talk page – that the source is being misrepresented. With all due respect to A Quest for Knowledge, the content issue cannot be neglected if one wishes to understand this situation. This isn't a simple edit war; this is a Wikipedia editor wilfully ignoring a scientist's knowledge about his own published work, and going out of his way to provoke that scientist by misrepresenting his publication on Wikipedia. That's appalling, and GregJackP certainly deserved harsh sanction for it. If GregJackP had found a suitable, peer-reviewed scientific publication which interpreted the paper in his particular (and frankly novel) way, that might be a different kettle of fish. We, as Wikipedia editors, don't go telling the authors of primary sources that they didn't mean what they wrote, or that they didn't write what they meant; that's WP:OR and WP:SYN in the worst way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)(corrected 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)) Correction: GregJackP added the source twice, but the first time wasn't a revert. Given his ongoing conflict with WMC during the Climate Change Arbitration, the original decision to add the source citing WMC's work is difficult to see as anything but a deliberate provocation. In any event, he still has failed to explain why he decided to re-add the source, substituting his own judgement for that of the paper's own author in determining what the paper reported. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Observation by FellGleaming With all due respect, the reliable source here is the paper itself, which has (presumably) gone through a peer review process and been published, to be part of the permanent historical record. We use reliable sources only here, not the opinions of editors, even if that editor happens to be the author of a source. Even ignoring the verifiability issue, there have been many times a person -- even a scientist -- later regrets something they wrote or said, and attempts to mischaracterize or at least minimize their earlier statements. Further, I note in this particular case that there are three authors on the paper, and the lead author is not here editing the article. It is not unusual for multiple authors to disagree on interpretations of their published content. This is why the fact that WMC is one of the authors of this paper is irrelevant to WP policy and the discussion at hand. The sole touchstone here should be whether or not GregJack's summary of the content is correct or not -- not as interpreted by WMC -- but as interpreted by any reasonable person based on the text of the paper itself. To use an example from my own field, a paper was about to be published that contradicted the pet theory of one researcher. As a courtesy, he was asked to collaborate on that paper, and did so, contributing some data used for the analysis. After publication, he continued to argue to one and all that this paper was misinterpreting the data; a conclusion the lead author (and the majority of the scientific community) disagreed with. If this particular researcher came to Wikipedia and began tendentiously editing the entry on this paper, would we treat him as some reliable authority, when his edits clearly contradict the contents of the paper itself? (Note: I am not implying this is the case here, but simply arguing against granting any special status to any particular editor) Fell Gleamingtalk 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Spike Wilbury (ec x2) I declined to sanction William M. Connolley here because I observed that discussion was ongoing and was best for progress. I'd like to see NuclearWarfare's answer to the concerns posted here, especially regarding the "warning" required by WP:GS/CC. I don't see in the log that GregJackP has been sanctioned before or has received prior warnings, so maybe NuclearWarfare can enlighten me. Normally we would not ban an editor from a page for this kind of behavior without community discussion. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Kim D. Petersen I'll make this short, and only comment on the warning issue: Despite assertions to the contrary, GregJackP has been warned here per the requirements in GS/CC. He is aware of GS/CC - has commented on several enforcement requests[55], and in fact he himself has warned others here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Comment by Lar I guess WP:GS/CC/RE is now (un)officially dead since it appears that NW (who is uninvolved but not free of accusations of bias) imposed this sanction unilaterally, and without prior mention there. If the community endorses that approach (unilateral imposition followed by direct to AN/I appeal), so be it. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) This is a meta discussion. Feel free to move it wherever best. I think we should move all discussions from that board to AN/I until ArbCom posts a decision. At least here we get a large number of uninvolved comments. GS/CC/RE has become so polarized and toxic no sensible editor wants to get involved there. Jehochman Talk 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Proposal by Jclemens Without commenting on the substance of the dispute, GregJackP appears to not have been warned before the sanction was imposed. Thus, it is appropriate to modify the page ban to be a de facto warning of impending page ban should the disputed action continue, and remand everyone back to the talk page to discuss this and similar issues collegially. Support As author. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Opppose Discussion Aside from whether the ban sticks, I should mention that I already informed the participants in this dispute that I will impose 1RR on the page if edit warring ensues. I would much prefer that to blocking or banning participants. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I basically agree with this. Although I can't really believe it, I'm inclined to agree with FellGleaming as well, at least as far as the RS vs. expert thing goes. We typically do not allow people to edit articles about themselves, much less require deference to them. However, I am curious if GregJackP actually didn't know about sanctions (raising basic fairness concerns) or if this is a purely procedural objection. --Selket Talk 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC) See my comment above. GregJackP is very much aware of the GS/CC regime. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, that seems clear now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP was obviously aware of the sanctions since he was the subject of an RfE here.[56] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Greg did not do anything wrong except edit war. This is a content dispute. If the uninvolved editors will look at the discussion on the arbcom page, they'll see that the arguments over the use of the paper are evenly split. NuclearWarfare has been editing the CC articles lately, and is therefore no longer an uninvolved editor in the topic. This ban has no validity. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Greg performed one revert, WMC performed two. Greg receives a lengthy topic ban; WMC receives nothing. Are you intentionally trying to make a mockery of fairness and balance? Fell Gleamingtalk 01:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Result of the appeal by GregJackP This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. User:GregJackP took actions that were intentionally provocative: he misrepresented a source written by another editor, and then revert warred with that editor. This is extreme WP:BATTLE behavior and shows that GregJackP is unfit to edit any climate change topics in the foreseeable future. I recommend a 6 month topic ban from all climate change pages broadly construed. We need to come down hard on bad faith behaviors such as misrepresentation of sources and trolling. Let's see what other uninvolved administrators think about this. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I would support that. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I would also support that; the original sanction of a ban from a single article was much too specific for the behaviour it sought to address. I would, however, suggest that 6 months is on the long side and prefer a duration of between 6 to 10 weeks . CIreland (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I support this with the 6-month duration. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Support 6 month duration (first choice) or 2 months (midpoint of CIreland's proposal; second choice). People need to understand that when something's reached the point of multiple Arbcom reviews, playing silly buggers on content on the articles related to it is absolutely not ok anymore. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 6 months sounds fine to me. We can always shorten the duration on appeal if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree that GregJackP did anything that was intentionally provocative. Read the information presented carefully. A topic ban is so far over what's reasonable that it's mindboggling. The article ban should be overturned. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Looks like you might be the outlying data point. Can you, or anybody else, provide a narrative that explains the edit war in any way other than what's been laid out in this thread? I am looking for a three or four sentence summary with diffs that shows how GregJackP's edits were acceptable. My intention is to leave this thread open for a total of 48 hours, and then to apply whatever sanction, if any, represents the consensus of uninvolved administrators. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) So you're going to pass judgement on what the other admins say? I just want to be clear what role you've decided to take on. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think I comments elsewhere about how unhelpful it is to recast someone's comment to a different meaning as it adds to the temperature. Please stop already with the battlefield mentality Lar. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think it's a fair characterization and a valid question. Nothing battleground about it, JEH isn't an adversary, he's as uninvolved as I am, I just want to know what he's planning here. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP has left a message for every admin commenting here asking us to look at sources that support his interpretation. I have a simple question for him. Was he aware of these sources when he was edit warring on this article? Spartaz Humbug! 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What is the relevance of that question? If the sources support his interpretation, that suggests that it was not an unreasonable interpretation. It also suggests that maybe an interested editor perhaps ought to edit the article to add those sources. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Because it goes to the heart of what was motivating his actions. Spartaz Humbug! 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) We can't judge motivation and therefore we don't care about it. What we care about is outcomes. Seems to me that WMC participated in writing a paper that points out that some folk get alarmed and now wants to back away from that by refactoring what the paper said but the source doesn't support that, nor do the secondary sources. GregJackP did nothing wrong here except go up against the wrong people. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) While NW's article ban is probably not what I would have done, I'm inclined to let the call on the field stand. I am however extremely troubled by the attitude of many editors and admins about this content dispute. Since when is a statement by a Wikipedia editor a reliable source? The deference being given to WMC is completely un-wiki-like. I think people should go take a look at WP:EXPERT. WMC's edits raise serious conflict of interest concerns. Why does it seem like most admins have forgotten that. I take no position on what the paper actually said; I haven't read it. However a paper should stand on it's own per WP:RS and the author of the paper should stay out of the discussion and certainly not be given the deciding vote. -Selket Talk 14:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The COI issue is not forgotten; it's just not especially relevant when we are considering the behavior of GregJackP. Per common sense, when GregJackP edit wars to use WMC's paper to support a position the opposite of what WMC wrote, and the opposite of what WMC believes, in the midst of one of the most heated conflicts on Wikipedia, that is highly disruptive. Any editor should know better than to do that. Please do look over WMC's editing and file a request for enforcement. I for one would appreciate a review by an uninvolved party. Past requests against WMC have been hard to act upon because they are filed tendentiously by content opponents who appear to be playing the "ban my opponent" game. We obviously don't want to encourage that sort of battlefield behavior. Jehochman Talk 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Two points: 1) I don't think that paper necessarily says what you think it does, or even what WMC now says it does. 2) Is there a problem with WMC's behavior? How many enforcement actions have you taken to try to help ameliorate it? It's easy to criticize those bringing these requests forward, isn't it? But what have you done to try to help? Asking for an "uninvolved party" ... seems a foolish request. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Result of result discussion I have had a conversion with GregJackP, who seems ready to agree to leave the existing sanction in place (i.e. drop the appeal) but he wants to make clear that he was not intentionally misrepresenting the sources.[57] We should always allow our volunteers to retain as much dignity as possible, and create forward looking resolutions. My suggestion is that we archive this appeal with no further action, and recommend that GregJackP work on other articles, and take advantage of dispute resolution, such as WP:3O, WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN at the first sign of disagreements with other editors. For best results, focus on creating quality articles, and avoiding the personalization of disputes. