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

Baiting and insults by User:Binesi

the User:Binesi has been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content.

he goaded and provoked me, saying to the effect (he didn't say these himself, but his words conveyed the meaning) of- "I don't want to edit war with you but you are an obnoxious dick" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but you are totally wrong and should shut up" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

His messages to me may seem concilliatory and neutral, but are extremely sarcastic in nature, claiming that he is "sorry" that we are arguing and have different views, but using insulting terms to describe me and my edits. take a look at his edits here, in which he makes thinly veiled insults veiled and disguised as friendly overtures and compliments

Binesi admits to being 208.64.63.176-Binesi admitted to being 208.64.63.176- "As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable."

208.64.63.176 was given the highest level severe warning by an admin for deliberately misrepresenting sources

i filed an ANI report which led to the warning here

When it appeared that Binesi realized his mistake, i even tried to pull back my complaint about his copyvio to an admin, but i was forced to retract it after Binesi was uncooperative

Among other edits, one of the things he did on the talk page was to falsely claim that i accused him of legal threats, and that I claimed slander was a legal threat. He provided no such diffs or evidence that I ever said such a thing. I invite him to provide evidence that i did so.

Mr. Binesi's sarcastic "concilliatory" messages to me Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Wikipedia rules and standards would become an article in itself.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Wikipedia articles do. It's more juvenile than effective.

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment, in which he - enters into an off topic monologue about original research, in which he totally ignores the fact that the content he deleted was referenced and not original research These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- [1] [2] These were the references- criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&dq=He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape&hl=en soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as western troops ran amok for three days in an orgy of looting, rape, and murder&f=false

In general, the tone in which he talks is sarcastic and mocking, pretending as if he is "friendly" to me and hopes to "work with me", then after insulting me more, he pretends to be "horrified" and "disgusted", with me.

I tried being nice, and explained to him exactly what was wrong with his edits, in these two comments- [3] [4], but i only receieved an extremely sarcastic, insulting response

i consider this message from him to be an attempt to bait me into insulting him back- "Thanks for encouragement. I am really trying to improve this aspect of my character - remaining cool headed and neutral that is. I was fairly disgusted at first that someone would slant this article so blatantly and cherry pick from the given references fragments which suited a particular viewpoint."

We have both agreed not to touch the article in question, what i want is for a definite warning set up by an admin that anyone who accuses another of being a "Wu Mao Dang" (a term used to describe internet users paid by the Chinese communist party to insert propaganda) as ip 208.64.63.176 claimed that the article was "hijacked" by wu mao dang"

I consider it a personal attack to be accused of being affiliated with the communist party, and I also protest against Biseni's baiting ( Wikipedia:Bait)

WP:BAIT states that- "They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon." "In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator."

regretfully i may have taken the bait here in response to his insulting message, but i apologize for responding to his insult and next time I will report and delete such messages with responding.

It appears that Biseni is attempting to deploy this tactic against me. I request an admin promise to ban everyone, from this moment, who attempts to bait and hurl insults on the talk page of Boxer Rebellion. I know this will apply to me to and I will not use aggresive language from now on. For my part, i will not accuse people of "pro western POV", and others should not be able to bring up the straw man of the chinese communist party, especially since none of the sources in the article are chinese, and i have harshly criticized the use of Chinese government sources.

That would be like me calling for tobacco to be banned, yet another person slams me for spreading pro Tobacco POV, which makes no sense.Дунгане (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• You will get a much faster response if you make your situation brief but clear, and not 22 paragraphs long. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Background:
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:Дунгане and questionable edits
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Boxer Rebellion
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650#Дунгане/Arilang1234
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I won't add too much to this as I think the situation is self evident to anyone doing an overall check of Дунгане's history and to our conversations and to the general negative response he gets from the community at large. This in my mind is a highly disruptive individual who adds little positive contribution to Wikipedia. He seems to persistently get into conflicts and abuse the system to silence editors. He has also posted numerous diatribe personal attacks on many talk pages. I also have suspicions (but I need time to research further) that he may have created puppet accounts to get previous users silenced.

  For my part however, I will say I was too confrontational in dealing with him and I need to take more time to study Wikipedia policies so I can acclimate to how things are done here and respond more effectively. My only purpose is to ensure Wikipedia reflects reality and does not try to influence it. I don't hope to see referenced information being twisted to suit a narrowed POV, whatever that POV may be. If that means championing a neglected article to get it cleaned up, I am happy to do what I can and welcome any criticisms that could improve my effectiveness at that purpose. I really did try to empathize, compromise, and see from his point of view, but some people just make a habit of missing the point. Binesi (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I know this is a huge block of text already. I just want to add that I read something just now that seemed appropriate:

"In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Time-pressed administrators may look only at specific edits without delving into the background that led up to the incident, resulting in a warning or block for the targeted editor." Binesi (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i can't ignore the fact that Binesi is essentially copying my comments and repeating exactly what i said to him, over here

In addition, Arilang1234, the user whom i had a dispute with in the ANI threats Binesi has just brought up, has a terrible track record of insulting Manchus and Mongols, insisting that they were barbaric because they were not chinese. Even other Chinese editors like HongQiGong harshly berated Arilang1234 for his comments.

Binesi claims that i "persistently" get into conflicts, yet most of them have been with Arilang1234, whom I have pointed out above has spread anti Manchu and anti Mongol POV.

User:Binesi has failed to point out any POV twisting in the references, and failed to justify his edits to the article, which twisted and misrepresented sources, go see one of his "edits" to the article.Дунгане (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why are you claiming I am one of your previous targets of conflict on my talk page? How many have there been? I am not going to research every page you have posted on, but how many personal attacks are there? You linked these to me. I see it mentioned a few times and someone more experience then I can probably pull up a list. Behaviors usually do form patterns in my experience. Also, why is the article you heavily edited now flagged as being biased among other things? User Smallchief also says something rather concerning: "deletions of inaccurate text are undone and the inaccurate text re-posted". BTW, you undone my efforts at trying to give a NPOV so don't claim I haven't mentioned your misrepresentations. There is more explanation on each related talk page. You know, I rather wish you would quite wasting my (and how many others too I don't know) time with this and just submit any future article changes you wish to make on talk pages for general consensus rather than making direct edits. Is that just not going to work for you? And yes, thanks for the reference. I did find that ironic, and now you complain I can read it and was enlightened to your tactic? Odd. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself. Binesi (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and the reference for that edit he writes in the last sentence is this [[5]]. He would rather claim they where drinking tea with their victims when the reference is mentioned. Major twisting of the reference. That sounded so ridiculous when I first read it I had to check for myself. I mean.. these are troops in the rear and the article turns into a focused propaganda piece about them. I've never even heard of them (not that that's relevant but it made me check). Binesi (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor i warred with on Second Sino Japanese War was using sockpuppets, and was blocked, if people look at the logs. It had nothing to do with incivility or personal attacks, and i did not complain of any, yet that editor was bordering on obnoxious, User:Benlisquare noted on the the talk page of Second Sino Japanese War that he personally attacked me.

Its odd since you were the one who initiated the baiting and name calling, in an attempt to lure me into lashing back out at you

Smallchief's concerns dealt with the usage of nianhua as a source in the article. your edits never touched upon this, instead, you deleted text referenced from reliable book sources. What i actually want here is not for you to get blocked, but for your sarcastically toned and insult ridden comments to stop. If you have anything to say, cut the garbage iyt and get straight to the point in answering questions about your deletions etc, rather than toning insulting comments set in a "concilliatory" manner. By the way, i am not interested in spending my entire time on wiki at boxer rebellionДунгане (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already requested and agreed to the removal of the nianhua POV on the article, and because of Smallchief's concerns, i already added notes to the nianhua images in the article that the events were "alleged", and that the author was not present at the battle

User:Blackmane is doing a fine job cleaning up grammar, and we came to an agreement that content referenced from nianhua was to be deleted.

If Binesi has any concerns, i hope he will discuss them in a civil manner, and not attack and try to defame editors by claiming they are "wu mao dang" (communist agent). I find it offensive to suggest that i am linked to the Communist party of China.Дунгане (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

see Wumaodang for more information.Дунгане (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your comment about nianhuas is just attempting to confuse, but its a good example of what you have tried to do to the article. I hope it's not a show and you will really cooperate with others now. Maybe we don't even need an admin to look at this. But no, lets first look at your name Дунгане. You use the name of the Dungan/Дунган as your alias. The same Hui Chinese you glorify in your article. Do you not feel your position might be just a little bit biased? And you can't read English if you think what you just linked accuses you of anything. But thanks for getting it in the open that you also have a bias against the government of the people you write about. BTW if you keep writing "communist agent" over and over again you are going to get Wikipedia blocked in China. In fact it just happened a few minutes ago and now I have to use a proxy. Great. Binesi (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to explain why Binesi wrote insulting messages on the talk page accusing me of doing things which did not even happen. Binesi claimed that i accused him of legal threats, and that i claimed the word slander was a legal threat

If anyone goes to see for themselves, i have posted no such claim.

Binesi insults me, claiming i am copying other people's language-

"I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it."

Yet, I used the word ad hominem weeks before Binesi came onto the article, and before anyone else used the word, on the talk page of Boxer rebellion here.Дунгане (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where did I accuse you of legal threats? Without being insulting at all.. are you sure you read what I write? I admit my language can be a bit subtle, but it still has clear meaning. And yes, that was a kind of insult about the "ad hominem" because I noticed you used it directly after resident used it to describe the errors you make. You also wrongly accuse me of using slander after I confronted you with the same quite legitimately. You also call my words disgusting after I said I felt that way when I saw your reference twisting. I noticed you do this kind of parroting, so I pointed it out. I am not a robot and it is pretty hard to be super nice to someone when they keep using personal attacks. Anyway, I see you are running out of steam, so can we wrap this up so I can get back to more important personal business? Binesi (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to notify administrators of a very relevent discussion happening here --> Nice of you to defend vandals. Binesi (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Binesi apparently thinks we are blind and cannot read what he wrote- "Also, for the record, since I started some interesting reading about Wikipedia's more obscure policies - my usage of the word "slander" does not represent a legal threat. You can write as much unsubstantiated crap about other editors as you like Дунгане"

• Ya... can you actually read that? Read it again. Seriously. Read it carefully. If I was really giving you the benefit of the doubt this might explain the twisting of references... It is like you read, but you interpret what you think something says and not what it actually says. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Further clarification: I understand you might have learned English in Russia. That's fine. You may want to consider though if this version of Wikipedia is the best place for you to be editing. I have had to do far too much explaining of the finer points of English meaning. The sentence you link says "my usage of the word slander". You see? That "my" (me, myself, Binesi) usage. So I am talking about myself using the word. Next we have "does not represent a legal threat". That is a clarification. I write that if I use the word slander I don't mean it as a legal threat. So slander means "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" (Google). That's it. Stop inserting some threat or accusation directed toward you. Fully understood? Look - it may be this same problem with the references you are paraphrasing. If you don't understand them fully you may tend to insert your own meaning. That meaning may reflect something about you and not the original writer. That is me giving you the benefit of the doubt now. If you want me to explain something in another language then just pick one. My Russian is a bit awful, but I can try. Mandarin would be better. Binesi (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Binesi also made a false claim regarding one of his edits- "In the linked East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History it says "Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as Western troops ran amok for three days in a an orgy of looting, rape, and murder." It does not say that Japanese did not commit rape. What they did during and in between periods of amazement is not covered so I removed the unsupported assumption."

• Yes, that is exactly what it says. I was not discussing any additional sources. If you have some, give them. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Binesi has just dug himself into a deeper hole, one of the references, right next to where it said there was no Japanese rape in the article, said "He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape"

this was the edit in which he removed the part about japanese forces. The reference i mentioned above was right next to it.

• What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? If you want to link a reference, do it properly so we can all check it. That could save everyone a lot of time and prevent your edits from being deleted for being unreferenced. That's on you. Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do indeed want this thread to be closed, either nobody edits this section for several days, and a bot automatically archives it, or its closed when an admin decides to write off this thread.Дунгане (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You still ignore all my other claims and fail to respond to why you use repeated personal attacks on myself and other editors. Why did you write that the Boxers did not rape foreigners when the claim was Boxers did not rape Chinese? Why did you post pictures of many battles being won by Dong Fuxiang when he could not possibly be at each one and it does not reflect the consensus of events? These are just two examples in repeated small twists to support a personal POV. Please state your purpose here and can you address each issue and the bad referencing of the article in general? Binesi (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me proof that the book said Boxers raped foreigners? Generally, in the English language, when an adjective is used to describe a noun,, such as in White slavery, it means that the slaves in question are white, not that whites are enslaving others as slaves. The book Christian slaves, Muslim masters: white slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, used "White slavery", to refer to white slaves owned by muslim masters, as does every single other academic medium which uses the term to describe european slaves.

"Chinese rape", gramatically, can only mean that it refers to Chinese being raped by XXX.

• Seriously? We already settled this and you pretend we haven’t? Ok here it is again:
• Luella Miner remarks "that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape". She is already talking about the Boxers here, which are Chinese. Qualifying rape with "Chinese" in this sentence highly suggests she is referring to no incidents of Boxers raping other Chinese. However in this article you want to attach this claim to refer to foreigners not being raped. A cursory check on Google shows numerous claims of Western women being raped in publication and official organs so this appears to be well supported as not true or at the very least contentious. It makes sense to require some proof of the claim you make when the reference you give does not provide it. Additionally, slavery in the Western world is usually associated with Africans if not talking about ancient history. Qualifying a different type of slavery with something like "white" makes sense and is necessary. For Luella Miner to use such a qualifier here would be redundant. Your defense here is very weak. Binesi (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted pictures when they were available, anyone is free to post pictures on an article which pertains to the subject of the picture. the painting Washington Crossing the Delaware is used on many articles, yet what is depicted in the picture, does not reflect the actual event, in which there was no flag waving high over the boat, and no one knew if Washington actuallly stood up in the boat.

• The Washington picture you speak of is very well known. It is highly notable. Your comparison is beyond absurd. Binesi (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You either think we are blind or cannot read. You claimed that "you will remain unproductively belligerent and even quote a different publication, "China now", when I was referring to "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" in item 2? What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? "

Anyone can see "China Now" was the referenced used to support the fact that only the western forces in the 8 nation allianced looted and raped. It was right next to the sentence "All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women which you removed.

China Now CLEALRY STATES THAT: "Despite what he himself had suffered in the Rising, Hart refused to share in the West's demands for revenge. He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape,

Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet was a BRITISH man, not a Chinese or Japanese.

Clicking on the "China Now", the the link i showed above, links directly to the link i already providedДунгане (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Finally! You provide a link to backup a claim. You know, if you did that in the beginning it would save a lot of trouble. Don't expect people to read a whole book when what you link to is (1) a search that turns up information about fires burning and (2) another link that DOES talk about what you said but says something different than you claimed. So now finally this can be the single claim you can backup with a real reference to information cited. Fix it up and lets go with it. What about the rest? LOL! Binesi (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and I am not sure why you point out he is British. Are British reliable sources and Japanese and Chinese are not? I won't argue either way without researching but I would say that the fact that he is not Japanese or Chinese means he won't know so much about what they did or didn't do. It would be a much better reference if there was a Chinese quote of the same. I think you should note who makes the claim in the article. Binesi (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "LOL" is on YOU- the link i just provided,, links directly to This link here which Binesi ridiculed, and claimed was about "Fires", yet directly above page 29, it states- "1 page matching He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape in this book". I'm sorry, Binesi really thinks that any editors looking at this would be extremely stupid. Both of the links are exactly the same publication of China Now, yet Binesi claims they are different.

Binesi removed" " All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women", which was right next to the citation "China now, Issues 125-139", yet Binesi claimed that i cited "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History"

Pray tell, why doesn't Binesi show us the results of his "cursory check on google"? Does he have something to hide?Дунгане (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Umm... just search for yourself as see? Please enlighten me to all the demons you are seeing. I feel that I must be part of some dastardly faction out to...well you lost me there - please fill in the rest. Or is this just more red herrings? The point remains to back up your claims and don't invent meanings that don't exist. And as I pointed out and you ignore again and again - you linked to the wrong information in that book. You expect people to read the whole book when you link to something about fires? Binesi (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"cursory check" shows nothing on Boxer rape except linking to this article which further reinforces the fact that Boxers did not rape "When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape).

Not only has the cursory check failed to find any accounts of Chinese Boxers raping western women, it pointed to the guardian news article which pointed to the opposite, that the Boxers did not rape while western forces did.

By the way, its funny how the link you call about "fires", says directly in the Url- http://books.google.com/books?id=xGZwAAAAMAAJ&q=He+criticised+the+behaviour+of+the+relief+forces:+all+except+the+Japanese+indulged+in+pillage+and+rape&dq=He+criticised+the+behaviour+of+the+relief+forces:+all+except+the+Japanese+indulged+in+pillage+and+rape&hl=en&ei=zQv4TLzECoPGlQevzKSLAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA

right above where it mentions fires, above "page 29", it says "1 page matching He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape in this book"Дунгане (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you guy(s) just summarise what you're raising an ANI about? Put some diffs up and let the admins look in to it. This has turned into a content dispute on ANI. --Blackmane (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't raising an ANI. It's not my style to complain to administrators if there is still a chance I can handle it. If an admin wants to dig into references on the Boxer article however that would only be a good thing. Those issues are easily spotted. As long as there is enough eyes on the article now and the issues with POV and bad referencing is exposed I am happy to wrap this up and consider that purpose accomplished. Дунгане previously offered to not do direct edits to the article and to use a third party. If that still stands I have other things to focus on right now.

• Unfortunately the administrative response is rather lukewarm. There are a number of unresolved issues beyond just content as stated above, however if the rest of the community doesn't want to address it I also don't want to spend further time on it. I will not be checking this page again so use my talk page if I'm needed. Binesi (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

More eyes please.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.

I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

List of common misconceptions

This is a frequently-contentious article, even by those of us who get along in general, because of the strict standards we attempt to impose on it to prevent its being too much of a hodge-podge. We have a user who insists, despite lengthy talk page discussion, that he has a right to post a particular theory despite the lack of consensus to do so. He was doing this a couple of weeks ago, and is now getting into an edit war about it.

Since the user won't pay attention to those of us who comprise the Great Unwashed, I wonder if one of the admins with a good way with words would share one or two of those words with the user.