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC) While I see no problem with accepting GregJackP's statement that he was not intentionally misrepresenting the sources, his alternative that his "interpretation was consistent with that of other published sources that cited the article" is an issue that has been discussed at Talk:PD with no evident clarification responding to the concern that the "new references also do not support the text either". It should be emphasised that the initial step should be to present and discuss sources on the article talk page to get agreement that they do indeed support what they're being cited to support. If something on those lines can be added to the recommendation, I support the suggestion. . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) That's a good idea. What a source says is something object that can be discussed rationally without any use of rhetoric. All parties, not just GregJackP, need to use the talk page instead of the revert button when edits are challenged. Should discussions fail to resolve differences of perception or opinion, then recourse to dispute resolution should be the next step. I find that WP:3O is very efficient for simple, one-dimensional issues such as whether a source is being summarized accurately. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if this section is part of the uninvolved admin section or not - it doesn't look like it is, but if it is, please refactor my comment to whatever section it needs to be in, I'm not trying to put my comment in the wrong place. I don't have any problem with the DR/30 comments JEH suggests being included. I also agree with Dave - and I was trying to take it to talk for discussion, so I don't have a problem with a statement that discussion is the preferred way to handle things. GregJackP Boomer! 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Additional evidence found by closing admin It is wrong to start with a conclusion and then go digging through the available sources to find bits and pieces that support your thesis. Instead, Wikipedia writers should read the sources, and then summarize them, lending most weight to the most authoritative sources. From the above conversations it appears that GregJackP has decided what the article should say, first, and then manufactured support by cobbling together bits from the sources. Apparently lacking scientific expertise, he has misunderstood, misinterpreted and misused sources. There are potentially excusable errors. What's not excusable is stubbornly clinging to his position when such errors are pointed out by other editors and even the author of one of the sources! Wikipedia is not for ideological battle. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP refuses to drop the matter. This means external controls are the only hope of preventing further disruption: Roll over and play dead? Not happening. Battleground behavior: Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. Why is this here? This looks like something that belongs in Arb enforcement, not ANI. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation explicitly gives ANI as one of the avenues for appealing sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Also, Arb enforcement hasn't begun yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (ec)I brought it here for the reasons Boris noted, that it is the specified venue, and I noted that WMC brought the appeal of his last CC sanction here. GregJackP Boomer! 17:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC) @ GregJackP, are you sure? As far as I can find, the only recent instance of a CC sanction against WMC being appealed was brought here by Bishonen.[58] . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I think so. Didn't he bring the block for refactoring comments on his own talkpage here? If I'm wrong, please let me know. Or is that the same one? GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) That's the one brought here by Bishonen, check the link. Boris's logic can still apply. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC) OK, well that won't be the first (or last) time I was wrong. Same general principle, although I'll strike that part of my earlier comment. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) <ec> No problem, just thought it was worth clarifying. . dave souza, talk 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If GregJackP takes this matter to ArbCom, he should be aware that ArbCom will not feel any responsibility to address his appeal, but will take it as an opportunity to review any behavior of any kind (real or imagined, germane or otherwise) and act according to their whim upon their perception of the matters that they have chosen to consider. Here's a quote (italics mine): “ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit.” Brews ohare (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Isn't that a little premature? Let's see what happens here first. GregJackP Boomer! 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) GregJackP: You may not be considering such an action at the moment. You are nuts to ever consider such an action. Brews ohare (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Seriously? I agree with Shell Kinney here. This was a ridiculous edit war, and I believe GregJackP (and Cla68) to be at fault for it. If the author of a scientific paper disputes an editor's analysis of that paper, then the appropriate step is to begin a talk page discussion, not to reinsert the disputed information. By reinserting it, you were edit-warring and being highly disruptive. If I had noticed this first I probably would have blocked for edit-warring and then issued the topic ban. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The first revert was carried out by WMC, and it appears he has more total recent reverts on the article than GregPJack. Why are you ignoring his role in this? Fell Gleamingtalk 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think people are ignoring it. They're just digging a bit deeper into the substance of the dispute as opposed to superficial revert-counting. We generally encourage that. MastCell Talk 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Its already been dealt with at AN3. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? Spartaz Humbug! 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with WMC's specific edits in this case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Also note User:Cla68's involvement which he defends here. While we cannot rule out anything deliberately provocative about these actions to influence the ArbCom case, we also have to recognize that these editors do believe what they were editing, otherwise they would know in advance that they were shooting in their own feet. That's why I think a 0RR restriction on climate change related articles for Cla68 and GregJackP is more suitable to deal with this problem. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't edit war, but I stand by my interpretation of the paper as a source for the article. If you check the article's history, you'll see that Count Iblis added text which was contradicted by at least two of the sources. I tried to correct that, but was reverted by WMC which counted as his 4th revert within 24 hours. Also, WMC implied that me and Tillman were sock puppets with his edit summary. WMC has since explained that that wasn't his intention and has accepted a voluntary 48 hour ban from the article. I think there are several appropriate outcomes here, lift the inappropriate ban on Greg from the article, warn him, WMC, and Wikispan not to edit war, and remember that NuclearWarfare is not an uninvolved admin. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Cla68, these are only symptoms you are experiencing of the real underlying problem. The real problem is described by Jehochman above and by Shell Kinney here. This applies to you, Greg, User:ZuluPapa5, User:GoRight, User:Thegoodlocust, User:Marknutley, User:Minor4th, User:A Quest For Knowledge, User:Ed Poor, User:SEWilco, User:Sm8900, User:Blue Tie, User:UBeR, User:Tjsynkral and the many other editors I can't remember the names of right now that we've had to deal with over the years. Many of these editors have made good contributions to politics articles, so one can ask why they have caused trouble in the climate change area. The reason is that editing in the way Jehochman and Shell Kinney describe to be fundamentally flawed, does not typically cause problems in case of politics articles. This is because if you have a strong POV on something, then that strong POV must have come from somewhere. Usually it is then some notable POV that exists in society. If this is about politics, then that notable opinion will usually meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. In case of science topics, you can't do this. But then, usually, there are no strong POVs in that area. If there are strong POVs, the articles are still written by scientifically minded editors who are used to dealing with this in proper way. It goes wrong in the climate change area, because we have editors who are mainly active in the politics or other non-scientific topics, whose interest in the CC area is motivated by the politics of this subject. Then, complain about William all you like, but he has been working with all these "politically minded" editors since 2004, encountering frequent problems like this current flare up with Greg and you. He was able to confront these editors in a mild way. Of course, his opponents complained about "foul play". But things went along quite well, the articles were of good quality. In 2009, it was decided to have a "regime change" so that the perceived foul play ends and everyting will be done by the book. But what this had led to is that instead of William reverting and using "soft power" to make sure that articles are not subverted, there is now adminstrative intervention. And this happens via topic bans, blocks and ArbCom cases, i.e. "hard power". You will note that in the old days, no one got topic banned or blocked (except Scibaby). Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) As a general theorem, it is inadvisable to involve ArbCom in such matters. The editors should elect to settle matters among themselves, with ArbCom intervention only to enforce WP:Civil, elimination of sock-puppetry, and other infractions that impede Talk page discussion. The editors do not need ArbCom to decide among themselves what rules will be followed to keep discussion sensible, and that process proceeds much better if resort to inastute and ill-informed blunt force is taken off the table. Brews ohare (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) To Cla68's assertion of my involvement, I refer people to this section on my talk page. I picked an administrator who I had barely interacted with in the past and asked him to look over my edits. You are free to judge for yourself, but I don't think on this basis I will be recusing myself from acting as an admin on these articles without further community input (in the form of an RFC preferably). NW (Talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – No administrator attention required. –xeno^talk 02:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has recently posted a comment/warning on my talk page that makes no sense. There was a previous discussion here about my requests for rollback rights and I was unclear about something so I asked Fastily [[59]] and Neutralhomer comes on my talk page with [response]. I would like to hear some of your opinions about it.Thanks --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Inka 888 was told, per here from ANI archives, that he would not be receiving Rollbackers access, he has harrassed Fastily (the admin who denied the initial request and brought it to ANI originally) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times about Rollbackers (today is marked as #1). This is a nasty case of harrassment and is himself a case of a refusal to get the point (humorous he says that about me). This user in his short time has been to ANI twice, once about Rollbackers and once about TWINKLE misuse (which he has gotten back even though he is blacklisted). There is obvious behavioral problems here and even though I have suggested the user get a mentor (since they feel Wikipedia is a "game" or "contest" with their actions), they refuse. This harrassment is just another case of behavioral problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing that Neutralhomer is failing to recognize is that is was just asking Fasily when i was eligible for rollback or at least to ask i never asked him for rollback. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a valid, easily understandable warning to me. Inka 888, you do yourself no favors at all by showing up here repeatedly, so if I were you I would simply accept that when Neutralhomer said "don't do that", he intended for you to understand not to do that. Pursuing this is only going to turn attention on you instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• The warning may have been a little OTT and many of those diffs date to before the ANI thread, but Homer's point was valid and bringing it to ANI, Inka, is only going to draw more attention to yourself when someone in your position should be trying to attract as little attention as possible. I'm sure Inka is acting in good faith and not trying to harass Fastily, but, Inka, you're not getting rollback any time soon, so drop the stick, back slowly away from the horse carcass and find something useful to do. I say this because I don't want to see you end up blocked, and if you carry on the way you;re going, it's only a matter of time until you are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - This is absurd that Inka888 is pestering Fastily again. At the unanimous AN/I discussion, two months was the minimum time mentioned before Inka888 was to ask again. It's been four days: and from what I've seen of his editing history, I believe granting rollback to this user would do far more harm to the project than possible good. Of course, I can provide the diffs (if needed)... Doc9871 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Save it for when he requests rollback again, perhaps?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was NOT asking Fastily for rollback I was asking him when I could ask anyone again to avoid getting here again for asking before i was supposed to. --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You were already told at least 2 months.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Harassing admins is not likely to increase confidence in an editor's likelihood of using rollback discretely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty with User:Hushpuckena

This user has been editing articles about cities, counties, et cetera in what (initially) was probably a good-faith attempt to fix perceived grammar issues: singular versus plural when referring to a measure of area. I have questioned this via the user's talk page because I felt that the grammar was actually being broken by some of these edits, not fixed. I still believe that, and provided supporting information for this in some of my comments; but the main issue here is this user's complete failure to engage in any discussion, and to continue making the questioned edits even after six separate attempts to elicit comments over a period of two weeks. I feel I've made a strong effort to communicate about this politely and to give ample opportunity for the user to respond and discuss; but there has been no response at all, except that the pace of these edits has slowed (which may or may not relate to my queries -- there's no way to tell as there has been no discussion). Certainly the edits have not stopped.

On 25 August, this edit was one of a batch which prompted my initial query. Several more edits were made with no response, and about half an hour later I made another query. A few more edits were made; this edit was the last in that batch. I had hoped that these edits would then stop, despite the lack of response.

On 28 August, another similar edit was made. I queried the user again but got no response, and later proceeded to revert the relevant portions of the user's previous edits as I had stated I would. On 2 September another such edit was made, and I queried again. No response. On 8 September, another edit and another query -- no response.

Later that day, User:Huwmanbeing questioned a slightly different aspect of this user's edits, involving singular versus plural when applied to fractional measures of area. Hushpuckena made another such edit the following day and still there has been no response.

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure what else to do. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe a {{uw-mos2}} warning on his talk page would start to get his attention: but maybe not, apparently. His listed "copyedits" are really just not correct - so just undo them with an appropriate edit summary. Edits like this[60], on the other hand, are entirely appropriate and constructive: maybe a "trouting" for the bad edits? If he simply won't discuss it (or even acknowledge attempts at discussion), and continues in this editing vein, it's pretty obvious what will eventually happen, now isn't it? Yup... Doc9871 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Bad news, Omnedon. I think that Hushpuckena has the grammar right, and you are in error here, in all of the edits you mention. That's not reason to ignore you, but I can understand the mindset of someone who corrects a fairly obvious grammatical error only to have it undone, and who concludes that Wikipedia can just suffer from the errors being reintroduced, since xe's done xyr part in fixing them once. I can also understand the mindset of someone who decides that it's not xyr responsibility to teach everyone else on a wiki grammar, or who has no desire to spend xyr time arguing about grammar with pseudonymous people on a wiki. I don't particularly agree with it (such editorial discussions being part and parcel of collaborative writing), but I can understand it.

  "square miles" is more than one "square mile" and takes a plural "are". You misapplied your own authority, moreover. The sentences in question do contain an "of phrase". See the "of which"? That's the "of phrase". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he is wrong over the singular/plural thing (i.e. changing miles to mile for units less than one) but I think "are" is the correct grammar. Although it was shoddy sentence construction in the first place. For example it is much better to say of which 3,179 square miles (8,233 km²) consists of land and 29 square miles (75 km²) (0.90%) of water --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

G: The conventions of English grammar don't support Hushpuckena, but as Omnedon points out, the grammar itself isn't the issue (and doesn't appear to be the point of this incident). The subject in question is Hushpuckena's unwillingness to discuss things with other editors, or to acknowledge other editors' polite posts, or to cease making edits about which there's clearly some disagreement. I personally don't think that this is behavior that should ever be winked at as "understandable", regardless of how one feels about the grammar. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 13:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

UncleG, first of all, the grammar is not the primary issue here. The issue is this user's behavior. Wikipedia is founded upon collaboration. In this case, edits have been questioned (and very politely). The issue of which user's opinion is right is irrelevant to the issue at hand, in that under these circumstances the editor is expected to respond before continuing. This editor refuses to say a word, and continues to make edits that have been questioned. That's unacceptable in a collaborative environment. You are essentially defending this by saying it is understandable. It is not understandable, hence the request for administrator assistance.

However, to address the grammar issue, you're mistaken; you are mis-applying the Yale reference I supplied. Example 2 directly refutes your statement that "'square miles' is more than one 'square mile' and takes a plural 'are'." Example 3 does not apply in this case; the "of which" to which you are referring comes before the definition of area. The text reads like "X square miles is land"; there is no "of" phrase there. However, even if there was an "of" phrase, it would read something like "X square miles of the area is land", and thus it would still be singular based on this reference.

Errant, the grammar in those geography sections has been bad for years, ever since it was automatically generated from the census data. I have been working recently to fix those issues. For that reason Hushpuckena's edits came to my attention, as I have lots of these articles on my watchlist. Many of this editor's copyedits are good; the only content problem I'm aware of is the incorrect change from singular to plural. Omnedon (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was unaware of the deep intricacies of the plural/singular argument before I whacked Hushpuckena upside the head. I thought his changes were wrong grammatically... whatever. He's still quite actively editing[61], and apparently ignoring this thread (and the real basis for it) completely, despite being "informed" of it. A good editor who simply refuses to communicate with others in the community. Why can't he respond? There must be some classic previous cases like this. What to do? Doc9871 (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Wikid77, violation of topic ban

Good morning, Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#User:Wikid77 canvassing, Wikid77 (talk · contribs) was placed on a three months topic ban enacted on June 11. He acknowledged that his ban would expire on the 11th as recently as 6 September, here.

Yet disappointingly, he returns to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher on 9 September here, with several additional edits both on that talk page but also on User talk:Amalthea#Expanding MoMK - which by the way is again phrased in a quite WP:CANVASSing tone regarding the editorial body he disagrees with.

After the latest spat over the Kercher / Knox topic here, the talk page suddenly saw a quieting down with several of the newest editors accepting to try discussing edits rather than attacking others. I fail to see how Wikid77's intervention, 72 hours early, are anything but yet another attempt to disrupt the page, an attempt to game the system like they have done in the past.

Also worth considering are his edits to User talk:PhanuelB (currently indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing himself) while under his topic ban.

As a consequence, I have blocked Wikid77 for a month for a continuation of their same behaviour, but believe at this stage that a wider admin review here would be beneficial. Thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unlike many of the other editors on the MoMK page, Wikid77 is a positive for Wikipedia in his editing outside this arena. Whilst I don't disagree with MLauba's block I wonder if a more productive option for the encyclopedia as a whole is an indefinite topic ban for Wikid77 on any edits related to Kercher, Knox, and the trial. We could then have the benefit of his excellent work elsewhere without the negative of his problematic editing at MoMK. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd agree to that, provided it is also made clear that the kind of coaching as performed on User talk:PhanuelB is explicitly covered by the topic ban. If there's a consensus to enact such a ban, I'd support lifting the block immediately. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I think thats a good idea and would be a long term solution. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Separate the productive Wikid77 from the unproductive one by placing an indef topic ban, clearly phrased to be applied to "all" MoMK related discussions construed widely (including user talkpages). The previous ban description did just that but Wikid77 seemly didn't understand it that way as shown in some posts made during his topic ban [62], [[63], [64], [65].