The user has edited under both the registered ID TheThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the logged-out IP 72.187.199.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is no accusation of sockpuppetry here, as he has freely admitted jumping from one to the other. The issue is strictly that his behavior is getting excessively disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me echo Baseball Bugs' concerns. This user apparently thinks he constitutes a consensus of one person, despite being told repeatedly there is no such thing. He first tried to restore contentious material "under the radar" by editing as an IP with no edit summary. When called on that, he waited a couple of weeks, then restored the same contentious material (again with a "consensus" of one person), stating "Added back in due to lack of consensus". Note also that the same editor has tried to add a variety of items to the same page over a period of the last couple of months. Some were accepted without serious objection. So we have taken the time to consider his edits and, when needed, discuss them. But he can't seem to accept the absence of consensus (or any support, for that matter) on this particular item that he has repeatedly restored. Cresix (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He's also issued a gratuitous "edit-warring" warning to me due to the fact that I removed the blatant falsehood that "birds are dinosaurs". That's a minor issue, but an example of the user's disruptive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the same to me after I reverted him one time. Cresix (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most appropriate place for this is the edit warring noticeboard Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. He hasn't violated 3RR that I know of. His biggest transgression is not respecting the consensus process, not edit warring per se. Cresix (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Informed TheThomas of this discussion. Please remember that you must notify the subject(s) of ANI threads. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified him before I posted here. He deleted it. And this is not just about edit warring. Take a look at his little user page manifesto which is largely about being confrontational.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was careful to check the history for that before notifying him; I noticed you mentioned that you would be taking it to ANI, but not that you had done so. It's important to notify users that there is an ongoing discussion about them at ANI so that they may contribute / defend themselves as necessary. In any case it's done now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here[7] I told him that I was just about to post at ANI. That was after I had warned him that if he reverted again I was going to do so; and it was before I posted here. So I informed him, and you informed him. So hopefully he's sufficiently informed, at least on that particular point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Birds were Dinosaurs? Possibly this is a misconception. Wouldn't the Ref. Desk be a better venue to hash this out? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are considered "an extant clade of dinosaurs". That doesn't mean that birds are dinosaurs. In any case, the editor refuses to discuss it. That's an interesting idea about posting to the ref desk, though. I'll give that a try and see what the opinions are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon 108, sorry if I am misunderstanding your comment. The issue in this ANI report isn't about birds and dinosaurs. It's about repeatedly adding contentious information (which itself has nothing to do with birds and dinosaurs) without consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@ BaseBall Bugs:) I've never heard of a "Clade of Dinosaurs", but then again I only recently heard that it is called a "Kettle of Vultures". Hope the Ref. Desk sorts all that out for you. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to turn this into a list of cute phrases, but I thought "Murder of crows" should get the absurd phrase award until I saw your "Kettle of vultures". Cresix (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See here Clade, applies to all organisms, not just dinosaurs, is a term for classifying an organism and its descendants. Heiro 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"A Clade of Organisms/Dinosaurs". Just found "a Battery of Barracudas" as well. Does Wikipedia have an article on the names of gathered animals? 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse,or have you not read clade. I is not a name specific to dinosaurs. It is a term describing the relationship between different species. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for help on this point at the science ref desk. My question is solely "are birds dinosaurs?" I'll be glad to restore that point to the misconceptions article IF it's considered to be true by the experts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of birds. Heiro 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it calls it "a contentious topic" is sufficient to keep it out of the misconceptions article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(@Grumpy) I found the article: Lists of collective nouns It is quite extensive. 108.121.139.247 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it tad strange, that an IP (108.121.139.247) which has only been on line for less the an hour, knew exactly where WP:ANI was? I sense a block evader amongst us. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's assume good faith here. There hasn't been any misbehavior, and there is such a thing as a dynamic IP. Cresix (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A newbie shows up & comes directly here? something is fishy, but I'll leave it up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, definitely suspicious, but he hasn't overtly violated any rules that we know of.

      Regarding the dinosaurs-birds issue, I think the "misconception" needs to be reworded. Would that the subject of this section would address that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well I've been spit on enough for tonight, but I will make one last comment. In response to GoodDay's less than polite comments here and at my original IP talk: AGF should not be too far of a stretch for those that understand Dynamic IP's. If you don't understand them, or on IP's being allowed to edit, you might want to do more reading and less typing for awhile. In fact I have been here for several years editing anonymously. And yes, I do know my way around a bit. When policy dictates that I can no longer edit as an IP, I won't. When my ISP assigns me a permanent address, continuity of my edits will be apparent. Until one of those things happens, I may appear to have no history, or I may appear to have the history that is in fact that of another/others. GoodDay's edits to/about me could be construed as both rude and as a personal attack. Do you have a diff from me that warranted your comments? Looks like I might have pointed Bugs in the right direction with the Ref. Desk. He seems to be making good progress on the Bird/Dinosaur issue. Sorry about the drama. 108.111.90.165 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If you had created an account & signed in, I wouldn't have become suspicious. Anyways, do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You look on him differently because he has no account? You do realize that's admitting to violating a couple policies, right? WP:AGF and WP:BITE to name a couple. Grow up please, having an account or not means nothing to the quality or ability of an editor and saying it does is being childish. -- ۩ Mask 06:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • As I've accepted the IP's status as not being a block-evading editor, my previous concerns are irrelevant. As for growing-up? I'm 6ft in height & in my late 30's - therefore I can't grow any further. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume this was a newcomer in the first place, especially when ANI is the very first venue. That being said, using dynamic IPs which are assigned out of the user's control is very much possible. –MuZemike 07:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you need to read and digest Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This noticeboard has made the newspapers long since. It's not exactly an unknown little corner of Wikipedia. You need to eliminate from your thinking the notion that people who don't create accounts are automatically third-class citizens contributing in bad faith. That thinking is something that regularly gets people into trouble, from people who get de-Twinkled for erroneously treating edits as vandalism to people who find themselves heavily criticized for excluding policy-based and cogent arguments for no good reason. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but past experience has caused me to think in the manner that I do. IMHO, it takes very little effort to create an account & sign in. PS: If anybody has any thing more to say to me on this topic? please bring those concerns to my office (i.e. my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Past experience is not an excuse for a blanket and automatic assumption that editors without accounts operate in bad faith, even were it to support such a conclusion in the first place (which it usually doesn't once one looks at the sum total of one's experiences). Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An ethnicity-specific group of AFD discussions and everything that that led to

Canvassing by User:Epeefleche

Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has recently posted a notification on the talk pages of 65 different editors regarding the existence of six Judiasm-related AfD's. This is an example of the typical notification. I attempted to engage Epeefleche to figure out why this had been done, but Epee was largely evasive and eventually deleted the discussion, citing some apparently imaginary personal attack. I decided to take the discussion here to determine whether this was disruptive, and if so, to communicate that to Epeefleche so that future incidents can be avoided. There are several reasons why this is concerning to me:

1. While it was a neutral message, it still violates the "Scale" criterion of WP:CANVAS. Even neutral messages posted to a huge number of editors is a violation of WP:CANVAS. I think we can all agree that 65 editors is absolutely an unreasonable number. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles, where Arbcom notes that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting." This particular case involved an editor who, at the most, sent messages to 39 users during any one event, which pales in comparison to the 65 users who were notified here. Clearly, ArbCom would not view these actions favorably.
2. According to some editors (and this is not something I've seen firsthand), Epeefleche has a history of pushing a POV when it comes to articles about Jews or Judaism.
3. Epeefleche has a history of canvassing problems, as a search through the ANI archives would reveal. He also been blocked for sockpuppeting at AfD's in the past (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive).

The block that resulted from this SPI was overturned by the checkuser who had made the initial findings 5 days later. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Epeefleche also tagged each of the articles for rescue. This is not problematic in and of itself. However, the point of rescue-tagging an article (in my opinion, anyway) is to point out articles which clearly need work done to them (i.e. sources need to be added, copyedits, etc.) to address the concerns of the nominator, in the hopes that when that work is complete, the nomination rationale will no longer be valid, and the article will be kept. The nominations of these articles, however, clearly focus on the fact that the subjects of the lists themselves are unencyclopedic. There is no amount of work or "rescuing" which is going to fix that problem. Therefore, I think it can reasonably be assumed that the rescue-tagging effort by Epee in this instance was more about notifying inclusionists about the AfD rather than notifying those who might fix the perceived problems with the articles. So, in addition to the 65 editors that Epee notified manually, 100+ more editors were notified through the use of the {{rescue}} template. Which brings me to my next point:
2. This is highly disruptive to the AfD process. It's well known (even documented at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors under "Too many cooks") that any discussion on Wikipedia which involves too many editors is all but guaranteed to not result in a clear consensus. Since "no consensus" defaults to "keep" at AfD, all one needs to do to increase the chances that the article is kept is to ensure that a maximal number of editors vote at the AfD. This is exactly what Epee is doing, intentionally or otherwise, by posting an excessive number of talk page spam notices. I'm not suggesting that we limit the number of people who can contribute to an AfD, however I think it is clearly disruptive to artificially inflate the number of editors who are contributing to a discussion. If an AfD is going to have 100 people contribute to it, that's fine, but that shouldn't happen as a result of someone posting a bunch of messages (neutrally worded or otherwise) to 50+ editors. Take a look at any of these six AfD's and you'll see that Epee's tactics have largely succeeded. None of the AfD's have less than about 30 !votes, and a few of them likely have over 100.

Can we come to an agreement on whether or not this was a disruptive action? SnottyWong ^confabulate 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also believe this to be a disruptive action for the reasons detailed above. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sad that he did this, but I would have to agree. 65 editors is a ridiculous amount to notify. Silverseren^C 00:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In real life it is best to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. If I were involved in a number of issues and someone tipped me off that something that may interest me was occurring, I would appreciate that. So I might do the same myself.

With Epeefleche, he said to people, apparently 65 of them, "As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic...", then he informed him about this or that. Had he left me such a message, I would have appreciated that if I was indeed on a closely related topic. I have to give Epeefleche credit for being willing to include others in conversation.

I am noticing on pages I edit that some people who seek to control pages also seek to limit the discussion or the people involved. Whether by removing neutrality tags, using personal attacks, filing WP:LAME procedural manoeuvers, archiving Talk pages the moment discussion slows down, what have you, the goal is to shut down conversation.

Epeefleche has done the exact opposite. He is opening conversation to many. That is laudable.

If he only did that for people who only supported his view of things, that would be a problem. But I see no such allegation of that here.

I see no disruption here. I see only an effort to open conversation to more voices. That is the very purpose for which Wikipedia was created. Cheerio. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Legit. No harm, no foul. IronDuke 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So you believe that the ArbCom case referenced above is invalid, and the part of WP:CANVAS which relates to "Scope" is ok to ignore, as long as the message is neutral? Would it be ok if I (or Epee, or anyone) notified all 100+ editors who have contributed to these six AfD's whenever any AfD about a Judaism-related subject is started in the future? Or just a Judaism-list-related subject?? SnottyWong ^chat 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe 65 is a large number -- that's routinely exceeded in RfA thankspam. Again: harm? None that I can see. IronDuke 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankspam could never be canvassing per WP:CANVAS because it is not an attempt to make users aware of an ongoing discussion; you're taking this completely out of context. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think thankspam could be thought of as deprecated in WP:CANVAS. If memory serves, it was that way when I named it. And most importantly, I still don't see the harm. IronDuke 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Apparently you need to read the WP:CANVAS guideline, specifically mass posting. 65 is simply a blatantly excessive number. In any case this is a blatant violation of the guideline, and this isn't the place to dispute the validity of the guidelines. I sense the inevitable WP:IAR argument coming, but personally I fail to see how informing 65 vaguely-involved parties of a series of AfDs is going to benefit the project, especially to the extent that it should overrule an accepted guideline. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Addressed to the both of you: However, Snottywong has a point in terms of the fact that, in a good amount of cases, getting this many people involved in a discussion ends with it being a no consensus decision. This is actually the exact problem with the fact that he notified both sides (as is proper, I am not saying notifying both sides is wrong). A huge number of both sides have entered these AfDs and they have become a muddled mess that will, very very likely, be closed as a no consensus decision. In a manner of speaking, making this many notifications seems to be a way of gaming the system (the AfD system, that is). Silverseren^C 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I was one of the 65 editors canvassed by Epeefleche, who contacted me because I'd commented on one of the Jewish list AfDs. While I agree that the distribution of editors canvassed in neutral (nobody who was angling for only keep votes on a dubiously sourced article with big question marks over notability would dream of canvassing me), I think it's obvious that the sheer scale of the mass posting makes any outcome other than a default keep through no consensus impossible. I also think that Epee's experience, and the fact that they previously used the "rescue" tag to canvass the Inclusionist Voting Block, makes it likely that this was the aim of the exercise from the start. That's disruptive behaviour; it undermines the AfD process and makes a joke out of the whole concept of consensus. Epeefleche should be strongly discouraged from doing anything like this again. By block if necessary, though I hope it won't come to that. Reyk _YO! 00:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Posting messages to an excessively large number of individual users...." I do not agree 65 is "an excessively large number". Then to claim he is being disruptive? Come on. Is 50 acceptable? Then he's 15 over the line. Is that disruptive? Come on. People keep using procedural means to restrict others. Can't we all just get along? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't get it. If ArbCom comes to a resolution that a user who posted 39 notices is "excessive", then how could 65 not be seen as excessive? This isn't about getting along or using the bureaucracy to restrict other users. I have no problem with Epee, I can't even recall if we've ever even run into each other before. This is about gaming the system. If someone wants their article to be kept at AfD, all they have to do is go notify 200 editors of the AfD's existence, which will create a cacophony at the AfD and almost certainly result in a No Consensus close. That's not right, and I can't see why you would choose to defend such actions. SnottyWong ^prattle 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. So much for WP:AGF. I did not read the arbcom 39 thing. That might have made a difference. But, assume the 39 thing set a bright line for the future. 1) Why wasn't the canvassing page updated with that number, and 2) why is Epee disruptive if perhaps he too missed the 39 arbcom thing that's not on the canvassing page? People are so quick to assume others are gaming the system. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no bright line here, it's just common sense; 39 is an enormous number, and 65 is simply ridiculous. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person could consider 65 users to not be excessive in the context of AfD discussions. IMO anything much about 5 notifications is starting to push into the grey area, but 65 is well and truly beyond "grey". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by arguments based on numbers alone; each case is different, and if it is shown that there is bias in the alleged canvassing, fair enough. But we cannot assume that interested editors are here 24/7, and thus neutrally referring potentially interested editors to issues in which they may wish to contribute should not necessarily be assumed to be canvassing. That is perhaps better than a watchlist for editors who contribute less frequently. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Smith Jones i was one of the people he spoke to regarding those aritcles. I do not understand why he isbeing the subject of an attack here. he was perfectly fair and evenhanded, posting to me not at random but because iw was someone who had previously been involved in editing several of the related articles or involved in the deletion discussions at WP:AFD. he was not improper or forceful in anyway in his comment, merely asking me respectfuly and without pressure to consider participating in JUST the articles that were similar to the ones that i had on my own already been involved with. he did not tell me how to vote or even reveal his own position on any of thes issues. i dont see why he should be blocked or subject to an indefinite ban over this extremely minor and remakably fair case of making sure that all intersted parties were avialable. in fact, i feel that he should be commended for his willingess to do more than just canvass people he thinks are supporters of his AFDs and actually try to build a fair consensus instead of doing the usual wikisneaking and quickly wrapping up a "conesnsus" without input from anyone who was involved who might disagree. if he violated some adhoc policy, then tell him not to so do in the future but please dont exterminate an honest editor over a content dispute. User:Smith Jones 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Smith Jones, you hit the nail right on the head. You're a hero. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 65-userpage notice in neutral terms by Epeefleche on Dec. 1 was sent out to a broad group of users AFTER Epeefleche had been publicly chided for two previous targeted notifications concerning the same AfDs. There was an initial email outreach, which would have remained secret except that one user chose to reveal that he had been canvassed -- we have no way of knowing how many others received that email and how that group was chosen. The user who got the email has commented extensively in support of Epeefleche's positions at Articles for deletion: List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Another Nov. 30 outreach by Epeefleche to a respected admin, who has now joined Epeefleche in a strong concern that Jewish lists are being "targeted", was far from a neutral outreach or notification: "There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections...Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians." (And never mind that all but one of these AfDs were filed by, or at the urging of, people who are fighting against the first AfD filed.) Both Epeefleche's earlier efforts at (I think) canvassing were publicly reported just before the wider, public, more neutrally worded 65-user message that is referenced above. A forest is a good place to hide a stick. betsythedevine (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I should say that as the user referenced above, while I voted keep, I don't regard myself as having supported Epeefleche's position. Our arguments are based on quite different policy grounds. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so there is also evidence that Epee conducted off-wiki canvassing with respect to these AfD's? The plot thickens. Epee, would you be interested in telling us who you sent emails to regarding this AfD? Is there any way for a checkuser-like admin to look up a record of emails that were sent from WP? SnottyWong ^talk 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WHATE EVIDENCE is there of these socalled emails!? User:Smith Jones 01:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This was already explained above in Betsythedevine's comments, which you apparently haven't read. User:DustFormsWords came forward and admitted that he/she was notified of the AfD's by an email from Epeefleche. See here. SnottyWong ^communicate 01:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. the email that DustFormsWords relates as only a neutral notification. Just the one? Or were there two? Three? Because thee was no transparency, the emails were a bad choice. However, it is quite decent that DustFormsWords relates that even then, Epeefleche's notifcation was neutral. For one or two polite and neutral emails, I might advise Epeefleche to never do so again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "neutral" notification sent to a POV compatriot about an AfD related to the POV one shares with said compatriot. Any notification is a clear attempt to drum up votes that support said POV. Any notification done to gain votes is against the point of WP:CANVASS. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement by DustFormsWords

For heaven's sake people. Look, once again, here is the email I received from Epeefleche yesterday:

Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors Best

This was presumably referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates in which I voted Keep, but it may have been referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_heavy_metal_musicians in which I voted Delete. I was not comfortable that this email was allowable canvassing and after receiving it I declined to participate in any further Jewish list AfDs. All of those list AfDs have been visited by a wide range of intelligent editors on both sides of the debate and I have no reason to believe that any of the debates have been unduly influenced by Epeefleche's actions. Certainly those that still remain open are unlikley to close in any way other than "no consensus", and for good reason. Now, whether or not Epeefleche has been canvassing is irrelevant. This ANI is, whether intentionally or not, serving as a collateral attack on the list AfDs, which to my mind results in a greater practical abuse of process than any canvassing that may have occurred. You're all intelligent people - hurry up and close this so we can return to the substantive business of improving Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Now, whether or not Epeefleche has been canvassing is irrelevant." Really? Under what circumstances is it ok to temporarily ignore long-standing policies and guidelines? This particular instance of canvassing was clearly disruptive. For an editor who has a history of canvassing problems and has exhibited a pattern of disruptive canvassing behavior, I think it is entirely appropriate to bring this to the attention of the community for further discussion. I disagree that Epee's actions didn't significantly change the end result of the AfD's, and my reasons for disagreeing are clearly stated above. SnottyWong ^gab 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant because there's no action to be taken. What are you going to do? It doesn't merit a permanent block. A slap on the wrist block wouldn't benefit the project because it would bar him from making his otherwise constructive contributions to the ongoing Jewish list issues. Tampering with or restarting the list debates is hugely disrespectful to the huge number of editors who have contributed to those, and in any case is unlikely to produce a different result than the current likelihood of "no consensus". Seriously - what do you want DONE? That's why it's irrelevant. Feel free to point out WP:CANVASS to Epeefleche again - it wouldn't hurt - but otherwise, please use your very considerable energy and talent to keep improving the project as I've known you to do in the past, rather than wasting time at AN:I. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to this ANI

Let's see... did Epeefleche try to bring anyone into these discussion who had not already showed an interest in closely related topics? No. With these notices did he try to encourage anyone to support his own poiunt of view? No. Did he contact interested parties with total neutrality and invite input from editors he might well know would not suport his views? Yes. Evidence indicates that there was no intent to abuse WP:CANVAS in order to gain support to one way of thnking or to sway opinion. 65 editors as excessive? In this case, no, as we are not speaking about one AFD and someone rabble-rousing to gain advantage. We are speaking about number of long and contentious AFDs... and in considering the number of AFDs and the sheer number of folks that were/are involved in the discussions, I can see this only as a neutral request for input from others who had already commented elsewhere... specially as in each of those AFDs a number of editors, including their nominators, indicated that their concern with these Jewish List articles reflects a broader concern... and reasonably, this broader concern should have as much input as possible... Maybe meriting a future RFC about BLP lists... and I sure hope someone would have the courtesy to notify me when the BLP RFC happens.

More cogent perhaps, is that Epeefleche's request for input from other's was only after Bulldog123 boilerplated a notice of canvassing at each of the Jewish list discussions... claiming that Epeefleche's single instance of asking for clarification on DGG's talk page was canvassing, and then Bulldog123's including in his complaint old issues from several years ago to bolster his weak argument about the one instance. Might such boilerplating be seen as something intended to negatively color the courteous comments Epeefleche had made at those AFDs? One might even consider that by making sure ALL interested parties were made aware, Epeefleche did Wikipedia a service by maintaining balance. And it actually bit him in the arse... and I do not mean by this ANI being filed... but by his notice actually bringing more delete !votes to these discussions. Canvassing? Not when considering the number of AFDs being discussed and the number of editors in those AFDs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You, Schmidt, have no idea how many users - and what type of users - Epee contacted by email. The 65 user-comments came AFTERWARDS as an attempt to muddy the waters and make his intents look more neutral. Your opinion that it was all in good faith is frankly laughable - given the long history of this user's WP:CANVASSing attempts. Bulldog123 02:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "long history" isn't yet the subject of this ANI and no significant analysis or debate of it has occurred in this discussion. If you genuinely feel that it's the interests of the project to raise it, I'd invite you to take the time to set out these previous matters under a separate heading so they can be fairly scrutinised. That's an "if", in the interests of good process. Please don't take it as actual encouragement to spend your time in that way; I think the energy expended here is already disproportionate to the potential benefit to the project in preventing any further canvassing by this user. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And Bulldog, please, try to maintain WP:CIV, as the email DustFormsWords shared shows complete neutrality, and no intent to sway opinion. Can you say the same of the accusation you boilerplated accross the several AFDs? I do not believe anyone can read Epeefleche's mind to presume an unproven and unprovable evil intent today... specially based upon something from "several years ago". And your belief toward muddying notwithstanding, it is still worth noting is that his neutral talk page notices followed your attempt to denigrate him with your boilerplated accusation set at all of thse AFDs. They did not preceed it. So what culpability do you assign yourself for your actions instigating his very recent reaction? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And the circus continues. 1) The guy canvassed at least three editors that we know of. Neutral wording means nothing, btw when you know someone shares you're POV. 2) Someone called him out on it publicly. 3) In reaction to this he then disruptively posted 60+ "neutral" messages about the various AfDs to editors of every opinion. Can we give the white washing a rest here? I'm happy to accept that some are of the opinion that this was a minor offense and requires no action, but the idea that he did nothing wrong, or that this is someone else's fault, is bound to infuriate the rest of us who didn't engage in this disruptive behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have two neutrally worded emails and one request for clarification on a talk page. While the two emails are of concern due to lack of transparecny (though the recipiants stated they were neutral) the talk page is not canvassing. Epee placed the 65 talk page notices only AFTER he was specifically accused of canvassing due to his ONE talk page dicussion with DGG. shared and neutral email and with the inclusion of edits from "some years ago" to bolster that accusation. The chain of 65 events began with an accusation based upon the ONE talk page neutral email and some "years old edits". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, please review the chronology here. Bulldog's initial complaint was based on the disclosure (now deleted from history) by DustMakesWords that he had been canvassed via email. After Bulldog's initial statement, I asked if the comment on DGG's talk page was also canvassing. betsythedevine (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Timeline: Email canvassing by Epeefleche revealed 17:09 Nov 30 Bulldog responds 21:43 Nov 30 I ask if the userpage comment by Epeefleche is also canvassing 22:06 Nov 30 betsythedevine (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected above. As you point out, it was the one neutral email that initiated Bulldog's concerns and then his inclusion of edits from "some years ago" to bolster the boilerplated accusation across multiple AFDs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

People seem to be missing one crucial point: neutrality isn't the primary issue, it's scale. We all know that if you bring enough editors to an AFD, consensus becomes impossible. Epeefleche is well aware of that, and, since he wants the articles kept, "no consensus" is a win. I'm seriously considering just issuing the indef block until he apologizes and agrees to follow WP:CANVASS myself if no one is going to step up to the plate. This is a ridiculously obvious case of canvassing, including off-wiki canvasssing.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I miight hope that you not... but if you do, I would suggest that Bulldog123 might merit that same punative block until he apologizes, as his initial accusation boilerplated accross 5 different AFDs, an as-then-unfounded accusation based upon ONE talk page discussiion with DGG, neutral email and then supported with cries of doom because of something "several years ago", was the starting gun, as the boilerplating was unneccessary and acted to denigrate an editor with whom he disagreed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, see above -- your factual claim here about what started Bulldog's concern is mistaken. betsythedevine (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected above. As you point out, it was the one neutral email that began Buldog's concerns and his edits from "some years ago" to bolster his boilerplated accusation across multiple AFDs.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also find it interesting (and predictable) that MQS is bringing up the point that the canvassing wasn't for one AfD, it was for six, as if that makes it less of a problem. In my opinion, that makes it six times worse. Instead of soliciting 65 comments at AfD, he has actually solicited 390 comments (65 * 6). There is also evidence that he sent at least one message off-wiki, and we don't have any way of verifying how many other messages he sent, whether the other messages were neutrally worded, and whether the other people he sent it to were neutrally selected or if they were all likely to vote to keep the articles. I don't think I'd be violating AGF by assuming that he sent more than one email notification. Since he has refused to comment here, we're left to guess for ourselves. Given his past history, if he is unable to show us that he is aware that what he did was disruptive, then I think the proposed topic ban is the least that should happen, although Kww's idea would certainly send a much more clear message. The absence of any comments by Epee at this ANI (and his deletion of my comments on his talk page) is disrespectful in my opinion, and essentially an admission of guilt. He is more than aware of the presence of this thread, and he was online and making other edits for at least the first hour that this thread was up. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find my willingness to assume good faith interesting and predictable. If we had one AFD with 8 participants, and one of those editors felt that some new comment or information might merit being discussed by the other 7, I doubt that any would call it canvassing if the one sent a carefully neutral note to the already involved 7, inviting them to revisit the discussion. If we had 3 AFDs bundled into one, and had 12 editors partcpating, if one were to use a neutral note to invite the other 11 to discussion, is it now canvassing because of the number of editors? It would seem that what would be logical and reasonable for a single AFD with only a few particpants should be equally applicable to a larger AFD and a few more participants. BUt our conundrum is that we have 6 seperate but almost inseperably related AFDs, with (then) 66 editors particpating... and while best to have refrained entirely, once he invited one or two, it was almost mandatory that he fairly and neutrally invite them all... opposers and supporters alike... else be called out for canvassing based upon those few initial invitations... neutral or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• The 65 userpage notification occurred after Bulldog123 boilerplated a message accusing Epeefleche of WPCANVASSing, what Bulldog123 failed to mention was that he was himself Canvassing support from other users during the AFD: User_talk:NickCT#Nominations , and had canvassed support in advance of the AFD occurring User_talk:Gladsmile#AFD: List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners and these are just the on wiki examples we now about. Epeefleche has expressed concern in the past that his actions on WP are often watched to the extent that having sent a neutral message such as the one to DustFormsWords may have affected the neutrality of the AfD, so whilst he may be guilty of neutrally informing DFW through email he probably felt he was doing the right thing by the "Specific reason not to use Talk Pages" caveat of WP:CANVAS, Once the boilerplate by Bulldog was applied, Epeefleche tried to abide by the section of WP:CANVASS which says "On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.", I do not see 65 as too many users particularly in comparison to the 13million users who he could have potentially messaged . This ban, this ANI,and the ANI against Bus Stop, and the threats of RFC/U against both Epeefleche and Bus Stop all seem designed to derail the AfD's rather than having any appropriate measure of action against these editors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• I can't say for sure whether Epeefleche's notices were proper or not, but I do have a couple observations. First, it is fallacious and misguided to discourage participation in AfDs out of fear that large AfDs never generate consensus to delete. That assumes that deletion is such a desirable result it should not be entrusted to editors, which runs counter to the consensus editing process. AfD nominations become long and drawn out when there are strong beliefs on both sides and no obvious consensus - the lack of consensus creates the commentary, not the other way around. There are plenty of AfDs that are widely known but don't generate a whole lot of comments. Second, policy requires notification of interested parties. If 65 people have participated in a subject then 65 people ought to be notified. The simultaneous nomination of several high profile / high conflict list articles on the always contentious subject of ethnic categorization is a big deal that concerns quite a few editors. If these were nominated in a coordinated effort, the notifications should be coordinated too. Divide and conquer isn't a legitimate tactic to win deletion nomination arguments. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The contention was that larger discussions were less likely to generate consensus at all, not specifically "consensus to delete". pablo 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

Because of Epeefleche's continuing pattern of inappropriate on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing, he is banned from notifying any editors about currently active AfD discussions. Any evidence of on-wiki or off-wiki notifications about active AfD's will result in a block, the length of which will be up to an administrator's discretion.

• Support SnottyWong ^confabulate 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Stifling consensual communication between editors does nothing to improve the project or any portion of the project. (To be clear, I'm not saying Epeefleche has or hasn't contravened policy, just that Wikipedia doesn't benefit from imposing a sanction.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per DustFormsWords. And if this is the relief Snottywong is seeking, then this entire matter should be dropped immediately, again per DustFormsWords. It appears Snottywong keeps pushing without consideration of other viewpoints, like those of DustFormsWords. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No intent to sway opinion by abusing canvassing has been shown... quite the contrary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Epeefleche should be firmly warned that he shouldn't do something like this again, but I don't believe it is something that a Topic Ban is currently necessary for. Silverseren^C 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is not the first time - by a long shot - Epee has attempted numerous backdoor tactics to get a Jewish AfD saved. Had this only been his first err, I would not support a topic ban. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." He's fooled people dozens of times. It's seriously time to get him out of here. Bulldog123 02:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Suggestion is utterly without merit. IronDuke 02:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Even if his intent wasn't to sway the AfD's his way (and I'm unconvinced), he knew that his actions were likely to be seen as contravening policy. This 'ban' amounts to a slightly-more-restrictive interpretation of the same policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I wasn't sure there was a pattern of disruption by the initial presentation, and was leaning more toward SilverSeren's position, but I have been convinced of the merit of this proposal by the disgusting bloc-voting and facile, manipulative arguments of many of its detractors. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• It seems that there was canvassing done by email? Is that right? If so it is a matter of some gravity, whether or not it was done with the intent of affecting the outcome of a debate. I think we should let Epeefleche have his/her say, however, before considering bans and the like. The on-wiki canvassing seems relatively harmless to me.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would consider other remedies that are less harsh as well, but something needs to be done about this. I was also "notified" after this user had been accused of canvassing.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor has done absolutely nothing wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, my observation of this editor indicates that they clearly use strategy and tactics on a regular basis. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and rather than trying to "win" in these ways we should be letting policy and consensus guide the development of articles and the necessary pruning associated with building a winning encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was "canvassed" and look what happened. We disagreed and part of my reasoning was mentioned in the closing that resulted in delete.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians One cool thing about it though is that if he or Jalapeños wants to start an article/list as suggested then it has my full support. Hooray community and it is nice to be on decent terms with people even if you do not always agree. (And BTW, I saw this on my watchlist)Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A comment on what DustFormsWords writes regarding 'consensual communication between editors' above, can I state that as one of those who received Epeefleche's posting on my talk page (after the issue of him possibly being engaged in canvassing came up), I certainly don't consider it 'consensual'. I would never 'consent' to such communications, particularly when they seem to have been sent as a diversionary tactic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • He may be referring to the fact that many editors have an "email this user" link on their userpages, and that by having it such editors "consent" to receiving email. AGF and all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • And also that there's no value in banning him from non-consensual communication as he's already banned from that per WP:HARASS, as is every editor. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for over a certain number of users. There is no harm in notifying a few (i.e. less than ten?) users, but 65 is sort of over-the-top. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The details provided here hardly justify a topic ban for Epeefleche, who has been a productive editor on the area in question. As one of the individuals "canvassed", I had already known of the AfDs under discussion and my opinion on the mater was unaffected by the notification, which is in an area in which the notification was both appropriate and helpful. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Too often, editors involved in religious- or terrorism-related articles find themselves embroiled in flamewars just because passions run high. Worse still, some of the articles that Epeefleche is active in, such as *List of Jewish [insert occupation or activity here]* are obscure and it’s hard to get anything done because sometimes a total of three editors might be active on some of these articles’ talk pages. I’m troubled by the complainant’s citing the "Scale" criterion of Wikipedia:CANVAS when, in fact, “Scale” is just one of four factors that must be taken as a whole to paint a picture of propriety. When I look at the benign messages Epeefleche was actually leaving and examine, for instance, the “neutral / bias” criteria as well as the other criteria, it is clear to me there is no violation violation of WP:CANVAS. I find this cherry-picking of just one factor by the complainant to be deeply troubling. When it comes to religious and terrorism-related articles, there are “POV-pushing” claims flying both ways. I’ve seen Epeefleche’s work and it isn’t scandalously biased at all. What shortcomings there are are easily identified and corrected. Epeefleche does a lot of heavy lifting on large, complex articles and is a valued contributor. This is just some wikidrama borne out of editwarring and hard feelings that has been blow out of proportion. The better remedy is to separate the combatants. Greg L (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but perhaps you are unaware that by Nov. 30 when the email canvassing was revealed, there were literally hundreds of edits by many different Wikipedians at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Is it your belief that by adding 65 new editors on Dec. 1 Epeefleche hoped to improve the chance of reaching meaningful consensus? betsythedevine (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Actually this is incorrect. He managed to hit 3 of the 4 in this episode. Two emails, that we know of, were sent to people who share his POV, making them both 1) partisan (audience) and 2) secret (transparency). A third on wiki message to DGG was also partisan. The 60+ messages disruptively posted after being accused of canvassing because of the initial three known messages fall under "mass posting" (scale). So he actually violated 1) audience, 2) transparency and 3) scale.Griswaldo (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. 65 is far beyond the pale and seems a clear attempt to game the system by trying to ensure a no-consensus keep. There's no point in a slap on the wrist which would just encourages him to find other ways to game AFD. Just topic ban and end the drama. Quale (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The evidence presented just isn't strong enough to convince me that this was some diabolical scheme on the part of Epee. 65 is an extreme number, to be sure, but Jew-related articles are, as I have discovered by reading ANI in the last few days, just as extremely contentious. That several of this ban's main proponents—in particular, Snotty and Bulldog—have consistently throughout the discussion assumed bad faith, on top of borderline violations of WP:CIV, does nothing to bolster their arguments. I say throw out the whole thing, and just warn him that informing 60+ editors of an AFD in the future will probably result in another such ANI debacle. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• support- per Griswaldo, who is correct in pointing out that Epee's actions actually ticked three of the four boxes. I'd also like a clarification. Would this proposed topic ban also cover the ARS's rescue template? Reyk _YO! 05:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is so obviously over the line I can barely believe it's controversial. Let's all stop kidding ourselves that we don't know what Epeefleche's intent was with this. I know what his intent was the same way I would know what someone's intent was if I saw him point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger (that being to blow his brains out). I know that because reasonable people know what the result of such actions are and don't engage in them unless their intent is to bring about such results. Because I've been here a while, I know that, since no consensus defaults to keep at AfD, I can get any article I want kept if I can create sufficient noise at the AfD. Epeefleche, who has also been here a while, knows this too; he's not a fool. The reason he engaged in actions that he knew were highly likely to bring about that result is because he wanted to bring about that result. Note I'm !voting here even thought Epee has already been blocked because there's a chance he could be unblocked and I believe these sanctions should be imposed if he is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Although it really does not resolve the problem since Epeefleche has long preferred the use of off-wiki means to garner support for their position, and this proposal will do nothing to stop that. _wjemather^bigissue 08:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Epeefleche acted in good faith when accused of breaking WP:CANVASS and clarified the neutrallity of his message by copting it to "those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)", and ensured that notices were sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, and to those who supported keeping it. this is Per WP:CANVASS, the only question was if 65 was excessive which I do not believe it was. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - A topic ban is uncalled for. Subjects Epee deals with are highly controversial. JimmyBlackwing speaks for me as well: this is a campaign by Epeefleche's enemies. Now, in light of Kww's absurd block, even more so. What the hell is happening here? Looks like a witch hunt. Jusdafax 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose 65 editors is not an excessively large number. RFAs are commonly attended by more editors than this and this is not thought to be a bad thing. AFDs, on the other hand, are poorly attended and many discussions have to be extended for lack of response. A good consensus requires a substantial number of participating editors to be credible. Epeefleche should therefore be commended for his efforts to drum up some interest in these discussions. The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• So who wants to block Colonel Warden for essentially calling those who !vote to delete certain articles Nazis? Tarc (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  Blocked for 24h. Anyone else is free to lengthen that if they feel I've been too lenient. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid knee-jerk block. Why was no one blocked for using the phrase "Inclusionist Taliban" in a certain RFA earlier this year?-----they were chastised and we simply moved on.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, and I didn't even notice that it was Tarc of all people, who loves the term "ARShole" asking for the block.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have issue with something I have said on-wiki, then I have no doubt that you can find the proper venue in which to file a complaint. Editors participating in AfDs in which Warden disagrees should not be compared to Nazis, and if you're this hellbent on sticking up for your wiki-buddy, then you're really no better than he is. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you used the term ARShole only off-wiki? Its like my dear dead grandma, she didn't use the N-word in front of black people, wasn't that so nice of her? My point is not that Warden was fine to use a nazi reference, but that the immediate block called for by someone who doesn't mind being fairly uncivil himself is absurd.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, if someone were to characterize you and your wiki-buddies negatively, that would pale in comparison to comparing a group of editor's editing philosophy to a Nazi tactic of kidnapping and murdering one's opponents. This isn't an eye-for-an-eye situation my dear Milowent; it is the tip of my pinky nail compared to Warden's entire body. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

But I hear warden is rail thin and that you have huge hands, wiki-buddy! anyway, "inclusionist taliban" was the original epithet (not yours) that I was thinking of.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Yworo. This area has enough of a battleground mentality without allowing canvassing to take place. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose asking Epeefleche to be careful to avoid the appearance of mass notification should be sufficient at this stage. He seems to be only guilty of going a little too far in good faith efforts to save material many find interesting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "going a little too far" by canvassing, yes. pablo 16:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Notification is not canvassing. Notification is neutral. Canvassing is not. Another one of, too many witch hunts on Wikipedia these days.(olive (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC))
• Oppose as premature: The block should remain until Epeefleche agrees not to violate WP:CANVAS in future; at that point, why ban them from notifying anyone about AfDs? If they violate CANVAS again, they'll be blocked again, and then maybe it'll be time to discuss a ban. But since they're currently blocked until they agree not to canvas in future, I don't see how such a ban would be beneficial. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal (2)