As a side note, my well meant advise to Wikid's last post at Phanuel's talkpage was also fruitless.TMCk (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another note: The block itself was warranted as a direct result of the ban "Consider this your final warning on these types of behaviors. Continuation of these types of disruption or violation of this topic-ban will lead to immediate blocking (probably indef, based on your extensive prior block history)".TMCk (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. I won't speculate what Wikid77's motivation for breaking his fast at five minutes to sunset might have been, but it is clearly not a matter of his being simply mistaken about the length of the ban. He also came back with the gesture of starting multiple discussions on precisely the same general topic as had led to the ban. Admins have recently been taking action in relation to this article by locking the page and acting quickly aginst disruption, and it has been demonstrated that this has been effective in calming the talkpage. So, the block by MLauba is in keeping with this and is appropriate. However, to keep it in place would go against WP:PUNISH, since it prevents Wikid77 from editing in areas where he is productive. A topic ban would therefore be more suitable. --FormerIP (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with the block. By my count, and correct me if I'm wrong, User: Wikid77 returned on the 91st day of block. Technically he met the burden of a generic 3 mos block. As to his contributions since returning, one may not like or agree with what he has to say but he has not attacked anyone or been arbitrarily disruptive. On the contrary, he's sparked legitimate discussion as to whether a spin off article is necessary or desirable. Tjholme (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the topic ban did it say "90 days"? Unless there's been a sudden change to the calendar that I didn't know about, 3 months from June 11 is September 11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The user in question did some creative OR and concluded that "3 months" equated to "90 days". I think if it were actually "90 days", the ban would have said "90 days". "3 months" would typically be understood to be the same day and time of the month as the original posting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I informed the admin who imposed the original topic ban.TMCk (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As banning admin, I chose to state "3 months" because that's a standard length for blocks ("Expiry" in Special:Block). I personally wouldn't have cared if at moments beyond the 90-day mark (before 3-month mark) user suddenly started making constructive edits to the banned areas, demonstrating that he had learned from this experience and had rectified the behavior that led to the ban (good-faith assumption that problem was solved without getting nit-picky wikilawyering either way). Given that's obviously not the case and he violated the ban as he stated he understood it, I definitely support remedies for violating the ban. And for ongoing problems regardless of that, I also support topic-ban or other methods that prevent it. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "3 Mos" might reasonably be interpreted as the same date 3 calendar months hence, or as 90 calendar days. The difference is trivial and to use it as a basis for further punishment is grossly unfair when he's obeyed the spirit of his previous sentence. If he was blocked how was he able to edit ? To knit pick the difference and ban an editor that represents a dissenting view is a low blow and beneath our otherwise accomplished and experienced admins. Tjholme (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How whould you explain then this: "He acknowledged that his ban would expire on the 11th as recently as 6 September, here." posted at the very top of the thread?TMCk (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've declined his unblock request as it was basically wiki-lawyering about the details instead of addressing the real issue. I've recommended that they voluntarily agree to permanent topic ban as suggested above. Dickering about whether 90 days=3 months (hint:it doesn't) is not really a productive way to move forward here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tjholme: He was not blocked, he was topic banned, he could have violated it at any time during the ban period. To my mind this is really less about the ban term and more about the meaning of having been topic banned. It's usually intended as a "final warning" that any further similar problems will lead to long or even indefinite blocking. Did the user get the message sent by the topic ban or didn't they? That is the real question. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And, in case anyone missed it, there is this diff, [66] look in the middle of the post and you will see Wikid's own words: "Because of my topic ban, I am not allowed to discuss the specifics of the AK case (until Sept. 11)." So it's pretty clear that four days ago he did in fact understand it to mean literally three months, and only after he was blocked did it suddenly become 90 days. So, that whole line of argument is a lie on his part. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just advised them again to accept a indefinite topic ban, if they can agree to that I support an unblock. If they don't they should remain blocked, and an indefinite topic ban should be imposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Beeblebrox's proposal and add the following: If they agree to an indef topic ban widely construed (including user talkpages) in a reasonable time the block should be replaced with the proposed topic ban. Should he keep on wiki-lawyering after the fact that they where caught in a lie the block should stay in place and the indef topic ban applied.TMCk (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(A note for those not familiar with the editor: Each but one minor block he received for breach of 3-rr was directly related to the MoMK case incl. one instance of sockpuppetry.TMCk (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

• Disclaimer, when it comes to the MoMK article, I must admit I'm rather involved; however, I support Beeblebrox's proposal (and, by the way, I endorse Wikid77's block). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Support the proposal for an indefinite topic ban — after a list of blocks and a three-month topic ban, enough is now quite enough. So persistent, stiff and uncompromising is Wikid77's attitude to editing at this topic that, almost immediately after returning to the talk page, he enquires to an administrator, "I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.?" I agree that it must also be impressed on him that effective "coaching" of editors involved at the topic is forbidden. During the course of his determinate ban, Wikid77 has posted at the talk page of (the now indefinite-blocked) PhanuelB (talk · contribs) on multiple occasions, and often in a snide, biting and caustic tone with regard to users with whom he has had disagreements in the past (see this section of his current user talk page). A couple of examples:

• "Try to remember all the kind readers here, and avoid hostile people who probably tortured animals when they were younger, and know what to expect from them."
• "Think about it: normal, balanced minds do not censor an article in that fashion. There has been some major psychological distortion driving these people. Are any of them paid to suppress evidence? It is just not the way normal people act."

In this edit, following a long, educative diatribe, he ends, "Again, feel free to ignore these opinions, and plan your actions depending on your own ideas about the situation." Yes, of course. SuperMarioMan 00:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• (e/c) Update from his latest post to his talkpage [67]. Well, I guess that does it. Wikid still thinks he is in the right like he thought so when he shifted the blame for his sockpuppetry to the admins (just check his talkpage from the time of the SPI case) and even demands now a retraction of the proofed claim of his lying w/o responding to the clear cut proof. Amazing. Really amazing. As they had their chance but chose to go on with their wiki lawyering I see no other solution as to go ahead with what was proposed: Indef topic ban (clearly defined to prevent any kind of further wikilawyering). Keeping the one month block in place for now until the user starts seeing what they did wrong and acknowledges it here or in case this thread is already archived by that time in a new ANI thread with a pointer to this one. If anyone has a better more reasonable solution that would work please state it now. Unfortunately we're again at a point where enough is enough.TMCk (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support both indef topic ban and current block. To acknowledge the "rule", then purposefully break it and claim ignorance is both wikilawyering and childishness of the umpteenth degree. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever is done, we must be mindful that Wikid77 has brought up issues about an Amanda Knox article. There is currently unequal treatment given to this proposed article yet afforded to other people involved in a murder. This can discourage editors because they can think "why this article I am working on is picked on while Murderer X is not". Let's try to be nice to Wikid77 and everyone try to work together. Wikid77, this is not blind support for you but a message to all to try to be cooperative. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee

Odokee (talk · contribs) is continuing to be an annoyance when it comes to romanizations of Japanese text which may or may not include aspects of the English language. I am aware that this style issue is currently at ArbCom but as it currently stands, the arbitration committee is not taking the case on those grounds. Odokee has consistently been the least helpful in this whole situation, and has repeatedly removed the romaji on several articles, despite repeated requests to cease. His manners have also devolved. In addition to having used misleading edit summaries the last time I reported him, these activities continued on these articles. When I discovered those two edits, I undid them, and notified him on his talk page that he should cease these disruptive activities. He responded by removing the section and going on a revert spree. Everyone else in this whole debate has been cordial and helpful, but Odokee can't seem to even bring any sort of etiquette to the table. He should not go "lol japanification" or "rinse, repeat, remove bad edit", or "rv japanification vandalism" to edits made in good faith and those that help the project, even if he disagrees with their usefulness as he has plainly exhibited in his contributions to the long and winding discussion on WT:VG/GL and WT:MOS-JA ([68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]). I am most certainly tired of arguing with this user, as he does not bother to respond back, and I am definitely tired of edit warring over something as simple as the text "Āru Pī Jī" or "Dī Esu Ai".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More evidence of the impossibility it is to talk to this user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And more. After this, I have truly found that it is pointless to talk sense into this user, as he reverted what he thought was a WP:3RR violation, thereby violating WP:3RR himself. I've posted on AN3, and I sadly expect that I will not be able to respond to this later on because both myself and Odokee will invariably be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are in violation of 3RR too - so both of you will likely be blocked by AN3. Is there a consensus on which format is to be used? I took a look but it was unclear whether one exists or is still under debate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the inevitable happened. Both editors blocked for 24hrs. Close out? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

also Ryu called Odokee an asshole on his talk page I think, or something along those lines.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

he did LiteralKa (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a long standing consensus, one which has been violated by ryulong hundreds of times in recent days as part of an attempt to change policy through brute force and get affected communities to kowtow to the requests of a single person. He knows it and the affected communities know it, but he thinks he is flying under the radar, while it is evident that most just don't want to react to petty demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.251.111 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend a much longer block for Odokee, it's quite obvious he's editing in bad faith and constantly referring to other's edits as vandalism if he disagrees with them. He's uncommunicative and I might recommend a week long block along with a topic ban on any changes relating to changing of romanization/romaji of japanese text.--Crossmr (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a longer block for Odokee. He blanks messages on his talk page and refuses to cooperate with people. He just insists that he is right. A much longer block is definitely needed. Avindratalk 14:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan article vandalism by user Jrkso

Dear editors, the user Jrkso is blatantly and repeatedly disrupting the content of the main Afghanistan article and deliberatedly distorting the facts about the course of Afghan history. He has been blocked in the past for an edit war on another topic.