Collapse until such time that a bona fide user wishes to propose this with their real user name
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Because of Snottywong's continuing pattern of inappropriate on-wiki and off-wiki canvassing, he is banned from interacting with, talking about, and mentioning editors active in the Article Rescue squad broadly construed. Any evidence of on-wiki or off-wiki notifications will result in a block, the length of which will be up to an administrator's discretion. Support Kleenezplease (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC) This proposal was Kleenezplease's first edit. Rd232 talk 02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose What? No. I may be personally annoyed by the way Snottywong acts about the ARS and its members, but he really hasn't done anything wrong and I can understand his reasons for acting so. SilverserenC 02:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Support Snotty's continued denigration of an entire project and that project's members based upon his personal difficulties in civil discourse with a very few of that project's members acts as a disruption. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. This proposal should be removed from this page as frivolous and disruptive. Everybody engaging in bloc politics in this entire discussion should be ashamed of themselves. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Support This has been a waste of everyone's time. IronDuke 02:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. What the heck! I was unaware that Snottywong's actions had even been discussed at AN/I. Can anyone point out where it has? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Um, if you'd like. Look here and here. SilverserenC 02:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I could perhaps have worded that better. I meant that Snottywong's actions weren't being discussed in this section, which is about alleged "Canvassing by User:Epeefleche". The proposed topic ban is outside due process as I see it. Frankly, it should just be deleted as off-topic and without merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose And I think those who support this proposal by Kleenezplease might ask themselves how this brand new SPA hopped into this ANI on its very first edit. betsythedevine (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Comment Yes, and since 'Kleenezplease' is an obvious sockpuppet, I'll assume that this will be investigated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Despite the open ANI discussion one admin has taken it upon themselves to indef block Epeefleche (talk · contribs).--Cube lurker (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In a sense of full disclosure about this block, people should know that this discussion took place. *adds to list of proof of existence of the Admin Cabal* (Kidding, just kidding!...maybe.) Silverseren^C 05:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Open ANI discussion is one thing. Epeefleche committed a flagrant violation of WP:CANVASS by making an inordinate number of notifications, including off-wiki notifications. He doesn't show the slightest understanding that what he did was wrong. He's blocked until he shows some understanding of the wrongness of his actions.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Swift unblock, please - WP:BLOCK, as you well know, provides blocks are ONLY "used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". There's no suggestion Epeefleche had ever damaged the project, and no suggestion he was engaged in ongoing disruption. There's a clear consensus at this discussion that whether he canvassed, blocking is not an appropriate response. Kww, this is a far worse breach of policy than any canvassing and a massive lapse in your normal good judgment. Unblock Epeefleche and let the discussion run its course. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Off-wiki canvassing is immediately actionable. I would have waited for Epeefleche to explain himself but I really can't argue with this block. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It may be, but the "immediate action" required isn't a block. See WP:BLOCK for acceptable uses of blocking. Also, it's "immediate" in order to prevent further disruption. Some two days later, it's no longer an "immediate" situation and there's no evidence that Epeefleche is still actively canvassing or inflaming the situation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that he won't do it again, because he has not so much as admitted to having done it the first time. As I said below, this is a perfectly legit preventative measure. He could do this again at anytime as far as anyone knows. Convince him to own up to it and this is over.Griswaldo (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Surely you can see that that's not a logical argument? It's like saying, "We can't let this man out on bail pending trial for theft, because he hasn't admitted to the theft so there's no assurance he won't do it again." Canvassing isn't like vandalism - the harm is to process, not to the project directly, and in practice there's very rarely even harm to the process. AfD admins are sharp at spotting this kind of thing. The chance of him canvassing in the near future is small, and the potential harm if he does is also small. A block is a totally disproportionate response. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dust, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Epee treats wikipedia like a vehicle for ethnic pride and spends most of his time spinning POV under the radar. He does little else on this encyclopedia. You've had no experience with this user outside the AfD. You don't understand how overdo this block is. Bulldog123 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• But that is not what the block is for. If blocking for Canvassing was unjustified, then it's not good enough to just turn around and say "ah yeah, but he's done loads of other stuff wrong, so let's block him anyway". If you think he's breaking rules, you need to deal with that according to the proper process.--Korruski^Talk 10:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Dust; block was completely uncalled for, given the state of the discussion. Jumping the gun in this situation serves absolutely no purpose. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thing is - both you and Dust are looking at this through a keyhole. Epee's indefban has been long, long overdo for his mass-scale WP:NPOV editing and e-mail based votestacking attempt. This is not merely just because he canvassed a few people now. Bulldog123 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• When he acknowledges the policy violation and disruption while promising to behave in the future he'll get unblocked. This is a perfectly viable preventative block. Someone who doesn't admit to wrong doing clearly gives the community no sign that he wont do it again. The solution here is simple. Why don't you (DFW or JB) convince him to say, "ok my bad, I'm sorry", instead of complaining about a good block. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Because he's entitled to say - as he has - "I don't consider it canvassing, but I've stopped doing anything similar while I wait for the community to decide". Personally, I think it probably was canvassing, but other editors here disagree, and as long as he's not inflaming the situation he's entitled to the benefit of their defence. No one here is seriously alleging he's actively making the situation worse, so there's no rationale for a preventative ban. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• And where has he said that? Diffs please? I see no assurances that he wont do this again anywhere. When this conversation was mentioned on his talk page he called the allegations "baseless" and apparently decided not to participate.Griswaldo (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support - It's about time. Epee has been a massive WP:NPOV editor for years now, making wikipedia little more than WP:BATTLEGROUND for "Is he a Jew"/"Is he not a Jew" discussions. Bulldog123 06:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - For the record I support this until he owns up to his canvassing and tells the community he wont do it again.Griswaldo (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block I've seen folks be blocked for less. We don't need zealotry disrupting Wikipedia. --Confession0791 ^talk 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to hold back on the accusations of zealotry because that is very close if not over the line of a personal attack. Silverseren^C 06:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think you need to do a little history on this user before jumping to conclusions. "Zealotry" is hardly a baseless accusation. All you need to do is look at diffs like this [8] to see the "Us vs Them" mentality this user continually spins. Bulldog123 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the history is or the assumptions made for them. That doesn't justify or vindicate making personal attacks against another user. And calling someone a zealot is definitely a personal attack. Silverseren^C 06:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lift the block and lift it now It is an abuse of administrative tools. There's no support even for a topic ban, leave alone block, leave alone indefinite block. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Lift block After considering the words spoken by the blocking admin and the reactions from others in response, I agree that there is no consensus for this block and it was actually an out of process block, considering the discussion that was going on here in the first place. Silverseren^C 06:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock immediately this was a terrible block. Perhaps an admin should block Kww until he shows that he understands WP:Consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a vote. You don't need "user consensus" to block a disruptive editor - and an editor who's had a long stint of disruptive behavior. Bulldog123 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Pray tell, what policy states that an admin needs to ask for consensus before blocking someone for a policy violation? The above discussion concerned a topic ban. Kww blocked as a preventative measure for a policy violation. You see no policy violation? Great then argue for an unblock, but this drama about Kww doing something inappropriate is just that ... drama.Griswaldo (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What policy states that it is acceptable to block a user for X when the community consensus is against a topic ban for X?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And I don't believe that a block is proper to be applied on a user's actions when there is an ongoing discussion on whether those actions were right or not. We had yet to develop a consensus in this discussion, so applying a block seems to be going over the head of the discussion itself, which I would consider to be against process. Silverseren^C 06:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is: Does an administrator have the right to disregard an ANI discussion? --Confession0791 ^talk 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean, does an admin has a right to ignore a consensus (or go over one that is trying to be developed)? Um...no? We all have to follow consensus. I mean, even Jimbo does, as we learned with that whole founder flag thing. Silverseren^C 06:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new. I know about that South African restaurant thing, but do you have a link to what you're talking about? --Confession0791 ^talk 06:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's not really a consolidated place where the discussion happened, it was all over. And on Commons a lot. This entry in the Signpost might help you. In a short summary, during the whole children pornography image fluster that happened a while back, Jimbo went and deleted a number of categories and the corresponding images on Commons. As an example, one of those categories was filled with a bunch of lithographs from the 1800s. So, a lot of people got really upset (myself included) and started a campaign to have Jimbo's founder priviledges revoked (commonly referred to as a founder flag). He acquiesced and the flag was removed. That's essentially it. Obviously, there was a lot more drama involved, but that's it in a nutshell. Kinda off-topic though with this discussion. Silverseren^C 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block- I think Kww is in the right. Reyk _YO! 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for such a helpful comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Very well. I think Kww was in the right to block Epeefleche because E's canvassing went well beyond anything that could be regarded as appropriate. 65 people contacted, plus the secret email campaign, plus several instances of partisan canvassing make this a fairly substantial breach of WP:CANVAS. What Epeefleche did was make consensus at these AfDs impossible- and that is disruptive. Now, in other circumstances I might say that it was unintentional disruption- but, you know, users can be blocked for stuff they do in good faith if in actual fact it breaks things. Of course, this wasn't unintentional disruption at all. Epeefleche has been here long enough, and been called out for canvassing often enough, that I'm 100% certain he knows better. As for the argument that this block is punitive rather than preventive because the objectionable behaviour has abated, I don't buy that at all. Kww has rightly sent the clear message that if Epeefleche pulls this kind of shit there will be consequences. Contrast this with the other impression Epeefleche might have gotted: that if he pulls this kind of shit there will be a long and meandering ANI thread where his defenders will miss the point at the top of their lungs, argue that black is white and up is down, muddy the waters with frivolous litigation against the guy who raised the ANI thread and attempt to change the subject at every opportunity, until finally the whole discussion grinds to a shuddering halt and Epeefleche emerges unscathed and free to continue canvassing and pushing his POV. I prefer what Kww did, frankly. Finally, I'd just like to point out that it's a bad idea to mock a short and vague opinion you don't agree with because the other guy might be provoked into a much longer and more detailed explanation. Cheerio. Reyk _YO! 07:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Reyk, on making the most cogent concise summary of what's actually going on here that's been made in this entire thread. Epee is obviously just trying to brazen this out. If he succeeds, his conduct will probably be worse than ever. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, obviously. The community was not "against" the topic ban. At best, there was no consensus. The topic ban and the block are unrelated. The topic ban would have been a long-term restriction. The block is likely going to be a short term preventive measure that will be lifted once Epee shows everyone that he is aware of his disruptive actions. The blocking admin left simple instructions regarding when the block should be lifted; once Epee shows us that he understands WP:CANVAS. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it is not a difficult task for Epee to perform. SnottyWong ^speak 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  From WP:CANVASS:

"The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary."

Was the user actively engaged in canvassing when blocked? No. Was the action deemed necessary because of prior history? No.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, William, but your comment stands the guideline on its head. When another user found out about the canvassing Epee was engaged in (by e-mail) and spoke to him about it (per guideline) his next move was to do more canvassing (by posting to 65 separate user talk pages). Clearly, this was ineffective. Do the words "Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." mean nothing to you?

• Support block especially since indefinite doesn't mean infinite. We have an experienced user who did some canvassing, albeit with a neutral statement. Canvassing in an attempt to have AfDs closed as no consensus, as seems likely with this many opinion solicited, is disruptive. If the user agrees not to continue the behavior, I'll lift the block myself. AniMate 07:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

albeit with a neutral statement Um... maybe the in-wiki canvassing was done with a neutral statement... but certainly not his intra-email canvassing. Before his "neutral" CANVASS spree (which was only cover), Epee was specifically targeting well-known inclusionists to come participate. Bulldog123 07:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate's proposal. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You already voted support above. Bolding this support in response to Animate makes it seem like you're voting again. You should unbold your support and indent your line so it's a direct reply to what Animate said. Silverseren^C 07:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I also received an email as well as a talk page notice. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support block. I was severely criticised not long ago for unblocking a user when an ANI discussion was in progress; this is somewhat the mirror image, but worse, because it removes the ability of the user to participate in the discussion. And of course there was no current disruption, and no clear consensus in the topic ban proposal. Sounds like I'm opposing the block? No, just being clear. The reason the block is fine in these circumstances nonetheless is that this is an editor in a particularly controversial topic area, which makes ANI more vulnerable to tribalism (than usual). The canvassing violation is clear, even if the editor genuinely thought what they did was OK. As I've noted, the fact that issues are spread across related AFDs strongly suggests the need for an RFC, not for asking editors previously involved in a TLDR "no consensus", "going round in circles" AFD to participate in similar ones. Rd232 ^talk 07:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This block is very unfair and unneeded to say the least, and it was posted in a violation of blocking policy. What Epeefleche has done to deserve it? Let assume he is guilty in canvasing. Then a topic ban, if it is to pass, will take care of this. What was the reason for such an urgent block? A block should be used to prevent any future disruption. Is Epeefleche going to make any disruptions? Of course they are not. They are a great content contributor. I cannot believe that there's no single fair and unafraid administrator, who will use a common sense and will lift the block. --Mbz1 (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)" Is Epeefleche going to make any disruptions? Of course they are not. " - unless the user demonstrates clearly that they've understood that what they did was wrong (as the block message indicates), then you have no way of knowing that. And "great content contributor" is wonderful, but it's never an excuse. Rd232 ^talk 08:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely correct. If the only thing that had resulted from this had been a lot of ANI chatter, the great likelihood is that he would have repeated his disruptions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AniMate offered to lift the block, if said user understands that what they did was wrong and promises not to do it again. --Confession0791 ^talk 08:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From Kww's block message: "Any admin can lift when Epeefleche demonstrates an understanding that posting 65 messages related to AFDs is case of indiscriminate messaging, especially after it has been demonstrated that he was using off-wiki messaging related to the same AFDs." Rd232 ^talk 08:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block (of Kww): Although your blocking reason has some merit (basically: admit mistake, ensure it stops) the manner in which you did this will probably not receive a response that is nearly so cute. How do you think he is going to react? How would you react? He should be pretty upset and you severely hampered the possibility of a cleaner resolution. Furthermore, there has already been some drama in this ANI and you just made it so much worse. Way to go.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block - Way over the top. No support for a topic ban, so you just block? This is patent abuse of the admin tools. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative. This action by Kww is clearly the latter. Shocking that this block is in force. Something rotten going on here, and it makes me feel sick. For shame, Kww and community! Jusdafax 08:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• In summary: the block was ludicrous; lift it. There is no possible justification for it—not in policies, guidelines or even common sense. It has derailed the discussion—of a topic ban, I might add—and created absurd amounts of unnecessary drama. There was no reason to do this; Kww clearly acted without considering the consequences. Regardless, it needs to be lifted immediately, either by Kww or by any other admin who will hear reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block in the strongest possible terms Clearly warranted. Clearly necessary. Without this block, Epee would have been perfectly justified in drawing the conclusion that he can get by with this kind of bullshit as much as he wants. That said, I'm absolutely dumbstruck by the number of editors here whose reading comprehension seems to have abandoned them whilst perusing WP:CANVASS. This is obviously exactly the kind of conduct the guideline was meant to discourage. I mean, seriously, do you know how to read or don't you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block: 65 notifications is at best a blatant disregard for WP:CANVAS (and the user has made it clear they feel there is no violation and will likely do so again in future), and at worst an attempt to game the system by forcing a no-consensus close of the AfDs. Until the user recognises that they did very blatantly break WP:CANVAS and that doing so in future is not acceptable, yes, the block should remain indefinitely. The fact that this discussion is being bombarded with "votes" which simply scream zOMG ADMIN ABUSE and don't give any policy-based reason why the block was inappropriate also makes me suspect that further canvassing may be going on, but I will reserve judgement on that. I do urge any closing admin to be careful to assess the policy-based reasoning proffered here rather than blind cries of "OH NOES BAD BLOCK", however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Baseless accusations do nothing to help your argument. I came here without prompt, and posted my opinion based on my analysis of the discussion; I have had no prior knowledge or involvement with any of this. Claiming that I, or anyone else here, was canvassed into this is not constructive. And, to Steven Anderson above, I'd like point you toward a policy page, as well: WP:CIV. I don't appreciate being insulted over my view of this matter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Many of the individuals who have posted here were canvassed, indirectly or otherwise, because many of the individuals have stated they were one of the many users canvassed for the AfDs. I didn't mention your name, nor did I have you in mind when I pointed out the very obvious fact that a large number of editors (even for ANI) have shown up here and claimed admin abuse without giving any argument for why it was a bad block. And that's as much as I intend to say on the matter; I do not need to defend my policy-based arguments with anything other than policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Block I have to echo the sentiments above particularly those of Cptnono. The whole Canvass accusation was raised by an editor who was equally canvassing opinion in the opposite direction. It has now been taken to an unacceptable level. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoa! This is the first I've heard of Snottywong canvassing. Nobody's mentioned it before in this ANI thread as far as I can see, nor can I see anything in Snotty's recent edit history that even comes close. Can you clarify, please? Reyk _YO! 09:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Snottywong brought the accusation here, but he did not originally raise it - that was Bulldog123. My comment above refers to Bulldog123 canvassing User:NickCT which occurred before Epeefleche made any reference to the AfD's that could be considered canvassing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. I'd assumed because SW started this ANI thread that you were talking about him. If Bulldog has been canvassing then they also need to cease and desist and, if like Epeefleche, they've made a habit of it and shown no inclination to stop then Bulldog should be treated the same way. However I do not think you can excuse one editor's bad behaviour by pointing at another who has done the same thing. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem is that Epeefleche's actions became more Canvass like in response to Bulldog's witchhunt (despite the fact that Bulldog was carrying out the same actions himself.) Had Bulldog not accused Epeefleche of impropriety , then Epeefleche would not have sent the 65 messages in an attempt to ensure he was acting transparently and neutrally. In fact Snottywong only raises one actual accusation of canvassing and it's only associated with the 65 messages that Epeefleche made to defend himself from accusations of impropriety. Whether Epeefleche acted in violation of WP:CANVASS before the 65 messages is what this should be debated on, however neutral editors/admins are being swayed by the 65 message issue - which was pure entrapment by Bulldog. A quick search of wikipedia shows a number of editors on both sides of the debate sent messages identifying at least one of the AfD's to another editor, exactly as Epeefleche did before that the 65. Yet only Epeefleche was attacked for it, forcing him into the action which resulted in this ANI being opened - and that's not the point of Policy. It should also be noted that Betsydevine and Bulldog are still attempting to dig up dirt and prove that Epeefleche behaved improperly before the 65 messages - perhaps they realise that his actions after were only carried out in response to them and they need to find something he did that they didn't influence? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • • Stuart.Jamieson's personal attacks here flagrantly violate WP:AGF. I expressed concern about Epee's email canvassing and the very non-neutral message he posted to an admin's talk page before the 65 postings were ever made. At that time, only one person (DustFormsWords) had disclosed being solicited by email--and I would like to praise Dust's integrity for disclosing this, even though he and I don't agree on whether or not it was inappropriate canvassing. Since then, two more editors have another editor has also stated that they were solicited off-wiki. I think this is very relevant to the matter at hand, which is whether or not Epee should be motivated not to canvass AfDs in his wiki future. I think it is very telling that so many of his defenders here make personal attacks on other editors such a big part of their defense of the indefensible. betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I dont think I've either personally attacked you or assumed Bad Faith on your part. but edits such as | this (on which I based my statement) are attempting to "Dig up Dirt" as I said. You took that statement and assumed Bad Faith in Epeefleche, and even incorporated that bad faith into your reply to me here. I appreciate that since LuckyMelon has clarified his statement you have corrected your reply to me. Note I have not questioned any of your actions prior to this AN/I other than to question whether your Bad Faith to LuckyMelon was because you realise Epeefleche's 65 mails were a direct consequence of Bulldog's boilerplate. When I wrote it, I did have my chronology mixed up believing that Bulldog's Boilerplate came up after your revealing of his discussion on DGG's talk page and I apologise for that confusion but my assessment of your manner in questioning Luckymelon remains the same. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I could be persuaded to listen to a defense that claimed that while the original e-mail contacts where wholly inexcusable, the follow-up of 65 postings was an effort to repair the damage. Claiming that both actions were acceptable is a non-starter, though.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block for the only reason of canvassing, as shown by previous comments, regardless if others did or not do the same. In my opinion any canvassing warrants a block, regardless of one's views or if others did the same, etc. «CharlieEchoTango» 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: After looking at much of the relevant evidence, I must conclude that this situation is:
  1. An attempt by Snotty, and possibly other involved editors, to bully Epeefleche. This and this tell a pretty clear story.
  2. A few miscalculations by Epeefleche, whose attempt to alleviate canvassing concerns, by ensuring that an unbiased discussion took place, backfired horribly. This is why 65 editors were notified, in regard to the 6 AfDs—not 1, as certain users here have been trying to insinuate. Here is his explanation of his actions.
  3. An extremely erroneous block on the part of Kww.
  4. A continued attack (following the similar persecution of User:Bus stop) on a group of editors by a second group of editors, who happen to disagree with the first group.
• Unlike a few others here, I am not accusing the editors who were not previously involved with this, and who happen to disagree with my own assessment of Epeefleche's innocence, of being stupid or part of a conspiracy. Everyone is free to have a different opinion on this. However, I believe that Snotty, and possibly Bulldog and Yworo, are attempting to use ANI to directly attack other users, in order to achieve specific goals. I continue to greatly disagree with the block that is currently in place, and ask that other editors do so, as well, so that proper discussion may be resumed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. "He does little else on this encyclopedia" (said by BullDog123 somewhere above) is a clearly unacceptable comment because clearly untrue and intended to disparage. Just one example that I encountered by chance is here [9] (read the slightly earlier article history) which clearly has nothing to do with ethnic or religious POV. There may be some or many other examples, I haven't looked. Secondly, contacting 65 editors is clearly wildly inappropriate and excessive. Thirdly, in my experience Epeefleche has a tendency to switch from on-wiki to email communication very quickly when there is any sort of dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Clear attempt at disruption from an editor with form at this sort of thing. Quantpole (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate FULL SUPPORT of block Good faith or not, Epee is a longstanding editor who knows the rules full well around here. They blantantly disregarded WP:CANVASS in so many ways that I can't personally believe it. The fact that even their unblock request tries to justify their actions is also unbelievable - they show zero remorse, and the current block is a requirement in order to protect the same from happening again. Should Epee ever be unblocked (which I'm sure will happen) it must be under a condition that limits be imposed on how many people they may advise regarding any AfD - (Twinkle only advises the original author, I believe). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The lack of consensus on a topic ban is due to people who were on the two sides of the earlier content dispute coming here to !Vote in their favorite direction. If you look at comments by uninvolved admins, the consensus was clear that Epee had been canvassing. He has now requested an unblock based on his defense of the 65 talk page nominations, mentions the email to Dust in passing but seems unaware that at least one other person has outed the earlier secret emails. I think he should take some responsibility for those before being unblocked. This is really just a slap on the wrist and a request for a pledge of better behavior, instead of which he submits wikilawyering and likely feels as his supporters do that he has done nothing wrong. Their opinions of Bulldog and SW should have no bearing at all on the issue of whether or not Epee's canvassing should be strongly discouraged. betsythedevine (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Blocks are not to be used as a 'slap on the wrist'. They are to prevent damage, not to punish. That is clear WP policy, but appears to be being ignored by some contributors to this discussion.--Korruski^Talk 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• No they aren't. You're cherry picking phrases to criticize here. For instance Betsy says that it is a "slap on the wrist and a pledge for better behavior". While I understand how the first part of that sounds "punitive" the gist of her comment, as exemplified in the latter part, is clearly in line with the preventative nature of blocks. Let's focus on what Epee did, whether it was wrong, and if so what he should do to get unblocked instead of nitpicking over phrases like "slap on the wrist".Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suppport block. As BWilkins has pointed out, Epeefleche is a longstanding editor who knows the rules. He has had similar problems in the past, as has been noted; for example, in a block discussion about an editor in June, he contacted, off-wiki, someone who might well support his POV, but who hadn't actually edited for 10 months.[10]. The editor declined on wiki to get involved in the dispute.[11]. As now, Epeefleche did not accept that this as inappropriate canvassing.[12]. I also strongly advise Epeefleche only be unblocked if there are signs that he understands the problem with the on and off-wiki canvassing. --Slp1 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. As AniMate says above, I'm sure pretty much any admin including myself would be quite happy to lift the block once Epeefleche admits his error and promises not to repeat the behaviour. At the moment, however, his TLDR unblock request doesn't do either of these things, in fact it is mainly composed of large amounts of wikilawyering in a vain attempt to "prove" he didn't violate any policy or guideline. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock (without necessarily thinking the original block was inappropriate). What some people have described as wikilawyering seems to me to be a legitimate (if insanely wordy) attempt to explain his actions. Contacting interested parties in this matter (including those, like me, who opposed him on the AfD) seems a sensible thing to have done, given the number of related AfDs. So, in so far as he breached guidelines, it was only by contacting too many people. This is, I appreciate, a fault but it is only a particularly serious fault if you assume bad faith and decide that he did this in order to deliberately force a no consensus keep. It worries me that so many people seem to be jumping to this conclusion without evidence. It also worries me that people appear to be looking to prior POV concerns as justification for this block. That smacks of punitive blocking, and is not appropriate. Unblock and clarify the practical limit of what is 'too many' (as it is not at all clear unless you are familiar with arbcom case law - WP:CANVASS only talks about 'indiscriminate' canvassing, which this was not). Then, next time, he will have no excuses.--Korruski^Talk 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Epeefleche was blocked because he showed no sign that he understood his actions were way over the top in regards to CANVASS. As long as he continues to not understand this, a block does in fact prevent further damage. If Epeefleche apologizes in some manner, the community also has something to hold him by if he ever shows problems with abiding to CANVASS again. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Block Epeefleche notified me of some issues and he very much knows that I do not agree with him on everything so I assume he was looking for more traffic on these issues not canvassing. --Luckymelon (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of recent notification on your talk page, are you saying that he contacted you off-wiki but you don't consider it canvassing? betsythedevine (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not share my email on WP and I have never given it to him out of wiki either. Poor choice of words I guess, I asked him permission to watch his talk page. In any case, do you see a notification at Tarc's page. here Tarc is obviously not a 'friend' of Epeefleche as you can see in the comment immediately below this. Why would Epeefleche canvass Tarc??? He was inviting a collection of editors on 'both sides' wo comment on Afd. This is not canvassing but rather is a ridiculous abuse of admin rights. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification --Luckymelon (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Luckymelon. I understand that many Epee supporters here feel that the 65 notices were not canvassing, because they were neutral in tone and went to people with diverse opinions. Others instead feel those notices were an attempt to muddy the water at AfD so that consensus becomes impossible and the AfD defaults to keep. Others say they were a cover for his earlier undercover canvassing which had been brought to public attention at several AfDs. betsythedevine (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I will say the same here as I did for Chesdovi a few weeks ago; "Any action that pries yet another tendentious POV warrior off the battleground is a good thing." Tarc (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - clear and willful on and off-wiki canvasing with no apparent understanding of how this is disruptive or why it is wrong. Yworo (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Block While clearly this action has been very divisive, and has generated some seriously forthright comments on both sides of the argument, the clear fact is that large-scale canvassing by Epeefleche took place. I concede that in the canvassing of some 65 editors in-wiki and a smaller, and unknown number off-wiki, no specific opinion was sought; it does not need to be to qualify as canvassing. The simple request for an opinion is enough to satisfy the definition. And is a blockable offence if it appears to the blocking admin to be severe enough to warrant this sanction. As has been stated, an experienced editor will know that it is virtually certain that a large body of opinion expressed in an AfD dicsussion will lead to a no consensus situation; which defaults to a Keep. Except to ensure the retention of the articles, I can imagine no rational reason for this canvassing activity, which is therefore disruptive. I agree with the block imposed by Kww; I repeat the comment made earlier in this thread, that the word "indefinite" does not mean "infinite". The block can be released when the risk of further canvassing activity influencing AfD decisions can be definitively demonstrated to be past. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block and no wheel warring please! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Epeefleche knew full well he was in breach of policy, as his actions to 'correct' his initial postings when they came to light, by then posting to others known to oppose his position, indicate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. It is true that to comply with WP:CANVASS, the message must be neutral and the audience nonpartisan; but these are necessary, not sufficient, conditions. The scale needs to be limited, and the notifications transparent. The emails violate the transparency requirement, the mass talk page postings the limited-scale requirement. Neither attempts, therefore, comply with WP:CANVASS. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose block Indef blocks should be used only after user continues to be disruptive after receiving escalating finite blocks. Good faith efforts to save content from distruction deserve leniency even if they cause deletionists to kick up a fuss. Please unblock this quality editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There are essentially two variety of indef blocks. There's the "block and throw away the key" indef, which, as you say, normally comes after very serious (e.g., vandalism) or repeated disruption and escalating blocks. There's also the "block until you do X" indef, which can and are lifted once the user does X (which can take anything from a few minutes to forever, depending on the user's willingness to abide by our policies and guidelines). This kind of blocks do not need to be preceded by escalating blocks, because they are not meant to be permanent or even semi-permanent. T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd type should only be used for very serious cases like editors who make threats, vicious personal attacks or out others. For minor misconduct editors should have a chance to learn from warnings then short blocks. Some people hate to admit mistakes and we shouldnt force editors to either do so or leave the project for no good reason. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Feyd, the rules for indef blocks you're citing here are a figment of your imagination. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Canvassing is disruption, end of story, and this is not a newbie editor who we might think didn't know any better. The "my guy, right or wrong" bloc tactics in play here, supporting disruption of the project if it's by people with the right Wikipolitics, continue to turn my stomach. It was revolting when Bus Stop did it in support of Gavin Collins and it's just as revolting now. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think the scale of the on-wiki notices was appropriate. So far as I can tell, he contacted all participants in one closely-related AFD. I have no issue with that at all, and if that is the primary driver of this block, then I have to say it was a bad block. I have no visibility into the off-wiki notices, and and as such have no idea how many users were contacted, what their expected opinions would be or the neutrality of those messages. So if that was the primary driver for this block, I have no comment. Resolute 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock - conditionally - that if he canvasses again, he's gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm with Bugs. Support conditional unblock - If his canvassing had been along the lines of "hey, you were for/against this, you should come back to support/oppose it again" then I'd be more inclined to agree with the block; I tend to think that a relatively neutral message to draw attention to something that may be underviewed is not a bad thing in most cases. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block It's like deleting an article while still explaining to the author why it was tagged for CSD. (Yes, I've been guilty of this before.) Block after the issues have been discussed. If he promises never to do it again and we end up with a topic ban or other restriction, then there would be no reason to block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weakly support block, and as soon as anything like this happens again, indef him. -- Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. It's the off-wiki communications that concern me the most. Epeefleche is a vastly experienced editor and has long used the email facility for various reasons, mostly valid I'm sure, but unfortunately also evidently for canvassing. We must ask, how long has this kind of behaviour being going on and how many discussions have potentially been affected? From previous interactions and others comments here, espescially those from Quantpole below (diff), I suspect for that it's been happening quite some time and more than enough disruption has been caused. Good block. _wjemather^bigissue 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Blatant violation of transparency in canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Violation of transparency and scale of canvassing. This kind of off-wiki canvassing is a wiki WMD. It's nigh impossible to uncover and can potentially disrupt or sway anything a dedicated editor wishes. Sol (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I have declined the open unblock request for the following reason: "This block is being very actively discussed at WP:ANI and there is, at the very least, no consensus to overturn it. Instead, even after you have posted your overly long unblock request, most editors (including those who I have no reason to assume are or were involved in any dispute with you) agree that both your canvassing and your above attempt to justify it are inappropriate. Under these circumstances, an unblock is not currently indicated. I recommend that you wait until the ANI discussion concludes and then make another unblock request which takes into consideration the outcome of the discussion, and especially the opinions expressed by uninvolved users."  Sandstein  20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify, because an editor has assumed otherwise: Yes, I did read the unblock request, even though I said that it was overly long. But whether I agree with it or not as a matter of policy is irrelevant, because an unblock based on it would be utterly inappropriate in view of the current state of this community discussion.  Sandstein  20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support block. I see no assurances from Epeefleche that this was wrong and will not happen again; without that, I cannot even see considering unblock. One draconian puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Block. While the level of notification was excessive by most people's standards here, there is clearly some difference of opinion about whether these actions were wrong in the first instance and meriting a block in the second. Eppefleche should be requested to cease any activities that could be construed as canvassing until this dicussion is resolved, and if this is forthcoming he should be unblocked. We then need to reach consensus here regarding the line beyond which Epeefleche's action would be seen as violation of WP:CANVASS, and then communicate this to him and get his agreement to work well within these limits in future. In the absense of prior blocks for canvassing, and unless clear violation is ongoing, an indef block is not justified. --Michig (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Clearly disruptive canvassing, although I don't think indef should mean permanent in this case. Perhaps when he realises why his actions were inappropriate he can be unblocked. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block What ThemFrom said immediately above me expresses it well. This was canvassing. What's needed here is for User:Epeefleche to acknowledge that such actions are inappropriate and indicate that will not be repeated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block What is required her is for Epeefleche to acknowledge the consensus that their canvassing crossed the line and confirm that,whether or not they agree with that interpretation they will accept that consensus and work within it or at the very least not go against it unless they have successfully changed that consensus. That's very simple. An editing model built around consensus building requires uses to subsume their own beliefs and expectations to those endorsed by the community. Just accepting that is enough to make this block go away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please listen to me