I have given dozens of very reliable sources for my Afghanistan edits, but he keeps removing them, restoring his misleading and unsourced version. Here you can see my very well-sourced version from yesterday and this is the version Jrkso was restoring yesterday, removing academic and other sources as well as changing content and flagging "Human Rights Watch" as a dubious source. Until I mentioned it on the content board it went so far that he repeatedly even restored the wrong spelling of names. For example Hekmatyar's surname is "Gulbuddin" see here, he kept restoring "Gulbadin".

Yesterday I once again reverted his vandalism, only to find out today that he restored his wrong version again.see here This time he added additional misleading information together with unreliable sources according to WP:RS. And those dubious sources did not even contain the information he gave. For example, it is a very well established fact, that Ahmad Shah Massoud (a resistance commander in the war against the Soviets) compared to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar or Jalaluddin Haqqani received only minor military aid. I sourced this information with four sources. Three being very reliable ones like Neamatollah Nojumi, Roy Gutman of the United States Institute of Peace and a report of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Along with removing all those sources Jrkso has now misleadingly claimed in the Soviet war section "Leaders such as Ahmad Shah Massoud received up to $200,000 a month along with weapons and other supplies from the CIA." and sourced it.see here His source, however, does not even back up his claims. According to his source he received that money in the time somewhere between 1989 and 1991 (when aid stopped again) but not during the Soviet invasion. Steve Coll, the 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner for general non-fiction for his book "Ghost Wars", (who is quoted and put out of context by the source of Jrkso, RAWA,) writes the following in "Ghost Wars" also see here:

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written "8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."

Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only

at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

— Steve Coll, Ghost Wars

The above source plus the sources I gave in the article are more than enough to validate my statement, that Massoud received only minor close to no aid compared to others such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

The only source Jrkso ever cited in this whole dispute is the internet platform of RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). As the above example illustrates they take shortened quotes and totally put them out of context to create a new "reality". RAWA is not compatible with WP:RS. They do, indeed, very valuable humanitarian work. But, they are a very unsophisticated source for political discussion. They have a communist political agenda and not only have strong connections to other communist movements but also have a pattern of attacking other Afghan women rights organizations or Afghan women who rise to prominence outside RAWA with smear campaigns. That they would do the same with every political person of "greater evil" (as they must perceive it) is a logical consequence. Just to illustrate: RAWA (referring to the Soviet war in Afghanistan) called Massoud "the man who wouldn't fight" when the Wall Street Journal called him "the Afghan who won the cold war" source see at 40:50. And now Jrkso has even added that false information (or propaganda) "but others claim that Massoud staged sham skirmishes with the Russians" by RAWA to the main Afghanistan article. see here

Today I discovered that Jrkso has now started to also remove sourced content from the main Ahmad Shah Massoud article. see here Jrkso seems to have an agenda.

We have had the following discussion, with the attempt of mediation by the user Torchwood Who? see here. Unfortunately, it failed due to Jrkso's unwillingness to cease his vandalism.

This has been going on for days and I do not want to further waste my time with someone obviously keen to engage in an edit war and keen to hide realities of Afghan history or call sources such as Human Rights Watch "dubious". I will have to revert once again, and that ain't no fun.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff that you quote above (in the second paragraph of this section) seems to do nothing more than remove a spurious pair of square brackets, so you may wish to look again to find the changes to which you are really objecting. David Biddulph (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the links above were meant to show the article versions but of course you need those to the edits. I changed that. This was Jrkso's revision yesterday. This was my version yesterday. This was Jrkso' revision today.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And the story continues ... my version today as of 11:23 and now again Jrkso's revision today at 18:28.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Everything I edit is sourced with precision and I'm not trying to mislead or begin edit-wars. JCAla has been reporting me everywhere as soon as I corrected his edits. He rather see me get blocked then to solve our differences, such is a behaviour of a disruptive person. JCAla is POV pushing and messing up clean written articles. He has been claiming that Ahmad Shah Massoud received "close to no support" the next day he changed it to "only very little support" but the fact is he received "as high as $200,000 a month along with weapons and other supplies" according to Steve Coll. JACla praises Ahmad Shah Massoud but we have to report the truth about that due regardless. He has been adding Ahmad Shah Massoud to many pages.
• JCAla again cites youtube videos after I told him of List of band name etymologies. He cites links that don't mention what is written in the section. He also cited books without giving the page numbers.
• I noticed problems and tagged the 2 sections and warned JCAla not to remove that until the problem with the sections is fixed but he continues to remove them without explaining why. The sections are too long for a nation's article but instead he made them more longer. I think he doesn't understand.
• His last edit deleted 4 sources from the religion section that I just added. I'm willing to work with him as long as he doesn't force his views and opinions one me.--Jrkso (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Jrkso's only source until today was information given on the internet platform of rawa.
• 200,000 a month in the late 1980s until 1991 is minor support compared to the support given to others. The whole U.S. support was $40 billion. Assuming Massoud received this money over a period of 3 years 1988-1991, when the aid ended again, he would have received $7,2 million from $40 billion, which equals 0,018% of the whole budget. Adding some minor support received in the years before and the value of arms, he hardly received 1% of the assistance given to the Afghan resistance. The Steve Coll quote above backs this figure up. So it was all rightly said in one sentence: "He received only little support."
• The large majority of my sources are academic sources, Human Rights Watch, Afghanistan Justice Project or well-acclaimed media outlets such as the New York Times. Other than that I used two youtube sources. One an official media channel from JourneymanPictures who works for ABC Australia and the other referred to a documentary from the National Geographic. WP:RSEX states "In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher ..." The youtube video's authenticity in question has been confirmed.
• I am not aware of editing the religion section. If that was done, then it was by accident. But I am not aware of it.
• As a compromise, I made the sections very short (shortened them twice), after Jrkso had insisted they were long.
• Jrkso tagged a section which was heavily and well-sourced. He flagged Human Rights Watch as dubious. Jrkso deliberatedly lies about issues until I prove him wrong with evidence. Then he turns toward a new issue. It is time for Jrkso to provide sources other than rawa. If Jrkso wants me to give page numbers I can do that. For example regarding the Human Rights Watch report (see the pdf version) these are:

p16
During most of the period discussed in this report, the sovereignty of Afghanistan was
vested formally in “The Islamic State of Afghanistan,” an entity created in April 1992,
after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government. ...
With the exception of Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, all of the parties listed above were
ostensibly unified under this government in April 1992 ...
Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, for its part, refused to recognize the government for most
of the period discussed in this report and launched attacks against government forces
and Kabul generally.

p34
Numerous Iranian agents were assisting Wahdat forces, as Iran was
attempting to maximize Wahdat’s military power and influence in the new government.
Saudi agents of some sort, private or governmental, were trying to strengthen Sayyaf and
his Ittihad faction to the same end.
Rare ceasefires, usually negotiated by Jamiat commanders [Massoud's party], representatives of Mujaddidi
or Rabbani, or officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
commonly collapsed within days.

p39
Hekmatyar continued to refuse to join the government. Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami forces increased their
rocket and shell attacks on the city. Shells and rockets fell everywhere.

As for information taken from Amin Saikal's book (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p204
Despite repeated warnings by serious analysts of Afghan politics, and by the British government form 1986 on, Washington 
continuously turned a blind eye to the ISI’s transfer of a lion’s share of its arms to Hekmatyar. 

p211
Sayyaf ... was strongly backed by Saudi Arabia, whose agenda was to disseminate its primarily anti-Iranian Wahhabi Islam, given 
Saudi Arabia’s traditional claim of leadership of Sunni Islam against Iran’s promotion of Shia Islam. ...

Combat units affiliated with this party [by that Saikal is now referring to Wahdat not Sayyaf] were often directly linked to 
particular religious leaders in Iran and were supervised by Iranian intelligence officers who knew (or cared) little about … 
politics in Afghanistan. 

p220
Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. ... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic  
government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own 
nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. ... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic 
support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul.