I am not sure why, by the above thread reminds me about mob lynching more and more.

A blocking admin writes: "I could be persuaded to listen to a defense that claimed that while the original e-mail contacts where wholly inexcusable, the follow-up of 65 postings was an effort to repair the damage. Claiming that both actions were acceptable is a non-starter, though". So they agreed that 65 postings done be a blocked editor is not canvasing. Now what we have left with? Emails? How many emails were sent? Does somebody could respond this question? Please assume good faith! And besides the block editor has apologized on their talk page: "I apologize if I in any way created even an appearance of impropriety" .

Please somebody lift this block.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Claiming that the entire wikipedian community is out to get Epeefleche is riduculous actually quite amusing. Perhaps you should read the arguments stated by those supporting the block, rather than selectively targetting those statements which you believe indicate that blatantly violating WP:CANVAS is acceptable, without doing anything to refute the arguments given which quite firmly indicate that Epeefleche violated an established guideline and felt that (s)he was right to do so. Until (s)he understands that the actions were not appropriate, lifting the block is simply going to make it clear that it's alright to break policies and disrupt process as long as you have persistent enough individuals attempting to shout down the community... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not what I claimed. I see an usual herd effect of AN/I here. That's it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people see what they want to see, and read only what they want to read. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the "herd effect" of users with similar POV approaches to articles coming here to support a blocked editor? Tarc (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Do watch what you say, or you may meet yourself coming in the door. I have yet to see anyone who's seriously unbiased argue for Epeefleche's unblock, while many more neutral editors (count me as one; I don't touch Israel/Palestine topics) oppose an unblock until Epeefleche can guarantee he won't try something like this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have. Can you please clarify why you consider me to be biased, as I consider that to be a personal attack.--Korruski^Talk 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Missed your comment in the screeds of text above; however, you seem to be the exception. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) And I have a hard time believing anyone could seriously consider that a personal attack; we're all biased to varying degrees. It's just that some are more than others. Consider not taking everything so personally. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say I take it personally - but suggesting that my carefully considered argument should be discounted because I am too biased to be reasonable is a personal attack, although I'm quite sure it wasn't intended. Anyway, no matter - you were mistaken, and I was too touchy. End of.--Korruski^Talk 10:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate block One Since his particular action in notifying me has been one of the significant factors mentioned above, I do not agree that notifying me on my talk p. and the message he sent was canvassing--My initial response to it was to not get involved in the discussion, and I got involved primarily because of what I thought was the nature of some of the arguments being used on one side of the debate. Anyway, a look at my talk p. shows that I do not always respond in the way that wis requested. Let me ask the people above: had I come to the decision to stay out of this one, would they still be using that notice against him? Two As made clear above, and on the note on his talk page, he did not send notices only to those on one side of the issue. Nor,as far as I am aware, did he send emails except to those already involved in the present discussion. Three But what's important to me at the moment is that I see the supporters of the block are apparently using it to try to remove one of the parties to the discussion. (I know the blocking admin has not himself been involved in the discussion.) If there was canvassing on one side to influence the discussion, the requests to block is taking advantage of admin tools to influence it on the other. The people on the side opposed to him are the ones most strongly supporting the block. I'm especially concerned by proceeding at this speed to an indefinite block. Arb com would have taken weeks to do this--it was done here in a few hours, and that on a holiday. I have read the statement he has placed for unblock on his talk page, and , fundamentally, I agree with it. I would suggest Kww shorten it to time served, but I think the reasoning that what was done was not intended as inappropriate canvassing, and neither did it have that effect, is compelling. The block should be reversed, and a suitable entry placed in the block log as usual after an incorrect block. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is trying to "remove" one editor from the discussion? Because of his antics the discussion is heading straight to "no consensus". Who cares about removing one, two or even more people from the AfD discussion. I resent the insinuation here by DGG that this AN/I isn't a good faith attempt to deal with nonconstructive behavior but some kind of political ploy. If those wanting to keep the entry for whatever reason had stepped in from the get go to say, "hey that crossed the line maybe you shouldn't do that kind of thing" instead of playing to win and blindly defending obvious canvassing we'd not be here right now. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So the part of this ANI that most concerns DGG most is the part where you abandon WP:AGF to attack a small number of editors who have participated both in content disputes with Epee and also on this page? What about the much larger number of posts here by editors who were on his side there and come here JUST AS YOU ARE DOING to claim he did nothing much wrong, but look over there at something else instead, those terrible terrible people who criticize him because they want to have all of Wikipedia all to themselves. Boy, did Epee ever dial a right number when he decided to ping you on your talk page, DGG. I don't know how he picked you but he obviously found a real potential partisan supporter. I am really shocked by your one-sided view of this debate. I see a lot of familiar names here from both sides of the content dispute at the AfDs. I also see a lot of names I have never come across on those AfDs, people who are (I am hoping) uninvolved editors UNLIKE YOU. The majority of those UNINVOLVED EDITORS are supporting the good-faith effort by an UNINVOLVED ADMIN to respond to a serious report of WP:CANVASSING. Contrary to what you claim, I have no wish to remove Epee from Wikipedia or even from those articles where we have clashed. I think he makes valuable contributions and does his homework and is remarkably civil in an atmosphere that desperately needs civility. He will be an even better editor if he does what the blocker requests and acknowledges that tricky techniques are not the way to "win" content disputes or AfDs. You can't just decide that policies need not be enforced against editors who are generally good, or against editors whose views you support, or against editors whose enemies are really, really annoying. betsythedevine (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. I did not, Bulldog did not, SW did not ask for any sanction stronger than a temp topic ban on canvassing; the indef ban was a complete surprise to everybody commenting on the topic ban proposal except perhaps for a couple of admins. Our support for the ban was expressed only after it had been done. betsythedevine (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Betsy said, I don't think Epeef needs to be totally banned from WP. I only weakly support the current proposal for an indef (agreeing that it might have been better to wait until this discussion was finished), but the fact that he canvassed, and was wrong to do so is obvious. If he gets blocked for that, then that's his punishment. DGG, after reading your comments, I'm slightly surprised to see an admin of your standing defending him, TBH. As a huge believer in AGFing over permanent blocks, I wouldn't mind giving him one last chance. That said, he broke the rules. Saying that he only tried and therefore doesn't deserve anything is ludicrous. -- Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Epeefleche has form with this sort of issue. If this was the only instance I doubt it would have resulted in a block. In my first interaction with them over a year ago they started emailing me and tried to get me involved in their side of a discussion, which I refused to do. (Emails are still available if required). It appears that this user has for a long time been involved in these sorts of games, and they fundamentally undermine the principles of trying to achieve consensus. The large number of notices they put out in this instance is inappropriate anyway, but it further seems that they were doing so to provide a smokescreen for their attempts of canvassing by email. Quantpole (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

that illustrates my point. If he emailed you to get you involved, and you refused, what harm was done? DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, if someone with a rifle shoots at an editor but misses, what harm is done? Sheesh. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So just because Epeefleche failed to get a user involved lets him of the hook? I agree that the current indef is a little much, but still, what he did, or tried to do, was wrong. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, and the obstinate refusal by those who back his side of that AfD and his other friends to admit that he made even the smallest of missteps, despite the clear consensus among the uninvolved commenting here that he has done something wrong, is only making the matter worse.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I frequently get involved with controversies about religion-related pages, and, here, I must have had a remarkable stroke of good luck in not having been in any way involved with these AfDs, nor was I contacted by anyone. I've carefully read Epeefleche's unblock request and all of the talk there and here, and I share some of the concerns expressed by DGG and others. Some here have described the unblock request as tl;dr, but I read it all anyway, as should anyone else opining here. What I see is a highly polarized content debate about religion (so what else is new?), with editors on both sides. There is some reason to believe that Epeefleche did the "canvassing" in good faith, albeit with a misunderstanding of the issues about numbers of contactees, and the actions here at AN/I have occurred too rapidly to sort those out, or to sort out the possibilities that others may be jumping on an opportunity to gain an upper hand. I think that there is a need for an unblock to allow the accused a better opportunity to explain themselves, and to evaluate the situation more completely. And no, I am not AGFing to the point of a suicide pact. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This is precisely the case with me. The guy above who said that he has seen "no unbiased support for Epee's unblock", or whatever, clearly did not read the discussion. However, it is becoming clear to me just how much Wikipedia's back end runs on a lynchmob mentality, rather than open discussion. As I outlined above, I believe after reviewing prior discussions that this was an attempt by Snotty, and probably other editors, to bully Epeefleche. It has succeeded. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, I was not saying anything about a lynch mob, just saying that things were moving too fast, too emotionally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Responding to the statement that my quote indicates that I don't think the 65 posts were canvassing: nothing could be further from the truth. I'm going to have to dive into legal analogies here, please don't anyone make the mistake of believing that I'm equating canvassing with any real-world crime. If someone, for example, stole a shotgun and waved it at someone that was threatening his wife, he could use a justification defense: I know stealing shotguns is wrong, and I know that waving them at people is wrong, but the defense of my wife justified by actions. Society can then judge whether his perception of threat was reasonable, and whether his violation of the law was justified by the surrounding circumstances. He could not defend himself by claiming that he hadn't taken the shotgun, hadn't waved it, or that waving stolen shotguns was an acceptable activity. Similarly, I could accept that Epefleech made the second violation in an effort to repair the first: that would be admitting that both of his actions were violations, and would demonstrate some understanding of relevant policies. I can't accept his current line of reasoning, which is that neither activity contravened policy.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually read the original AfD , Epefleech made the group message because he was told at that point that his email to dustformswords was being construed as a breach of WP:CANVASS. Whether or not it was a breach, was not established at that time and still has not been established here. He acted to repair only what he had been told was a breach, and your contention that in doing so he admitted a breach is pure conjecture and not borne out by his own statement. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaming the canvassing process