As for United States Institute of Peace Roy Gutman's book (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p30-31
After several weeks of surveying Afghan military commanders and politicians in Peshawar and Quetta, covering much of the same 
ground as McWilliams, [State Department's] Tomsen was convinced of the enormous and growing distrust [among Afghans] of Hekmatyar 
and his Pakistani patrons. ... And Tomsen, using his ambassadorial rank and privileges as special envoy, made it a practice to 
send cables from anywhere but Islamabad. Back in Washington, he marshaled the evidence, secured backings from conservatives (and 
some liberals) on Capitol Hill, and guided an interagency review that produced a new set of goals. Reviews are the place where 
policy changes. Tomsen feared that Hekmatyar might capture Kabul with ISI and Saudi support, thereby putting Pakistan in direct 
control of Afghanistan and changing the strategic balance in Central Asia. The new aim was "to break the monopoly of the ISI, and 
CIA support, of the extremists and to strengthen the moderates." The CIA would continue arming the rebel forces, but U.S. 
officials would try to sideline Hekmatyar, strengthen Massoud's role ... Tomsen would also encourage military commanders, the 
crucial figures in the anti-Soviet war who had been largely excluded from the ISI ... The ISI, with strong support from the CIA, 
was well along with a different plan ... 

p41
He [Massoud] saw the war as an Afghan national struggle, not a proxy war. This put him at odds with Pakistan, whose ISI was eager 
to influence the fighting and hoped to use the U.S. aid it distributed to further its own national agenda in Afghanistan.

p42
As Massoud went his own way Hekmatyar, with Pakistan's backing, did everything possible to thwart him. 

p43
In November 1982, after receiving intelligence of a "massive" Soviet offensive planned for midwinter ... he pleaded for weapons, 
cash and food, and, finally, for "the people to go to the mosques and pray for the success of the mujahideen". But the supplies 
did not arrive.

p 54
Pakistan invited Dostum to Islamabad in an effort to draw him closer to Hekmatyar, and Iran’s deputy foreign minister made 
several trips to Afghanistan, attempting to draw Wahdat and Hekmatyar closer together.

Defense Intelligence Agency report:

p2
Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be hard to control later, Pakistan  
preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent they would be fully 
reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His credentials were that 
of an anti-western Islamic fundamentalist who reportedly boasted about throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear 
the traditional all covering Afghan chadof at Kabul University. 

p3
In tandem with favoring the incompetent Hekmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as the Ahmad Shah Massoud, 
the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle 
East into Afghanistan.” 

Neamatollah Nojumi in "The rise of the Taliban" some pages can be seen here:

p129
This situation led the ISI to act against any Mujahideen organization both inside and outside who wanted to run the war against 
the Soviets in accordance with Afghanistan interests.  

Steve Coll again:

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written "8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."

Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only

at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

— Steve Coll, Ghost Wars

Everyone should also watch this video (although it is on youtube). There are real people in it including Edmund McWilliams (former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan), Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Post Graduate School), Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, ret.) and others.

"The actual aid that was getting to the Panjshir and to Massoud was minimum. Nothing close to what Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and some 
of the other parties received." - Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Post Graduate School) at 1:10 into the video

I think these samples prove the validity of the information given by me.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if some administrator would finally act on Jrkso's edit warring. see here He is not interested in all the sources, but in agenda-pushing. I think it is unbearable that nothing is done. Well-sourced articles will go in the crapper with such a policy.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:ZirconiumTwice - disruptive or within the bounds?

ZirconiumTwice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done some really odd, complex stuff with his userpages. He moves them to sandboxes and then moves those sandboxes to other sandboxes and then redirects other sandboxes to sandboxes. At the moment (14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC), in case it has changed since I wrote this), clicking the talkpage link in his signature takes you to one of his sandbox pages. The problem with that is (1) if one left a message to ZirconiumTwice they wouldn't see the 'you have new messages' orange box and (2) all the associated toolbox links for ZirconiumTwice such as contributions or block logs don't show because it isn't really their talk page. They also appear to have several archival copies of existing articles as well as the main page for 'Symbipedia' [84], which seems contrary to WP:UP#COPIES.

In addition, ZirconiumTwice seems to have a problem editing collegially. At the moment, he has a 'blacklist' on the sandbox that his userpage redirects to that lists PaleAqua (talk · contribs · count) and Strange Passerby (talk · contribs · count). He has brought a complaint about Cameron Scott (talk · contribs · count) [85] that was closed with no admin action needed and a note that ZirconiumTwice's warning were inappropriate. When I made a note to another user on ZirconiumTwice's talkpage and called myself a talkpage stalker, ZT responded with the section User_talk:Syrthiss#Don.27t_call_me_a_stalker.2C_please on my talkpage. My response on his talkpage trying to clarify was unanswered.

I'm bringing this here because (1) I don't have a lot of time to dig into this at the moment and (2) because I don't think I have any path available to myself that would lead to a productive outcome. I don't know if these behaviors are from a cultural difference, but ZT's edits are becoming increasingly disruptive in my opinion. I'm not sure if this is a matter for ANI, or for a RFC/U, so I'm trying to get some opinions here.

Going to notify the user on their 'talkpage' now. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous talk page history that he was trying to hide is here. David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just 'fixing' it all for him. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the user in question once left me this little nugget on my talk page after I warned him on 3RR at Manila hostage crisis. Strange Passerby (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely weird. Probably headed for more trouble. No strong opinion on whether his weirdness is actionable yet, but I wouldn't object to someone giving him direct guidance on collegiality. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the "blacklist" listing me for me. I assume it was related to my suggestion that some color navigation templates that he worked on be deleted, see series of edits. In response he left me message telling me not to distrub his user page despite my only edits to his user space being leaving a message albeit mostly templated at his talk page. PaleAqua (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the copyright claims, since they don't own the copyright of anything they add to this site.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like his userspace is now up at MFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker - page history mess

• Darth Vader (talk)
• Anakin Skywalker
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Darth_Vader&hidelinks=1&hidetrans=1

This has been an ongoing discussion pretty much forever.

Should the two pages be merged or not.

And through WP:BOLD actions and in and out of discussions, the page(s) have been moved back and forth repeatedly.

But in the meantime, various copy/pastes have happened, and edit versions have been scattered.

And now it seems, in the wake of 2 (3) merge discussions that the bulk of the edit history of what "was" darth vader's page is sitting at the Anakin Skywalker redirect, and the bulk of what "was" the Anakin Skywalker page is now at Darth Vader.

I do have a personal opinion (I think they should be separate pages for various reasons), but in looking at this, I'm wondering if we need to just history merge everything in order to clean up the mess.

Other insight on this would be welcome. - jc37 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A history merge will make a mess of the history and diffs (e.g.). Best to just use the {{copied}} templates and attribution notes in the edit history (see WP:CWW). That said, I am confused as to why these have been swapped. The old revisions of Darth Vader show the old Anakin Skywalker article and vice versa. –xeno^talk 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You sound like you're better versed in how to do this, than me : )

And yes, I was confused by that as well.

I think that, regardless of whatever the results of the various merge/don't merge discussions, that needs to be fixed asap.

If you would be willing to do so (so that it's done right : ) - please do. - jc37 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I dropped Arbitrarily0 a note to see if they can explain why they've been swapped, in case there's some reason neither of us are seeing. –xeno^talk 16:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! My thinking was that a swap would avoid complicating things with subpages, and rather keep histories exactly as they were (although under swapped locations). I'd be happy to move things back around to wherever if this has created some problems. May the force be with you, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbatimdat

Resolved

 – Indef'ed by Hersfold. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He has continued to use racial slurs in discussion: "Don't even bother answering to unsigned posts of ustashe,balije and albanian separatists my brother, just delete them" [86]

He was previously warned about this type of language before. [87] "And you better stop presenting your nazi ustasha country as a scapegoat whose independence was based on the genocide. So what if we killed 11 year olds? In Jasenovac you were murdering newborn Serb children. And sign your posts wiki croat noob" [88] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look through this editor's contribution history, and it's clear that he has a history of making attacks like this every time he comes on the site. If this was only a recent occurrence, I probably would have gone with a short-term block, but since this appears to be chronic I've blocked the user indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack from Carolmooredc

Wrong venue. Please move to Try talking to the user, calmly, and if you need more help, try WP:WQA. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Earlier today on the talk page for Talk:Libertarianism, an unregistered IP with virtually no editing experience (2 edits as of now) politely expressed a few concerns about the direction of the Libertarianism page. Carolmooredc, a user involved in the debate, instead of responding civilly to his concerns, immediately accused him of being a sockpuppet and engaging in 'disruptive editing', something I find in violation of Wikipedia's assume good faith policy, particularly it's sections on accusing others of bad faith and good faith and newcomers. Also, this is in violation of our don't bit the newbies policy, mainly this section:

*Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

I think these concerns about Carolmooredc should be addressed immediately; while the IP may indeed by a sock, accusing him of being one is against both the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page before posting.

1. You should have posted this at WP:WQA, instead of here
2. You should have made an effort to discuss the issue with her on her talk page.