I received one of the notices. I was uncomfortable enough with it that I just ignored it. But since others have raised the issue... this is a clear instance of canvassing for one major reason: no AFD with 60+ participants would ever be closed for deletion. When you notify 60 people you know that your worst case is no consensus. This is an experienced editor who would have to know that. Saying the notice was neutral is beside the point and it's this kind of excuse that makes a mockery of our WP:CANVASSing guideline. That said... a block might be excessive. Telling him to quit it with the notifications would be more effective. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• General Comment
  

65 notices to editors about related AFD's and they see no problem with that? If they get of the hook with that I guess we need to rewrite WP-policies so they're not open to such wild interpretation if the spirit doesn't count anymore. Or we do let them go away with that and this new rule would apply for anyone else from the past to the present and in the future. May I inform editors of AFDs they might have an interest in b/c they contributed to a similar subject from now on? I don't think that would be right by written policy and their spirit but since for some it seems to be within the lines I and everybody else should go for it I guess.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If this isn't a violation of the canvassing rule then it needs to be re-written as a lot of people are convinced it is. I'm one of them. If it is a violation then I can't support an unblock; if this email had gone to a few less people we'd never have known about it. There are 60+ people who didn't come forward to discuss receiving an (at least questionable) mass, off-wiki canvassing attempt. Unblocking with a promise not to repeat the offense only ensures that the next emails aren't sent to the handful of editors who've posted about it here. If its not a canvassing violation then making the editor promise not to do it again is its own policy violation. Sol (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block is not Permanent Ban

A number of people here seem to believe that either the current indefinite block is a permanent ban (rather than a temporary measure pending Epeefleche's declaration that he understands and will adhere to policy) or that such a permanent ban is under discussion. Neither is the case. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to end Epeefleche's block

I have seen a lot of different hypothetical conditions for an unblock, but I think it would be sufficient if Epeefleche were to state that he is aware that his 65-notification event and the earlier email outreach are being described by many admins as WP:CANVASSING and that in future 1) He will not ping more than X* editors inwiki as to any specific article discussion and 2) He will not use any off-wiki communications, no matter how neutrally worded, to notify people of any inwiki discussions. (Of course he is free like the rest of us to use email for a wide range of other discussions.) This would not need to be an apology, for perhaps he felt quite justified in his actions, just an acknowledgment of rules to follow in the future. Then he can get back to being a productive contributor to Wikipedia, albeit one whose opinions are often very different from mine. * Where X is some number generally thought OK. betsythedevine (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• As a hypothetical - because I'm heartily sick of this whole discussion - your proposal seems fair-minded, but suffers from a couple of flaws, being (a) X is arbitrary, and (b) Wikipedia should be very careful about attempting to regulate the off-wiki behaviour of its editors, and while I see how this creates difficulties for preventing harassment and canvassing, I think we create very real issues by imposing a ban on off-wiki communications. Could I instead propose that he notes that:

(1) his actions are seen as canvassing by a large number of editors, including editors who by any standard are fair minded and otherwise uninvolved, (2) canvassing is strictly against Wikipedia policy, (3) that it is not appropriate to approach editors via email when communication via talk page is a viable option, and (4) that in view of the community's concern about his canvassing he agrees to hold himself to a higher standard than that required by WP:CANVASS by refraining from notifying other editors of Wikipedia discussions whether appropriately or otherwise. (5) In recognition of the above the community agrees to assist Epeefleche upon request to perform appropriate notifications of discussions on his behalf.

This formulation includes recognition of what he's done and prevention of further such actions without meaningfully diminishing his capacity to to contribute to the project or unnecessarily restricting his off-wiki freedoms. I should say again that I think his block has been a vastly greater abuse of process than any canvassing that's happened here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to hold him to any higher standard or place unusual restrictions on him. Once he clearly states that he understands that what he did violates WP:CANVASS, I'll unblock him without further ado.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. We don't need to attach a specific number to it. That's just inviting that he games the canvassing process by doing X-1. If he just understands it was wrong period, I'm sure he'll be in better shape next time. Just show the understanding and we'll hopefully never have to deal with this ever again. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still worried that no one sees that a person can violate policy, and still not deserve a block as response. Are we heading down a path where people who use a deprecated footnoting template will be indef blocked until they acknowledge that their footnoting was wrong and promise to use the community endorsed style? Blocks should be saved for use as a last resort in cases where there is a clear likelihood of continued damage to the project otherwise. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the block either. I think a clear warning and a promise not to do it again would have achieved the same thing. But he is blocked now, there's a consensus for it, and here we are. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for it, and a lot several of the people who supported the block were biased against him to begin with. Honestly, Kww seems to be strong-arming Epeefleche, whether in good faith or not, to get him to cry uncle. I wholly disagree with this concept, and believe that betsy's suggestion above is the only fair way to resolve the issue. It doesn't matter if he's forced to admit something he doesn't agree with—look at how that worked out with Guantanamo Bay. It's not in an admin's job description to punish anyone, and they do not have any say over what we think, or what we agree with—only what we do. As such, the only proper course of action is to simply ensure that Epeefleche doesn't act in such a way again, per the general consensus that notifying 65 people on-and-off Wiki, with or without malicious intent, is over the top. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have avoided the temptation of descending in to Hyperbole and assumptions of bad faith against those that support the block. Oh! I would be grateful if you could evidence with suitable diffs your assertion that a lot of people who support the block were biased against him. That's a serious allegation and casting aspersions without evidence has been cited by the arbitration committee as an unacceptable on-wiki activity. Alternatively, redact your statement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I hold no ill will against those who supported the block in good faith, as I said above. I was referring to a specific group of people, and would have mentioned names in particular had I known that this would be an issue. Those people include, but are not limited to, Bulldog and SnottyWong. "A lot" is the only hyperbole there; I have changed it to "several". I apologize if I offended you, as that was not my intent; I was merely restating my opinion that I made clearer above, which is that I believe that this ordeal began as an attempt to bully Epeefleche. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any hard evidence of this and why? --Confession0791 ^talk 07:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I outlined my reasoning in a post above quite awhile ago. Here is the diff of the original comment; I added this later. Snotty's belligerent behavior during his talk page discussion with Epee, combined with his threats and assumptions of bad faith, are what led me to believe that he was trying to bully him. Bulldog's incessant near-brushes with WP:CIV and WP:AGF above, combined with his outright defamation of Epee's character, is what got him grouped in. Yworo was included as a possibility because of his involvement with User:Bus stop's recent, also unjust, persecution, which seems to be largely related to this case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are accusing editors of bullying and harrassment. Another serious charge. Independent editors such as myself cannot judge the allegation without proper evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please examine the links in the diffs I provided, along with the extremely large discussion above us. My judgment of Bulldog's intentions is based on the latter, Snotty's on the former. Yworo, as I said, was grouped in as a possibility because of the Bus stop fiasco, which I assumed everyone here was familiar with; I'm not sure how to provide an exact link, as I can't find it on this page anymore. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:

However, I believe that Snotty, and possibly Bulldog and Yworo, are attempting to use ANI to directly attack other users, in order to achieve specific goals.

Most people at this point aren't going to read the entire thread. Could you please tell us exactly what these users' goals are and what the dynamics of this conflict entail? --Confession0791 ^talk 07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In summary, Snotty and Bulldog were the main editors in disagreement with Epee during the six Jewish list AfDs in question. Yworo was involved in the heavily related Bus stop case a few days ago. Snotty's behavior that I linked to inside the diffs, combined with Bulldog's behavior above, and Yworo's behavior in the Bus stop case, brought me to the conclusion that they are attempting to strike back at those involved in the AfDs through unjustified ANI action. I don't know how to make it clearer beyond again suggesting that you read the discussion above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is something Bulldog said above:

"Epee treats wikipedia like a vehicle for ethnic pride and spends most of his time spinning POV under the radar. He does little else on this encyclopedia."

To me, that is not a fairly-minded, unbiased opinion on this matter. While I've never even seen his name mentioned outside this case, Epeefleche appears to be, by most accounts, a talented and dedicated content editor. With that comment, and the others he made above, Bulldog gives a very good impression of being out for blood. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I find myself again in complete agreement with JimmyBlackwing. It looks very much to me like this is bullying against Epee. So-called consensus for the block does not appear to me to be established. All in all, this is a depressing display of misplaced powermongering, as I see it. "Preventative, not punitive" is supposed to be the rule here. So this is the new Wikipedia? Draconian punishment here far outweighs any "crime" by a hardworking, dedicated contributor. Jusdafax 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As a clarification, I am not grouping Kww into my claim of bullying. His actions are merely, in my opinion that I outlined above, a misunderstanding of an admin's job. I am not doubting his good faith, dedication to the project, or intentions regarding Epee in particular. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was an early !voter against Kww's third of four Rfa's. The concerns I and others expressed then are haunting: this current dramatic event is now seen to be predictable. Further disclosure: I have sided with Epee several times on controversial topics. Now, as I see it, what we have going here is a demand for a "confession" of wrongdoing. Like Jimmy above, I do not doubt Kww's good faith, dedication or intentions. I do, however, strongly disagree with Kevin's seeming desire to force his will on a contributor by using his admin powers. Kww, I strongly urge you to consider ending this block now because, rightly or wrongly, it appears to be an example of total authoritarian, top-down running of the encyclopedia, and as such is doing much more damage than any concerns about vio's of WP:CANVASS. Jusdafax 08:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The block is rather astonishing and ought to be reversed without condition. Blocking is supposed to be to keep order in cases of clear behavioral violations, not as arm-twisting to prevent off-Wiki behavior, and definitely not to legislate policy when there is no clear wording or consensus on that policy. Blocking an editor who is not currently doing something, in the midst of an AN/I discussion on whether it was an allowable thing to do or not, is unconstructive, and casts some serious doubt on the administrator's judgment in using tools. It may well be that we decide as a community that notifying 65 users by email is a canvassing violation. There are some strong arguments on both sides, which I might address in a section about that. If we do make that decision by consensus, and add some policy wording to that effect, then and only then would it be appropriate to block people who do it. Wikidemon (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this WP:TLDR thread will probably continue until Epeefleche does what's been asked of him. In the mean time, it is worth observing that of the admins involved here, 10 supported the block and 4 opposed, plus one stating he'd been contacted by email and onwiki, and one saying the block was only OK if based on knowledge of email canvassing he doesn't have access to. That's a consensus, but it's not as strong as you'd think, which presumably reflects the complexity of the particular case. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• As several others have noted above, Epeefleche has posted a long unblock request stating his understanding. Leaving him blocked for the duration has no disruption-preventative function, so I strongly suggest that he be unblocked and the matter referred to an RFC/U, much like we did with my block of Colonel Warden. I'll probably do this myself in a few hours if no one else has done it, and I think we should make this a precedent: indef blocks of established editors should be reversed when the blockee has articulated an argument that merits a discussion, and the right place for such meta-discussions is RFC/U, while ANI should be reserved for more tactical matters. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Epeefleche should be unblocked now without any preconditions. The editor should not have been blocked at all. The thread about Epeefleche was started and supported by a few highly biased users. Let's for example take user:Bulldog123, who is attacking Epeefleche as... well, as bulldog. The user submitted a fishing SPI, in which he wrote: "Needless to say, there is reasonable suspicion (WP:DUCK) that User:Luckymelon is a block-evading (and at one time votestacking) sockpuppet of Epeefleche. ", and even when SPI returned as unrelated, bulldog did not pause in his unwarranted accusations. That campaign against Epeefleche is sickening and should be stopped.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Not that this is a tally, but I count 29 bold "support block"s in the discussion above (I haven't bothered to count the couple of additional supports which aren't in bold). Are you claiming that all of these individuals, the great majority of which, like myself, are uninvolved in the incident, can be accurately described as "a few highly biased users"? I think you need to sort out your definitions of "a few" and "biased", frankly. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  You also have to consider editors such as myself who did not support the block, but wanted some kind of remedy. I've had no interactions with Epeefleche other than his notification of me, but canvassing is a serious disruption to the encyclopedia and I refuse to turn a blind eye. He's about to be unblocked for his understanding of wrongdoing. Wikipedia remedies are preventative, not punitive. Let's put a stop to anything that pushes the envelope of notification, and allow him to contribute to the actual content like anyone else. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree. Unblocking Epee now would only reward him for being unresponsive. He did post an unblock request which was reviewed by an admin and not found to be satisfactory. It was also reviewed by the community and the consensus is that it was not satisfactory. He has not made a single edit since that time, therefore there is no reason to make any progress on his unblock. It seems like there is a very common tactic being employed here: When you are blocked, you just sit and wait for pressure to build until someone unblocks you. We should not be rewarding editors for being unresponsive when they are unblocked. The community consensus on his actions has been discussed plenty here at ANI and on his talk page, an RFC/U would only extend and largely repeat those efforts. We're almost to the end of the process here, let's not get off track now. All we're looking for is a simple acknowledgement from Epee that he understands what he did wrong, he understands how WP:CANVAS was violated, and he understands that off-wiki notifications are not acceptable. Then he is unblocked immediately. There is no reason to unblock him for no apparent reason, rewarding him for ignoring everyone, and then restart this very same discussion again in an RFC/U. Let's just wait for Epee to get back and actually post something please. SnottyWong ^yak 16:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Being unblocked is no more a reward than being blocked is a punishment. RFC/U is a better venue to discuss disputed actions. ANI tends to be action oriented, as it should be, but is not a nuanced instrument capable of long-term discussion of subtleties of conduct. As someone else has opined, too many opinions can make achieving consensus difficult; all I'm proposing is that we change the venue for ongoing discussion to a more appropriate forum. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  My point is that no more discussion is required. The situation has been analyzed to death, and we all know exactly what happened. All we're looking for is a simple acknowledgement from Epee so that we can have some confidence that he won't repeat his actions in the future. We're not looking for an apology or a confession, we're not trying to punish him. However, until he actually comes back here and engages the community, I see no reason why there should be any movement on this case. SnottyWong ^yak 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I'm discussing Kww's unblock criteria with him at my talk page now. To the "no more discussion is required" issue: you may well be right, but I never want to be in a position where we can't be bothered to unblock a long-term contributor to speak freely in his own defense. If he's indeed exhausted the patience of the community, a ban proposal should be made explicit, rather than a de facto ban due to unblock conditions that require him to admit guilt. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I would strongly object to Epefleeche being unblocked at this point. Epefleeche has made a long statement, true, but the statement shows no comprehension that his behaviour violated WP:CANVASS. My block has an extremely low standard for unblocking, and he hasn't successfully met it. There's no justification for undoing it at this point.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Unblocking at this time would be clear wheel warring—it is not appropriate to reverse a decision when the actioning administrator and the community are in agreement that the block should not be reversed without meeting the conditions that Kww set out in his blocking message. NW (Talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  No, it would not. Re-blocking without discussion would be a WP:wheel war. Regardless, I've already made it clear by my phrasing that's not going to be an issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Your interpretation need tweaking. There is already a consensus to endorse the block. While it is not thunderingly solid it is nevertheless there and your unblocking would be legitimately reversed as restoring a ligitimate consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Feel free to elaborate on my talk page. I don't see that supported in policy, but am always willing to be convinced. However, within this thread is not the best place to have a detailed examination of a tangentially relevant policy. :-) Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Don't. Epeefleche's unblock request hasn't addressed the question of email canvassing, and he's not discussed the matter further or posted another request. I'm all for considering how we can do things like this better and Lord knows this process is a mess, and your idea has some merit; but attempting to road-test it like this will just kill the idea and cause drama. Rd232 ^talk 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  The emails are the problem. Until that's addressed, the editor should remain blocked. If it were just the on-wiki notifications, I'd agree with Jclemens, unblock and discuss, because the editor has mounted a plausible argument in defense of those. But the emails are prima facie canvassing, and the editor hasn't addressed that. (I too think Jclemens' suggested process has merit, but agree with Rd232 that this is not the case to trial it on.) Anthony (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with what Anthony just said: the emails are the key problem. I have asked Epee for clarification about how many were sent. So far I see confirmation of two--one to me, who was already involved, and one to someone who it turned out did not support him. I do not consider that are problem; but if I misunderstand, and there were many more, I agree that this is a problem that must be dealt with. Off-wiki behavior has a wide tolerance, but concerted attempts to influence discussion by off-=wiki campaigns, whether by regular editors or otherwise, is a serious problem. Many such have been brought here over the years, and the best remedy for them seems to be exposure, which normally renders them counterproductive. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Merely trying to game the consensus building process is not much better than actually pulling it off. We're not here to punish Epee based on the damage he's done. We're here to prevent damage for present and future incidents, for this editor and all editors who might try something similar. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. So, an long term editors with a clean block record was indefed for just one instance of minor spamming? This block has no foundations in the block policy, in my opinion. I am tempted to overturn it because it seems to be simply null and void. Ruslik_Zero 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • 65 onwiki and 3 offwiki is not, by any definition, minor canvassing. In addition, "indef'd" tends to mean an indefinite=permanent ban, whereas this was clearly an indefinite=temporary block (WP:BLOCKBANDIFF). Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche is at least talking

So far as I'm concerned, he hasn't met the unblock criteria, but I encourage people to try to convince me otherwise. He has responded again at User talk:Epeefleche#Epeefleche comment. This isn't intended to be a referendum on whether people agree with the initial block. The question at hand is "Assuming the initial block was valid, has he met the unblock criteria?".—Kww(talk) 21:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, he is still just making excuses for his actions and trying to rationalize them away. I still haven't seen any indication that he won't plan on doing this again. On the other hand, this is getting very tiresome, I'm pretty sure he got the message to the extent that he is capable of getting it, so I wouldn't oppose an unblock at this point. If he does it again, there is a mountain of evidence to support the fact that he was properly warned. SnottyWong ^express 21:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Good enough to move to RFC/U in my opinion. Keeping him blocked serves no protective purpose that I can see. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock now At that point the block does not prevent any disruption, it is a completely punitive block and should be lifted at once. Keeping the editor blocked will be a violation of the blocking policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unblock I see no evidence that the user understands the reasons for their block, nor a pledge to refrain from similar activity in the future. Until this happens, the block serves to prevent disruption to the AfD process, and is therefore a valid preventative block. N419BH 21:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let's say an editor got blocked for edit warring. Would you keep him blocked to prevent other edit warring? For how long?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Until they demonstrated that they understood why and how they violated WP:EW, and gave some minimal indication that they will at least make an effort to refrain from doing it again? SnottyWong ^chat 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC) SnottyWong ^chat 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is exactly what I said in the first place. N419BH 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the wrong policy in this situation. If he understands the consequences, it doesn't matter if he's forced to confess something he doesn't agree with. That destroys the integrity of the project. He's obviously intelligent; no intelligent person would want to go through this again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to confess. He simply needs to state he understands the reason. Something along the lines of "I understand how my actions could be interpreted as canvassing" means he understands the reason but doesn't believe his actions fell afoul of it. I am okay with this. There are gray areas in all of our policies/guidelines. N419BH 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, he has already said enough to that effect in his first and second unblock requests. Not those words exactly, obviously, but enough to be clear that he will avoid becoming embroiled in a similar situation again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock Assuming the initial block was valid we've gone past the point of protection into the area of a punitive block.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Let's see what they've Epeefleche has got to say about the emails. Anthony (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's they? Epeefleche has discussed the emails.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's actually my big sticking point. I have an extremely hard time believing that his goal in sending the e-mails was an altruistic effort to improve the discussion quality, but he denies having sent them in an effort to improve the odds of having the articles be kept.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the first place, the idea that he was trying to bring about no consensus keeps on the AfDs was a conspiracy theory by Snotty; he assumed bad faith and made this point during his initial talk page dealings with Epeefleche. It has no basis in reality. It was clearly not Epee's intention, either by his own account or by those of countless other people who commented in the discussion above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock: It's unconstructive to keep him blocked at this point. I disagreed with the block to begin with, but I believe that his comments show acceptance of his screw-up. I never thought he needed to out-and-out apologize in the first place—that's poor policy, and not an admin's call in this situation. That he should not act in a similar way again, through understanding that it could cause another such ANI debacle, is good enough, and I believe that he realizes this now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock, leaving him blocked for the original reason would not seem to serve any further purpose at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock It seems he realizes what a mess he's made and likely won't do anything like this again. AniMate 21:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - As I have observed previously, I strongly disagree with the block and am appalled that this matter is still ongoing. Jusdafax 22:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate: this isn't about whether you agreed with the initial block. There were unblock terms set. The question is "Did he meet them?", not whether they should have been set in the first place.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock and move to RfC/U. Kww, please take a deep breath. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock Continuing to wait for a confession, simply increases the bad faith shown towards Epeefleche. He has explained his actions you should now assume good faith and unblock no confession is required. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock Oppose unblock Unless he acknowledges that the 3 emails were a breach of WP:CANVAS which they patently were. Anthony (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I cannot support an unblock because he seems to feel justified in what he did, and there is no reason to believe he would not do it again if he felt it was necessary. --Confession0791 ^talk 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock. Epeefleche's unblock request yesterday included the statement "I'm keenly interested in adhering to the strictures of the guidance, now and in the future" and an indication that he is willing to follow "any other new guidance". If Epeefleche gives an assurance that he will refrain from any activity that could be construed as canvassing while the rights and wrongs of his actions are being discussed (e.g. at an RFC/U), and to adhere to any guidance arising from those discussions, then he should be unblocked. I feel that his statement above constitutes such an assurance, but anyone not convinced can put this to him directly. --Michig (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. Regarding his email Epee says that me might have also emailed a third person but that he just can't remember for sure. Really? That's very, very hard to believe. I don't think he's showing an understanding of what he did wrong yet, nor do I think he's being particularly honest about the emailing given the claim of forgetfulness. I also suggest waiting for more uninovlved editors to weigh in on this. The people requesting unblock presently are pretty much all the people who opposed the block from the start.Griswaldo (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped the bar

Based on the feedback above, I've simplified the unblock condition: User talk:Epeefleche#Don't make me regret this.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record I think the 65 on wiki notifications were much more disruptive than the off-wiki canvassing, unless he's not being honest about the extent of off-wiki canvassing. I think some others might agree with this as well. Dropping notice to 65 people is a sure fire way to get "no consensus" in an AfD, and even if we AGF and say that he didn't intend to do this I'd very much like to see him also understand that doing that in the future is a big no no as well.Griswaldo (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

He has now accepted the condition and performed what you asked of him. I believe that this is sufficient reason to end the block and let this drama dissipate. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The claim that 65+ editors at AFD is a sure result of no consensus is false. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater. In both cases, there were over 100 correspondents but neither AFD was closed as no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Did you really think I meant that this would always be the result? I stand by my opinion that 65 notices is disruptive. He's unblocked now, so let's just hope he realizes this next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• A variety of results may be expected, of course, as in those cases. But the general principle is that, the more editors who comment, the more credible the result, whatever it may be. Contrariwise, if few editors comment in a discussion then the weaker the result. We therefore encourage wide participation and so have mechanisms to encourage this. If editors feel that a discussion lacks adequate participation then they should have reasonable opportunities to do something about this. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me Unblock and move on. Incident over. consider closing this discussion N419BH 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows - unilateral reversal of NPA block

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

---

Earlier today I blocked User:Colonel Warden for 24 hours for this edit where he clearly equated a number of editors with Nazis. Some hours later, the above user unilaterally, without any consensus, and without any discussion with me, unblocked that user, and left this message on my talkpage.

Frankly, when a block is performed on a user for (clearly) violating WP:NPA, the last thing anyone should expect is a unilateral unblock (which effectively condones Colonel Warden's conduct) and a message which probably violates WP:NPA in itself. This is not in any way conduct becoming of an administrator, yet this action is "protected" by the wheel-warring issue. I would welcome community input on the next steps to take here, as I do not believe this ludicrous action can be left unchecked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• My desired action in this individual case would depend on how FW responds. If it is with a full apology to Black Kite and recognition of wrongdoing we can leave well alone. My concern is broader: yet another instance of a cowboy unblock which can't be undone because of the wheel-warring rule. That rule only encourages these unblocks, giving veto power to one administrator over the entire community. We need Arbcom to deal with this because it happening all too often.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Perhaps it's time to get rid of the concept of WP:NPA blocks if it's becoming clear they don't ever stick? –MuZemike 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  What would you suggest as an alternative deterrent to personal attacks then? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I don't throw out NPA blocks very often; this one, however, was clearly beyond the pale, which is why I consider this unblock to be disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• If FW apologizes and reinstates the block, I'd leave it at that. Otherwise, it's off to Arbcom. As for MuZemike's comment, no. I'm not a big fan of NPA blocks, but they are occasionally necessary. Using Nazi analogies on a dispute triggered by AFDs on Jewish topics is in the range of times when they are necessary.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Generally unhappy; personally I think that comment was pretty borderline in the first place; to be blocked without any warning for a comment like that is excessive. I can't support the way FW unilaterally overturned it with a rather uncivil comment though. I've generally found both admins to be pretty reasonable in the past, so this whole situation is a bit disappointing, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × n) Ridiculous unblock. Sorry, comparing users to Nazis is unacceptable even if you are participating in an arbitration case, where negative comments are tolerated more than usual. It is certainly even more unacceptable at ANI. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 3)I wasn't 100% sure on the block (more a very very strongly worded warning perhaps) but 24 hours didn't seem too much. Unblocking just seems a bad choice, especially given the lack of unblock request. At the end of the day what CW said was not in any universe collegial editing and I think it is fair to hammer into people that there is nothing wrong in being polite when discussing stuff. One of the main problems in the place is how people throw subtle and subversive jibes at each other, any action to improve that is encouraged IMO --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (after 4 E/C) Perhaps an RFC on the whole issue of NPA blocks and unblocks. I don't think we are at the level of an arbitration case yet, but as Mkativerata notes, this is becoming a regular pattern. And F&W's unblock was clearly against consensus. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• If he said grammar nazi and you blocked him, an unblock would be fine, but this was a link to qan actual nazi act, so I'd say the block should stand. Crisis.EXE 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• The block was only for 24, and should be reinstated regardless of any "wheel warring" concerns, as the unblocking admin was out of line. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors "idiots", and it was a fair block, even if I thought it was true. The "Nazi" garbage I expect from IP's and redlinks, not from established users. We either have civility rules or we don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The WW rule is so strict that no admin will restore this block for fear of desysopping. Therein lies the condundrum. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Surely the wheelwarring rule applies to two admins, not to an overturn as a result of a community discussion such as this one? If we, the community, find that the unblock was inappropriate, it should be reinstated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually quite tempted to restore it to poke ArbCom into looking at the issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do it, and if you get desysopped just run for RFA again and you'll have a lot of supporters :) --Mkativerata (gutless) (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a disposable admin that we can use for testing. Where the hell is Pastor Theo when you need him?—Kww(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Any admin brave enough to reinstate this block will have unilateral community support. I'll put my hand up to be the tester if need be. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand right behind you and cheer you on, but you should make sure your record is impeccable. I'm pretty sure you'll have to go through RFA again.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

he might need to go through it for the first time, uh, first :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I've already been through the RfA process twice (Once as Doggie015 which was this account before I had it renamed) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe having a quick chat with someone on the ArbCom would be a prudent thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WW (emphasis added) "[...] there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. [...] once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus." If you can get consensus here for a reblock, then you can do so. In the meantime it would be highly inadvisable to reblock. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I think we have a fairly reasonable consensus here already; several users have already stated that would support an admin willing to reblock. I'm somewhat neutral on the matter though, since as I said, I don't really support either the block or the unblock. A stern warning should be sufficient, it hardly seems likely they're going to be making any more nazi references, and blocks are punitive, after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Given that WP:WHEEL says "Seek constructive discussion, follow dispute resolution processes as with any other conduct matter. For example: move the issue to WP:ANI and wait for input", I have restored the block to its original length (i.e. 14:26 UTC). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hasty block, bad unblock, good reblock is all I have to say to that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I committed to this so... support on a number of principles. Now, who has popcorn? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think 24 hours for that appalling analogy is a bit lenient. He compared the routine maintenance of an online encyclopedia to the secret abduction and murder of political opponents of the Nazis, and doing so ona an ANI thread concerning to Judaism-related articles. It boggles the mind that Colonel Warden would think that's appropriate, and even more amazing that anyone would actually defend him on it to the point of undoing the actions of another admin. Now, Fences&Windows does not have a history of poor judgment as far as I'm aware so I'm prepared to regard this as merely a gigantic embarrassing howler.

Not so for the Colonel. This disruptive user is constantly ascribing shady motives to people he disagrees with. He seems to have a fundamental inability to accept that people may hold good-faith opinions that differ from his own, preferring instead to call them petty and spiteful or, as in this case, murderous fascists. This is obviously problematic, and I see nothing wrong in blocking him to send the message that egregious personal attacks are not acceptable. Particularly since CW has a recent history of being disruptive in other ways (see recent ANI threads about maintenance tag removal and dishonest edit summaries). Reyk _YO! 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is never ever any excuse for calling other editors Nazis. If he does it again, the next block should be a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Who are the brain police?

Strongly endorse Fences' unblock which is fully supported by policy. Recently an admin[13] to change policy to remove the clause that implies the unblocker doesn't always have to discuss with the blocking admin. This was roundly rejected. The 2nd mover advantage is what protects regular editors from excessively hard-line admins. Unblocking can be done unilaterally, its only wheel warring if an overturned block is restored without consensus I bold this as the comments above show that both admins and regular editors have misunderstood this key point of policy. Fences' comment on Blackkites talk didnt AGF, but if was no worse a failure than that of the several editors who assumed the Colonel was calling other editors Nazis when in fact he was just a little clumsy in trying to imply those attacking Epee are being a little overbearing. Thank God for quality independently minded admins like Fences bold enough to stand up for what is right. Hopefully another brave admin will follow his example and unblock Epee, again per policy it will only be wheel warring if the block is undone. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this attempt at wiki-revisionism didn't hold much water last night and has fared no better today. Warden called out a group of editors that regularly opposed him in XfDs, comparing their actions to those of Nazis, specifically the kidnapping and forced disappearance (i.e. murder) of opponents. If you still persist in defending that kind of garbage then you are in the same boat as he as far as I am concerned, and your endorsement counts for jack squat. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reblock Proposal

The unblock by User:Fences and windows was inappropriate, and the 24-hour block on User:Colonel Warden should be reinstated for the amount of time necessary to ensure that the total "time served" equals at least 24 hours. Please indicate if you support or oppose this proposal below, so that consensus can be determined.

• Support as proposer. SnottyWong ^gossip 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the resetting to the original expiration time, as that is what Black Kite has done.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support -I agree. Reyk _YO! 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The analogy invoking "Nacht und Nebel" was in poor taste, however it was not a personal attack on anyone. The unblock was 100% correct, as the editor was blocked on flawed grounds. Moreover, by blocking, you polarize the discussion about the inappropriateness of invoking Nazi-analogues in these sorts of discussions, so you don't get the point accross to the editor that these sorts of analogies should be avoided. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per Kww and my comment above. T. Canens (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Super speedy Comment: Hey, waaait a minute!!! Colonel Warden is already blocked! :-D<L.O.L.) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Moot point. Blocks are not punitive; there's no need to extend the block extra so the total time served = 24 hours. The block should expire when it was originally supposed to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × accedentally got deleted) And Black Kite has already reblocked Colonel Warden, and the reblocking expires at when the original block would have expired. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Is this subthread doing anything other than giving unnecessary retroactive endorsement to an action that had the endorsement of the community at the time it was made?--Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I would dispute the "unnecessary" part, but meh. It does help to crystalize consensus, so to speak. T. Canens (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It does guard the re-blocking admin from being sanctioned for wheel-warring, so while it might seem like a lot of retroactive dicking around it serves a constructive purpose. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, although I would think Arbcom would only look at contemporaneous consensus, in case it makes any difference, I'll bold a support here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• support - only two edits from Fences today, one to lift the bock without any discussion at all and the other to be quite rude to Black kite. Off2riorob (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Using a Nazi-analogy in a Jewish AfD discussion like that is in poor taste. Ishdarian 01:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not forget that Colonel Warden has already been reblocked by Black Kite. Thus, the only real purpose of this proposal here is to extend the length of the block, so that the "time served" equals 24 hours (which is likely really just a pile of junk, as CW has not even edited between when Fences and windows unblocked him, and when Black Kite reblocked him). And do not forget what the blocking policy says (as quoted): "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment..." [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Laying a block on someone for incivility can indeed prevent damage if the editor learns from it and improves his behavior in the future. Removing the block early damages wikipedia by undercutting its own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support reinstatement of the block to its original expiration point (not extended further), as Black Kite has done. An admin unblocking early should ALWAYS consult the blocking admin, and labeling a short block as "ridiculous" amounts to a personal attack that ethically nullifies the unblocker's right to unblock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• I support the reblock, my comments are already on CW's talk. I always hope for more consensus as to the need for civility on this website. I also think that some first reverts of good faith admin actions can be taken as wheel warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree wholly with Count Iblis' comments on this one. Colonel Warden was making a forceful point about the tactics being contemplated, not directly calling names - NPA is not meant to be a no-warning policy for blocking anybody whose rhetoric an admin finds offensive - it's meant to be used for people who deliberately make specific and personal attacks on other editors. Grow a thicker skin and engage with the arguments being made, already. Ray^Talk 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tactics of murder? Clumsy, that, to put it mildly. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How is calling people Nazis part of an "argument"? It's not. It's an attempt to intimidate. It's not good, and shouldn't be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not make that assumption unless that editor has a track record of anti-semitic comments. Otherwise we can WP:AGF and assume that the comment was a misplaced and distasteful analogy that was not meant to be a personal attack. Count Iblis (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• To avoid possible future dispute I support the reblock. I don't see the need for time served = 24 hours given that CW never edited Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, assuming you mean total time served would be 24 rather than resetting the clock. He made one edit, to his talk page, which is normal when one is blocked anyway. So he's effectively been on a block the whole time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I guess that since this is basically a "consensus review" of Black Kite having already reblocked Colonel Warden, I will leave my part in here, that I Support Black Kite having already reblocked C.W. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse original block and reblock. Fences&Windows action...unblocking someone who didn't even post an unblock request, not consulting with the blocking admin first, and posting a very disparaging "fuck off"-style message to said admin to boot is just beyond the pale. Consider an ArbCom filing to defrock this joker. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

unnecessarily uncivil side-discussion

What a wankfest. Doesn't anyone edit articles anymore? Need we spooge over this bullshit all the time? Warden's comment was poor (though he didn't call anyone a nazi, he equated certain acts to nazi tactics, which is a complete loss of his argument under Godwin's law anyway) and should have been chastised and then we could have moved on. The block was hasty and uncalled for, and happened because some editors are upset with CW lately. The unblock was almost inevitable, an almost newtownian reaction to BK's action. And Tarc was the editor who called for CW's head, and he's frequently uncivil as well. I'd like to spend my time sourcing uBLPs today, and I've already spent too much time on this (and CW needs no help defending himself), so this is my last comment on this stuff. Let's grow up everyone.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC) My god, will you just stick a goddamn cork in it already? There's more to this place than creating stubs for every 19th century cricket player or bloc-voting to keep an article for every transformer that ever existed y'know, one thing being ensuring that people that make repugnant Nazi allusions are shown the door. If you don't like it, tough. Take AN/I off your watchlist and move on. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC) What the person directly above me said . Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 03:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC) last 2 cents, I promise: Tarc, you continual slander of me is ridiculous. "Goddamn cork" "arshole" etc etc etc I'm not going to waste my time looking. I don't give a rat's ass about transformers, I don't like Nazi allusions or hasty blocks, and I don't like how much time people spend on all this drama crap. And in that case, you're right that I should put in cork in it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) It's not like you didn't earn every bit of your criticism or something! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Ah... it seems rather ironic for this kind of incivility to take place in a thread concerning a block for incivility, so I'm collapsing this tangential discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Good idea. I was going to comment that things seem to be getting a bit catty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – I feel nauseous reading these appalling assaults on Colonel Warden and Epeefleche. I suppose feeling that way is blockable as well. I support the blocking of all editors who have contributed negatively to this fatuous dramafest more than twice, unless they can show that they have contributed in a really useful way to Wikipedia. I also support the desoping of administrators who have negatively fanned the flames of this destructive twaddle, particularly those who contribute little valuable content to Wikipedia but devote their energy trying to destroy those who do. We have wise administrators here. Why is it made so difficult for them to step forward and intervene? Unwise administrators damage Wikipedia far more than armies of vandals. We are long overdue for change. There should be a special group of administrators who have earned the respect of content editors, and only those administrators should have the power to block well established content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Umm no. Access Denied 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Meaning what? That only administrators who do not have the respect of content editors should have the power to block them? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  We seem to have a few people around here who unfortunately can make such comments with impunity (you all know to whom I refer); however, that doesn't make it right. Let's not go there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Not to be a civility policeman or anything, but just a note that Epiplagic has a pretty long history of personal attacks judging from their talk page. Access Denied 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  All editors are equal. That includes admins. Access Denied 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Editors who contribute little useful content to Wikipedia are not editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, then maybe me and all the other vandal fighters should retire for a month. That'll definetiley change your opinion. Access Denied 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  What is "useful" content here is entirely subjective, and hardly an argument for Epipelagic's above view. What constitutes an "editor" here is also subjective, apparently. The best editors can both contribute "useful" content and respect civility and enforce the rules. No one is "holier than thou" here, really. With all due respect to Orwell... Doc talk 05:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Admins are more equal than others. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  I had to read that fucking book YEARS ago for class... I still can't see what was so goddamn great about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: He made the nazi comparison. I don't care how often people get away with it or how many excuses they make... Comparing any part of someone to a nazi is always a personal attack. I can't believe people are defending it as a fair comment. The comparison always harms the quality of discussion and makes for a less civil environment. Moreover... there has to be some civil process to how admins dispute each other... or else all of Wikipedia is just a battleground, with the admins who agree with me versus the admins who agree with you. We have to draw the line somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support reblock. Content editors who behave in a manner which is likely to cause other content editors to leave the project should be remind to not behave in that manner. I want people who work on articles to not act in a manner that causes their collegues to wish to leave. --Jayron32 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Comparing good intentioned people to Nazis is never okay. Unblocking, leaving a rude message, and then disappearing isn't that great either. AniMate 05:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose just which particular editor or editors are being attacked? NPA is about personal attacks, and to say that the general trend of a discussion is reminiscent of totalitarian methods without naming or indicating anyone in particular is a comment on the overall discussion, not on any of the editors. If one wishes to show that one is proceeding in a reasonable way, one does not do it by trying to block the people who say that you are not. (It was of course a little foolish to make that particular link, because it could have been said just as well without it.) What I see here is another example of rushing to judgment, and I think F&W did right. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Count Iblis, Ray A Yang & DGG. An entirely unreasonable block. Support F & W's unblock. Who did Colonel Warden compare to a Nazi? How? What policy did he violate? Not WP:NPA, and the block was not made according to the suggestions there, but as an unwarned bolt from the blue. Following the discussion from CW's talk page, I was surprised and amused by the drama, and as F & W said, "posturing" over CW's remark. Fundamental policy is that anyone should be free to edit, even say things which do not amount to the sum of human wisdom, horrors, and only blocked if there is clear and definite violation and prospect of continuing, none of which applies here.John Z (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence why I said above about the possibility of getting rid of the WP:NPA policy as it cannot possibly be enforced consistently. –MuZemike 07:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, let me propose this question, if I may without getting blasted on: would NPA apply only to individual editors or also to entire groups of editors? –MuZemike 07:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether you're addressing a group, or a specific individual, it's still personal. Personal doesn't mean one. I can't say "The admins in this thread are a bunch of idiots" and then claim well there are several admins here, so it isn't personal. If it's directed at an identifiable individual or group of individuals, even if a little coyness is involved, it's a personal attack. NPA is essential to wikipedia, otherwise you have threads degenerating to nothing but name-calling and vulgarity and no one wants to participate. The problem isn't with NPA, the problem is with people who don't have the spine to uphold the policies of this site and actually do something about it when those policies are assailed by biased parties.--Crossmr (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about those rushing to be apologists for CW who don't appear to have actually read either his original comment or NPA. He clearly identified a group of editors (i.e. those who were voting to delete those articles at AfD) and equated them with Nazism. I cannot see any clearer violation of NPA; after all this is a seasoned, intelligent editor who must have known that his analogy would be offensive - and to do it on a thread about Judaism-related articles? It is telling that most of those rushing to tell us that those sort of comments are OK are those that share CW's wikipolitical position; personally, I would prefer it if people, as Crossmr says above, had the willingness to condemn their wiki-friends when they step out of line. Clearly we are expecting too much. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree with MuZemike (and it goes without saying, everything Black Kite says above) and think NPA is a good idea and enforceable, if it is just kept to, uhh, actual personal attacks. How about fighting fire with fire, or here, vague coyness with vague coy statements that bringing up them Nazis can be unwelcome? The true problem is with rushing to judgment, with a widespread attitude of blocking as the first resort, of focussing on BAD WORDS & FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS rather than logic & the spirit of our policies, which only gives credence to complaints.