I don't think her comments were probably productive, but I think you're going overboard, and should have tried to discuss it. I also don't think her comment was totally unreasonable. An IP editor with 2 edits, suddenly popped into an article that's having a heated discussion and sided with the small minority's opinion. Anyhow, I know you're having personal issues at the article over there with CarolMooreDC, but let's not start filing AN/I's for isolated and petty incivil remarks without discussing them first. If you feel you must file petty reports, please at least do so at WP:WQA. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconding the above, this does not belong here, no Administrator is going to block her for this (I hope).Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it is not a 'small minority'; if you look at the number of editors actively debating, it is about even. Ironically, the majority of the voters supporting the 'broad' viewpoint were one-and-done users who never commented again on the page; yet, when someone complains about possible meatpuppetry, you lash out and accuse us of violating policy. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Libertarianism has been under assault for years by User:Karmaisking and various of his socks have been banned from it in the last week to ten days. Since the editing style is so similar to past disruptive posts in content and attitude, I was just trying to get an idea from other editors more experience with this sock if this might be him, since dealing with this kind of abuse can be very frustrating and time consuming. Note that another editor User:Ddd1600 also created a sock puppet for the article when he was temporarily blocked. I can figure out how to show all the diffs if necessary. The complaining user must have missed those various discussions as well as this talk page section: Talk:Libertarianism#Warning_on_Sock_and_Meat_puppets. User:Karmaisking also has been busy on a couple of talk pages of editors to this page, User:BlueRobe and User:Darkstar1st, both of whom have been warned about these sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

lack of civility search the term soapbox in any of the last 5 or more archives on the talk/libertarianism, you will find each time an accusation is leveled, one of two editors do the accusing, carolmooredc being the top accuser. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block; maybe a warning would suffice. But assume good faith and don't bit the newbies are two key WP rules, and if she feels that strongly about it being a sock, she should have requested CheckUser, not personally attacked the IP. This is a recurring thing by her, BTW, accusing others of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry with no proof or evidence. Toa Nidhiki05 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question, whose entire editing history consists of 2 edits today, makes reference to "the last several months" [89] so either it's a sock or it's someone with a dynamic IP, but either way it's unlikely to be a newbie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A warning to abide by WP:AGF can't hurt. The complaints about suspected socks and disruptive behavior on the talk page are getting to be almost as disruptive as disruptive edits on the article itself. Two wrongs don't make a right. Disruptive editing and sock puppetry needs to be addressed. But disruptive complaining about the disruptive editing and sock puppetry should not be tolerated either. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but warnings to abide by WP:AGF don't belong here. They belong first on the talk pages, and if they aren't heeded there, then they belong on WP:WQA. They don't belong here on AN/I. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In the interest of speedy spam cleanup...

Resolved

There is a speedy SNOW close here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_10#Template:PortableApps.com that meets CSD criteria. Templates often get overlooked by CSD patrollers so I'm raising it here just to get quick attention. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Poof! TNXMan 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the usual AFD

Resolved

 – Complainant is a sockpuppeteer who got himself and his socks blocked.  Sandstein  11:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I fear the AFD discussion [90] for an article I have written on a new book has degenerated into a chance to take a dig at me, rather than a discussion on the article itself. I have offered the required two RS-agreed (by Wikipedia) reviews, as well as US and English newspaper and radio coverage. However, the majority of, um, "regular" contributors to this discussion are choosing to make rather personal remarks directed at me, rather than the book. Indeed, it has come to the point when I have had to offer myself up for an SPI investigation - such is the ferocity of the allegations against me. Please could you tell me where to make a complaint?--Itshayfevertime (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reading through that AFD, the arguments being made for deletion appear to be reasonable and based in policy, and I didn't see any attacks being made against you; in fact, if there are any attacks, they're by you. Accusing other editors of an organized campaign against the article is not really a reasonable response to be making in this case. Other admins want to weigh in on this, though? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• The complainant is an s.p.a. who has no interest in any other topic. These articles have been created and recreated under a variety of names. I do suspect some sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but no SPI investigation has been instigated yet. The argument so far has been policy-based, and there certainly is nothing even remotely resembling a cabal involved (at least on the "delete" side of the argument). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing others of orchestrated campaigns against some book, and telling others I know your game sort of indicates you're the one making the personal attacks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, it does look like that. Toning down the rhetoric would help. The only admin action that might help would be semi-protecting to stop the SPAs and sockpuppets. Fences&Windows 21:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I left a {{notaballot}} template on the discussion to discourage that behavior. To note about the allegation of an "organized campaign", I wouldn't have known about the AfD if it wasn't for this ANI post. -- Atama頭 21:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the backstory will help. You'll find it here:
      • User:Beehold (MfD discussion) (another discussion)
      • Fledgling Jason Steed (AfD discussion) (another discussion)
      • Jason Steed (AfD discussion)
      • Jason Steed (Young adult novels) (AfD discussion)
      • User:Itshayfevertime (MfD discussion)
      • Mark A Cooper
      • Mark A. Cooper (author)
      • Jason Steed (Book series)
      • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 12#Fledgling Jason Steed
      • User:Onthemap
      • User:BonfireCharlie
      • User:Many A Flower
      • User talk:Many A Flower
      • commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cooperfledgling.pdf
      • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Continual Recreation of Article under different titles
    • Yes. All that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And User:Beehold/Sandbox. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This edit seems problematic. Removing an afd tag isn't done. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Sure it is. Bad-faith nomination, WP:SPEEDYKEEP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Itshayfevertime (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Missedcall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Functionalskills (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ihatejasonsteed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about User:Onthemap? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears  Unrelated, but of course there's always WP:DUCK. And perhaps there is some meat puppetry involved as well.  Frank  |  talk  04:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to sprinkle some salt on the Jason Steed articles? And is this an admin impersonation? MER-C 01:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is.--Crossmr (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 3 months for admin impersonation. That's an open and shut "no". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the need to ask,

What's going to happen to the master account?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Itshayfevertime is now blocked indef by me for abuse of multiple accounts and likely also the IP stunt above. No objections against an unblock after some months and a convincing unblock request.  Sandstein  11:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Beehold the Master account (It was certainly the first)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by user admission.  Frank  |  talk  12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but we already have a Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Itshayfevertime, so it's probably easier to treat Itshayfevertime as the main account for administrative purposes.  Sandstein  13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now also indeffed Beehold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  13:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Sarujo

I added some citations from a DK guidebook to some Transformers articles last night, and come to find the user Sarujo has removed some (for instance Optimus Prime (Transformers). I pointed out that I modeled them after similar citations in article in the Batman article, which was a featured article, so I figured it was written correctly. I accused me of being lazy, then deleted them again. I've stated I can go into more detail this weekend, but as they stand they are they are perfectly acceptable. He keeps removing them from articles, saying I have to write them with more detail. I tell him that they are identical references I saw in supposedly well written articles, and he basically tells me he's trying to "rattle the cage" User talk:Sarujo to get me to write better. I do not appreciate someone repeatedly removing valid just to get me to rewrite something the way he wants to write it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're claiming harassment while you earlier accuse Sarujo of vandalism? That said, both of you need to knock it off and quit whining off to ANI every time a disagreement occurs. I urge both to calm down, act a little more rational and collegial as opposed to calling each other names. –MuZemike 20:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valdaliam for removing valid content for no reason. He countered that it's valdalism, he did it to "rattle" my cage. Consider it rattled. Mathewignash (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You've failed to point out that I've ask you to tell me what they correspond to so I could add them in the suitable places in said articles. I can't believe you're using a comedic metaphor as your only defense here. First off a bibliography only should be used for cases when there are additional sources for statement already sourced. That book I'm guessing is something to do with development, am I right? So there very little to nothing protean to their development. Plus there are instances where a bibliography is used just list the names of current book used here or other literature that protean to the subject that, although helpful, were not needed as they sourced the same stuff. It would benefit these article better if your submitted source were included in the corresponding statements within those articles. As I do not believe that the sources don't cover everything that that article contains, fancruft and all. I ask you to tell me what those pages were and what the read, but ignored me. As usual. This is why I removed the instances of the source, as it was falling on you to put them in the proper places, as the source is unavailable and esoteric to some people. The sections need their citations, why can't you just give them what they need rather just put them off to the side. And don't say me removing them is impeding this cause you got that book right there in front of you. And if I'm not mistaken, there's a discussion regarding the book integrity right now on your talk page, is it not? So why not just edit in the sandbox or a sandbox of your own for the so-called work you want to do for these articles? Sarujo (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarujo CONTINUES to delete valid references to articles. This is deliberate vandalism. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes one feels like blocking 2 editors just to stop the whinging. It wouldn't be right, but when people don't read WP:VANDAL correctly, that sometimes happens. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have full-protected Optimus Prime (Transformers) for 24 hours for edit warring; I, or another admin will be sure to block if this continues. –MuZemike 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is just one page that Ignash just happen to bring to your attention. There are several other pages where the same thing occurs. Only he manages to go along and add the source to the statements. To go along everywhere else and cry vandalism on one article doesn't make sense to me. Sarujo (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

BennyTV

Resolved

 – Blocked by Selket. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone set BennyTV (talk · contribs) straight on what is and isn't original research? He keeps re-adding unsourced information on Kenny (album), claiming that his own two ears are a source. See this diff as an example; and even after my explanation that "The album's opening track "You Turn The Light On" does, however, and features Rogers atypically-singing such lyrics as "ooh baby." "Santiago Midnight Moonlight," "She's A Mystery" and "In and Out of Your Heart" are also disco-esque. " is unacceptable without a source has done nothing. I count at least four reverts on his side, so he's already gone afoul of WP:3RR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked for edit warring. -Selket ^Talk 20:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhm07 inserting copyrighted material to Fort Osage High School

Resolved

 – Temporarily blocked; content removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this needs administrator attention, so bringing this here. New user, Mhm07 (talk · contribs), inserting copyrighted material to Fort Osage High School. User has been reverted twice: 1, 2, and inserted copyrighted material in again 3 after being warned 4. Will notify user of this right after submitting. Akerans (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Hopefully, s/he will get the message. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

125.255.65.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started placing unsourced date of birth on the article for Nessa Morgan [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] (claiming "Birth date as per New Zealand register of births, deaths and marriage"). See Talk:Nessa Morgan for information on what sources say about her dob. Then started removing a sourced dob for Dannielle Gaha [97] (claiming "Removed incorrect year of birth on behalf of Dannielle DeAndrea- Dannielle's management."), [98], [99]. (first removed here and then restored with a reference here) Warnings [100], [101], [102]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The reason for the block is Disruptive editing: Slow moving edit warring on Dannielle Gaha. Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

if this person is claiming to be Danielle's management and tried to fix a date, blocking them sounds less helpful than telling them to make an account and inform OTRS of who they are. 67.119.12.106 (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I left the IP a note. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Junk uploading by Marcus781

Resolved

 – Marcus781 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked and uploads nuked.

Marcus781 is uploading lots of files, all with no source or licensce infromation, and with spam names. I've given him an only warning for disruptive uploading. Could an admin delete the files and block if he continues? Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on the supposed gang that he's writing has some suspicious hoaxaliciousness to it, as well. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indef'ed for disruptive editing ( attempting to promote a street gang, real or not, is not vaguely OK here ). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also delete these files:

• File:Xcghxfnw6ywwyysdhsdfhfghghghghgghghtytytyu78787878787878.jpg
• File:Walkingbridge.jpg
• File:Fddfh6666fghghjgh.jpg
• File:Dfgdfgdfgdehgrfgj55555.JPG
• File:Ca576fdfghsdfsdsdssseD109.jpg
• and File:47467547fgfgfhf.jpg

Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

These are all useless images with no source and copyright info. I'll nuke them all.  Sandstein  11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Prince of Kosova

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Prince of Kosova (talk · contribs) has been a very disruptive influence in an either way rather heated RfC discussion. Aside from an extremely disruptive, fervently nationalist tone and POVWARRIOR mentality, he has removed other users' comments and votes several times, despite several warnings at his talk page. He is also very uncivil, insulting other users in his latest comment: "idi u picku matera Serbsko govno" (if I understand it correctly, "go f*** your mother, Serbian shit") or "Fige, Pussi malaka Ellikina" (bad Greek for "sod off, Greek fags") [103]... Although a new account, he appears to be at least familiar with Wikipedia jargon, judging by his use of "WP:Not a SOAPBOX" in an edit summary [104], possibly indicating a sockpuppet. Constantine ✍ 12:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what it meant, I speak English and Albanian, I was told they meant "you have lost your argument" in Serbian and Greek, I never knew it meant that. Please realize I am fighting an uphill struggle against a block formed entirely by Greeks and Serbs who are POVWARRIOR pushing themselves against sources and neutral info. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Riiight, yeah, that's believable... And it still fails to account for repeatedly and despite several warnings removing others comments, which is a blockable offense all by itself. And edits like this only worsen it. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the wider issue, but I see nothing wrong with the redirect: per Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Neutrality of redirects, "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy", "The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms". TFOWR 12:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I merely added it as a reflection of his mentality. Constantine ✍ 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...however, edits like this, this, this, and this are a very real cause for concern. Prince of Kosova, you have some explaining to do. TFOWR 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I think explanations are not needed: this is just a standard aggressive nationalist POV-pusher. I especially like him issuing "Barnstars of Neutrality and Fine Editting" (sic) for "your works for telling the truth to brainwahsed Greco-Serbs". Very amusing, but not needed here. Blocked indefinitely per WP:BATTLE.  Sandstein  13:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Top marks for innovative use of barnstars... However, I'd agree: any explanation can be in the form of an unblock request. I'm sure it's not required but I endorse block. TFOWR 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Widespread canvassing by User:WritersCramp

Someone AfD'd an article that WritersCramp (talk · contribs) created and was a major contributor to (see AfD here). In response, WritersCramp tagged the article for rescue, and then went on a huge canvassing spree, notifying well over 100 editors about the AfD. See his message to me here, which is identical to the message he sent everyone else. While his message is not explicitly asking for a particular !vote, it's clear these messages are completely inappropriate. Looking at the four criteria at WP:CANVAS, I would say it fails Scale (100-200 editors, so far), Audience (since a disproportional number of the editors he notified are ARS members, who are generally inclusionists), and Transparency (since the only way to find the canvassing is to look through his contributions). WP:CANVAS also lists this as an example of inappropriate canvassing: "Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users, or to users who have asked not to receive such messages." WritersCramp was warned by another user about canvassing here, but continued to canvas after the warning.
So, I think we can all agree that this behavior is inappropriate canvassing. The next question is, what can be done about it? The AfD is hopelessly tainted now. I'll add the {{Not a ballot}} template to the top, but I doubt it will accomplish much. Should the AfD be closed and restarted at a later date? Should WritersCramp be temporarily blocked for continuing to canvas after being warned (probably a bit harsh)? Will the closing admin be able to distinguish which !votes came as a result of canvassing and discount them? SnottyWong ^babble 14:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing the AfD would seem to encourage rather than discouraging such canvassing. I agree it's a problem that should have been stopped when the contributor was first notified. Beyond the canvassing, there is some concerning edit-warring with tags on the article in question: [105] (rvt. 1); [106] (rvt. 2); [107] (rvt. 3). This edit shows the contributor is aware of the "bright line" and not unwilling to solicit others to enforce his actions to avoid crossing it. Some of the tags may be excessive, but the article clearly is an {{orphan}}, and I can't see the value of reverting the correction to the formatting of Portal:Christianity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And because he is about to be hit by 3RR, he's asking at the AfD for someone else to to a revert for him [108]. I'm very concerned about this canvassing. I don't know if these are all ARS members, but putting 'Rescue' as the section heading is clearly asking people to support keeping the article. I also think that if we have ARS, there should be no separate posts to ARS members like these. This is clearly not helping the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He canvassed me, too. His conduct is unacceptable, and I urge Administrators to take the appropriate actions against him. On the merits, the Armageddon theology article should be deleted soon.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend Block for disruption and asking someone to be his meat puppet. It's edit warring plain and simple. this process simply can't continue with his continued participation if he keeps this up.--Crossmr (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the AFD, I think the boomerang has come back around--while there are more editors involved than might otherwise be the case, the AFD doesn't really seem tainted to me. I'd hate to see any tea spilt as a result of this tempest. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

taint is not necessarily an issue. His behaviour is disruptive, even if it's not getting him the result he wants. I wasn't going to recommend a block, but asking someone to join his edit war steps over the line. the process needs a break from him. He can self-impose or someone can do it for him is my recommendation. and his insistence that people who want to delete it not edit it during AfD is a violation of WP:OWN. Strongly support a block. He misused the help template on his user page to try and get an admin to enforce that.[109]--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I have no position on whether or not a block is appropriate--I've looked over WritersCramp's contributions, and while clearly s/he's been around long enough to know policy, and seems in general to be a constructive editor, the canvassing and asking for another editor to revert is troubling. My point was simply that the AFD seems to be proceeding in a reasonable fashion. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What's done is done, and unfortunately we can't do anything about it for this AFD except hope that the closing arguments carefully considers the canvassing. A block is one option for settling this, however I do wish to propose this sanction: WritersCramp is prohibited from mentioning or linking to any open XfD or DRV discussion, except to the significant contributors of the page in question. Violations of this sanction as well as wikilawyering about the sanction will be dealt with severely. NW (Talk) 15:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support both. There's a significant sign of WP:IDHT in this, and this was disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. It appears as if something significant will have to happen just to get his or her attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I was about to block him for a week after he removed the 'not a ballot' template, but as I'd voted... but I would support both a block and the ban proposed above. Maybe letting him back in February was not a good idea (he'd been indeff'd for sock puppetry & loads of blocks in 2005/6). Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have reverted the page back to a redirect. This is what the page originally was and the vast majority of people commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology want it reverted to one. Sort of s 'SNOW redirect'. HalfShadow 16:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked WritersCramp 2 weeks for disruptive editing, opting for a longer block due to his history of disruption ([110]). –MuZemike 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great minds and all that. My own block for 2 weeks was just beaten by yours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My suicide has been requested

I just received this bit of unpleasantness from an editor, who I recently blocked for a week because of vandalism. I'm not usually keen to block people because of incivility, but an invitation to commit suicide is a bit much. Since I'm obviously not objective in this matter, I leave the decision to others. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given a 48 hour NPA/Harassment block, because that's pretty egregious. I have no objections whatsoever to anyone lengthening that block, but would appreciate conversation before it is shortened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick intervention! Favonian (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MRG, I block conflicted you. I was going to indef as a VOA. Courcelles 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to escalate the length from the previous 1-week block and give a 2-week block, so he's lucky you got there first. I don't see any need to lengthen the block, though, since we can always block him again if he doesn't cut it out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also about to indef the account, but agree with FisherQueen.  Sandstein  16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, y'all can lengthen if it seems appropriate. The only reason I didn't indef myself is that this seems to have attempted to be constructive, even if it doesn't meet sourcing standards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)