To the supporters of this silly block: Should we have a line in WP:NOT that says "Wikipedia is NOT a tyranny run by totalitarian administrators. Anyone who says it is will be blocked."? ;)John Z (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)#

It's not rocket science though, is it? There's a simple dichotomy here; we shouldn't be blocking people for simple playground insults unless they're really persistent and disruptive, but equally there's a bright line - if you're racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or you start equating people with paedophiles or Nazis, then expect only one result. There is no place in a collegial editing environment for such behaviour - full stop. As I said earlier, I only had one doubt about this block and that was whether it was too lenient. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you're saying that NPA should not apply to groups of editors, correct? Moreover, why have NPA when people can apparently run around it to easily? I also note that this is not the first time NPA has been directly challenged, either. –MuZemike 18:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The original block was correct. Comparing the editing of a website to Nazi mass murders is utterly inacceptable and should not be tolerated as a matter of basic decency. The unilateral unblock was an abuse of administrator tools and enabled the blocked editor to continue disrupting Wikipedia in that manner. I see no value in discussing whether the blocked editor should be reblocked for a few additional hours, as blocks are not punitive. But I would strongly support sanctions against the unblocking administrator.  Sandstein  08:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse original block and re-block. The comment was beyond the pale, and the same goes for the unblock. We have an unfortunate culture where the tolerance for abusive behaviour at ANI (and RfA for that matter) is much higher than elsewhere, but there are limits that should not be crossed. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block and re-block Invoking Godwin's law is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and should not be tolerated. --Confession0791 ^talk 10:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The block was impetuous and extreme. BC should have pointed out the inappropriateness of the comment and requested its withdrawal. You are much too ready to block editors, BC, and don't deserve the tools. F&W's unblock, without approaching BC, was reckless and counter-productive. By unblocking without running it by BC, you deprived your legitemate action of its appearance of legitimacy. BC's re-blocking of the editor before this discussion is resolved was premature and wheel-warring. You don't deserve the tools, BC. Anthony (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Feel free to take me to ArbCom, then. I actually hope someone does, so we can get a definite decision on this ludicrous issue of unblocking without discussion. Oh, and it's BK, not BC. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just resign. Anthony (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse original block and reblock. CW's comment was completely unacceptable, especially given the context. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support a military-strength spanking for the Colonel. He is fighting in the wrong or possibly non-existent inforwar. Hopefully, I'm not going to get blocked as advocating violence or something. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• A request to retract with apology could have achieved resolution in 2 minutes. This is just testosterone-driven, self-righteous, tool-flourishing battle drama. Anthony (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this truly astonishingly bad block, which must cast serious doubt on the probity of every other administrator supporting it. There was no personal attack, not even a comment directed to any other editors. In fact CW was simply deprecating a Nazi tactic, as I'm sure we all do, not suggesting that anyone was a Nazi. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that's an oddity. Malleus, given that you're an erudite and intelligent person, which part of "The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics" is not an equating of editors !voting delete on those AfD with Nazism? Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy to say "yep, I'm wrong" but I simply don't see how I am. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • A straightforward analysis of that sentence shows its subject to be "the alternative conception", not any editor or group of editors, therefore it can't possibly be a personal attack. Given the hysteria that always seems to accompany any Nazi reference it was perhaps an unwise choice of analogy, but it breached no policy. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sigh. No policy was breached, no editor or group of editors was attacked, no reason to block was present. This is a terrible block and F&W deserves to be commended for overturning it. And, yes, this needs to be taken to ArbCom. ----Divebomb is not British 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wish someone would. Honestly, if even wheel-warring can't get you taken to ArbCom these days, what do we have to do? Set fire to Jimbo? Oh, and you're completely wrong, but you knew I'd say that. Probably because you're not British. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving to archive Without commenting on the validity of the initial block and on unblock, I do not believe the editor should have been re-blocked simply because it was not his fault he got unblocked. If administrators have disagreement between themselves other should not be responsible for those. IMO re-block for 13 hours 41 minutes was made to make a point only. Fine. All the points were made. The block time has ended a few hours ago. Should we stop loosing time and archive the thread? --Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |}

Proposal to unmerge these threads

While I agree with the heading commentary (permalink) that those AfDs were drama supreme, ANI is usually about user conduct. I don't see a direct relationship between the WP:canvassing issue with Epeefleche and the Godwin/civility issue with Colonel Warden. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, rather bizarre merge that - the other thread is not about Colonel Warden directly, it's about Fences and Windows unilateral unblock. As such, I have unmerged. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Downwards and consistent readdition of unsourced ethnicity categories to BLPs

User:Downwards has repeatedly readded uncited ethnicity categories to a number of articles despite repeated pleas on his talk page to stop doing so. See here and here for the most recent ones. I have asked him to stop this and he continually ignores them and continues editing. In my opinion, adding an unsourced ethnicity category is a BLP violation, especially after being specifically asked not to do so.--TM 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? Last one I see was from 25 November. I would be happy to proceed with a long block if the user has continued after the warning, but I need to see evidence of this. --John (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As you see, I warned him on November 25. Yesterday, the user did it again. and again.--TM 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What I think is concerning is that I cannot see any communication of any sort (talk, user talk, Wikipedia space edits) from this user since at least February, even though they have been rather active since. A block may be in order simply as an incentive to react to the (apparently well-founded) concerns that others have with his editing. All Wikipedians are required to at least respond to bona fide concerns of others.  Sandstein  21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A quick glance at their edits reveals that many of them are productive (many minor useful copy edits), but the complete lack of communication and plot summaries is troubling to me. If the category issues are deemed serious enough to warrant a block I would not oppose, but perhaps this thread was enough of a warning already: no new such edits were made since yesterday. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Important Business

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz

I have been making very contributal edits recently to Leslie Nielsen and Peter Graves. But for at least the past month User:Ckatz has been monitoring my edits and simply reverting them. I asked him why he is doing so, and he simply deletes my message and claims the incident "ridiculous". It has become very frustrating and i'd like it to stop. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:02 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A few things:

1. Have you notified Ckatz of this?
2. Have you talked to Ckatz about this?
3. You need to provide WP:DIFFs to illustrate your point. Basket of Puppies 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have and he deletes my messages and tells me to go away or get lost. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:08 2 December 2010 (UTC)

[14], [15], [16].

There's more, but they're too deep into my contribs list

So: two solid removals, with sound reasoning clearly explained (i.e., "No-one is disputing the information; that does not change the reality that it is a trivial detail and non-encyclopaedic"); and one case where you have provided unsourced speculation apparently based on your own guesswork, and Ckatz removed it while explaining why. Good work, Ckatz. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not seeing anything wrong in how Ckatz has reverted these additions. If you feel they need to be added, explain further on the respective talk pages, but this is no ways an administration problem. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't, he'll just remove it. I try to remain civil and work it out, but when he refuses to acknowledge the situation and CONTINUES reverting my edits, it just gets so fucking difficult. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:32 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rusted, that is nonsense. I've already replied to your claims on your talk page. If you have genuine issues, please, dig them up so that people can fairly judge the matter. I have no problem with you (or anyone) expressing concerns if they feel something is not right. However, making unsupported accusations simply because you don't like the fact that two of your edit was rejected is just not cool. Neither is reverting a user talk page five times after I have already responded to your initial post, and after another admin has already told you to stop. You'd probably get more sympathy if your claims were reasonable, but instead you're now claiming I am "reverting a majority of [your] edits and given no probable cause". My math may be shaky, but I can't in any way work the numbers to make sense of that claim. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My memory make be off, but two months ago I asked the same questions and you took them off and told me i was being ridiculous. Your actions are annoying, frustrating and above all, CHILDISH. If you wanted to acknowledge the problem, why do you continue removing my posts on your talk page? Solve that riddle. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:39 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, stop the childish edit warring on CKatz's talk page. Rusted Auto Parts, users are allowed to remove talk page messages from their own talk page if they like; in fact, that means they have probably read and acknowledged the message. Do not make me have to issue blocks for disruption here. –MuZemike 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He;s done it again, removing my question of why he's doing this. [17], simply refuses to even REPLY. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:35 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rusted, the better solution instead of trying to get Ckatz to explain himself, is to get consensus to have your additions added to the respective talk pages of the articles in question (eg Talk:Peter Graves). Maybe consensus sees your additions differently from Ckatz, and they will add that to the page. They might not, either. But that will come to a more agreable solution than trying to convince Ckatz alone to allow your additions. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rusted, it is my right to remove the initial post, especially given that I had already responded on your talk page. On the other had, you do not have the right to repeatedly and disruptively repost it, especially after an uninvolved party has told you to stop. I'll not even get into your most recent post, in which you acknowledge you were purposefully reposting simply to annoy me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Only because i want to know why you are coming after me, saying I'M the person who's in the wrong. You HAVE been Hounding me and i even noticed it two months ago. I only want to know why you delete the posts i made on your talk pages SECONDS after i posted it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:46 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Masem, thank you for your input. However, it is important to clarify that Rusted has not laid out the situation correctly. For example, in regard to Peter Graves and Leslie Nielsen, please note that his text was initially removed by Crohnie with the edit summary "Removed as trivial and not important for this article + it's unsourced. please do not return this to the article per WP:Trivia". Rusted restored the text, and when I removed it he then initiated the notices that led to this proceeding. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought I saw, and still gives him no reason to be incessantly attacking your talk page. If this is about the content Rusted wants added, WP:BRD and the specific articles' talk pages are the place to go, not to your page. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG to me - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, in particular, and Amog. Rusted AutoParts, I advise you to accept that (a) people may remove messages from their talk page and that you should not edit-war to restore them, and (b) people can in good faith disagree about whether your additions were useful (in my opinion, they were very much not), and WP:DR tells you how to deal with such disagreements. You should begin by using the article talk page.  Sandstein  21:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While it may be an interesting coincidence that 3 of the octogenarian cast members of Airplane! have died in 2010, putting it in the article amounts to "original synthesis", i.e. it implies there's something special about it. If there were a reliable source that remarked on the unusual nature of this coincidence (if it is, in fact, unusual) then it might be worth posting. Otherwise, it's just trivia more appropriate perhaps to IMDB than to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong here in Ckatz's actions. Unsourced content and trivia don't belong here, and once reverted, it should be taken to the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. I see that a discussion took place on Talk:Peter Graves where the removal was explained, but not at Talk:Leslie Nielsen. If you keep adding trivia and unsourced content, other editors removing it is absolutely the right thing to do. Given that Rusted's first communication with Ckatz on his talk page was an accusation of hounding, I don't blame Ckatz in the least for removing such comments.--Michig (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unsourced" is a bit off the mark, as there is no dispute that Peter Graves, Barbara Billingsley and Leslie Nielsen, all of whom appeared in Airplane!, have all died this past year. The issue is notability. That's a content matter, of course. The OP's somewhat over-reaction to this is the ANI-related problem. He's a relative newbie, so hopefully he'll understand the point better as time goes on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant dubious unsourced content - see diff 31 above.--Michig (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's it. Can you re-post the same diff here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, i apologize for quickly assuming you were intentionally reverting my edis. Realizing now that providing sources is required for additions such as to Megamind. I only got angered because i noticed that you were the one reverting. I'm sorry for persistently trying to make you acknowledge it and hope we might be able to help one another out in case of an edit war that breaks out. With regards, Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:41 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This was the diff I was referring to - whether or not this is dubious is a matter for the individual, but removal by Ckatz was reasonable in my view. Looks like there's no issue now, in any case.--Michig (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That stuff is definitely OR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:68.96.242.239: Admitted Sock/COI/Legal threats

At this diff User:68.96.242.239 aka "Will" admits he's a sock of a banned IP (but not whether he also as another wikipedia account), admits he's working for/represents the subject of BLP and threatens legal action against Wikipedia if it doesn't shape up and keep critical WP:RS material off the page. (Specifically that Libertarian Party of FL resolved he should be taken off the Libertarian National Committee, information on their web site, one solid WP:RS and one more news site which probably could be contested.) I warned "Will" about these issues and recommended he email wikipedia with complaints.

I also posted about these issues at Talk:Wayne_Allyn_Root#Conflict_of_Interest_v._POV. I'm pretty sure my notice will be ignored. Until Admins deal with this issue, I will refrain from posting the info in question again (which he's deleted 3 times from original editor, a second editor and me after I added better WP:RS). [Later note: since someone else reverted the material noting COI, I just added the relevant link as ref.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd. I did not see where he claimed to be a sock, would you please post a dif link of that specific here or on my talk page? Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that was the OP's interpretation of "And please remove the ban on my IP address" on the IP's talk page? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'd like to know the other IP, but I hardly think the editor will give it now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Official ban of User:Jameswhatson

Suspected socks (needing all but confirmation)

Confirmed socks

As it is, my user page is going to have to be indefinitely semi-protected and generally new socks are taken care of quicktime, but as the user has stayed their only purpose here is harassment of myself and JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), let's officially show him the door. HalfShadow 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban - The editor in question is of no value whatsoever to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ban - goes without saying really. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - per the above. MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy block - In addition to the above, this is a username policy violation since it is an impersonating username. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • They've already been blocked; this discussion is dealing with whether they should also be banned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ban...g! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ban - Just read up. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Ban and consign to the eternal fire. My talk page has been visited by this [redacted per NPA] as well. Favonian (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Has he been hitting you too? Shit, I'm sorry; he generally targets me and James. Watching. HalfShadow 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't hit me at all. I'm feeling dissed. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I could vandalize your page, but you'd probably feel I was patronizing you. HalfShadow 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be sufficiently creative that I might want to keep it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ban for harassment and maybe contact the ISP? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• YES YES YES this is long overdue. Access Denied 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban - And YES, can someone please file a harassment/abuse report with the ISP? This is just totally unacceptable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support If any editor has be harrassed or threatened via email, they should file the complaint. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question What would be achieved by a ban, since all of the user's socks are blocked when they appear anyway? I am not opposing a ban, just wondering what its purpose would be. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, explicit community bans allow for greater freedom in reverting of sock edits. Edits of a banned user can be reverted on sight, are not considered Edit Warring, and will not subject one to 3RR consequences. Reverting of the sock-edits of users who are simply indef blocked does not have this freedom. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ban tag added to userpage. Consensus is at 100%. Foregone conclusion, really. HalfShadow 21:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Umutcan123456

On November 26, User:Umutcan123456 was indef blocked for wikistalking and overall nonconstructive activity on other user talk pages, especially mine (see User talk:Eagles247/Archive 16). He posted an unblock request earlier today [18] threatening that if the request was declined, he would log out and edit as an IP. He also stated that he has already begun editing as an IP when his first unblock request was declined on November 26. Is this possible for a blocked user to simply log out and edit as an IP? If so, can a CheckUser block his IP? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible for a block user to log out and edit as an IP. An 'autoblock' should kick in and block the associated IP as soon as it tries to edit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Without resorting to comments prohibited by WP:BEANS, if the user is savvy enough to be able to reset his IP (not an overwhelming intellectual hurdle), autoblocks become ineffective.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The autoblock only runs for 24 hours. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember that guy. Annoying troll, to be honest, and a CU would be nice if a rangeblock is feasible, which I think may not be. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Query about sanction per language

Is there an inherent difference between "underhandedly", "disingenuously", and "purposely deceitful"? Which would you say is harsher and crosses ad hominem lines?
I ask in relevance to an ongoing issue.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If the words used are (a) true, and (b) relevant, then none would necessarily be 'ad hominem' I'd have thought - this would depend on the context. I'd say that in increasing harshness I'd rank them "disingenuously", "underhandedly" and "purposely deceitful". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.

Further input from participants of this forum would be most appreciated as this involves an ongoing issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with AndyTheGrump, and would rank them in the same order of harshness. ← George ^talk 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all three are problematic, for the simple reason that they suggest that the one editor can read the heart and mind of the other. That's why it's risky to make personal attacks. Behavior, in contrast, is easy to demonstrate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted out of process

Can anyone explain why the article Garbage scow was deleted? The deletion log gives a reason as "created by a blocked user" but that's not a legitimate rationale since someone else edited it also. The article was short but was referenced and could have been improved. It would seem counterproductive to delete a perfectly good article as punishment for someone because they are blocked. 69.211.19.46 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD G5 is a legitimate speedy deletion criteria, and the only other user who edited the page added a category to it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but why delete a useful article just because it was made by someone who was blocked? Just seems very "cut off the nose to spite the face" to me. Anyway... whatever, I guess. 69.211.19.46 (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, but the consensus is that a ban is put in place because the community feels that any positive contributions from a user are outweighed severely by their negative contributions. If you feel the subject is notable, you are free to create it (after registering / logging in) or ask another editor to create it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any problem with this deletion. If you are not the same block-evading person, and have the sources that would be needed to develop this into a good article, you are welcome to request undeletion at deletion review. Or you could simply create the good article. The only reference I noticed in the deleted article was a newspaper article about one specific garbage scow, not something about garbage scows in general. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When the blocked user who created said article tries to evade block via IPs. Right, User:VoteJagoffForMayor? –MuZemike 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DING! And the boy gets a cigar. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I was the admin who deleted this, perhaps I might have been informed of this discussion. This is actually the second discussion relevant to me that I have found here now, quite by accident, because I came looking for something else. It makes me wonder how many I miss altogether, because I don't look at this page regularly. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mentioned frequently, but generally the references hide when they see you coming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unjust blocking and removal of rights

I was recently blocked for a period twenty four hours (since restored) for allegedly violating the WP:3RR rule and have been stripped of my rollbacker rights. The problem is I did not violate the 3RR rule. I reverted the same user on the same page 3 times within a 24-hour period, however, the fourth edit was well before that period of time. The page in question is Hadith terminology. Here are the the edits beginning with the most recent:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]

These three edits were unquestionably with a 24-hour period. However, the fourth [22], was well before that 24-hour period. Of course, my behavior as it stands even with this clarification is hardly exemplary, I felt justified at the time (don't we all?) because the other user was committing what I felt — and still do — was vandalism. The other user made a number of edits to the above page which were unjustified. For example, adding templates to clearly cited material such as here [23]. The edits that I "went to war" over were those in which the second party "spliced" in unreferenced material into cited material giving the impression that that addition is present in that source when it is not. Perhaps this additional information is irrelevant, but I felt some explanation was needed. I have been a Wikipedia user for over three years with much incident, and given that I did not violate the 3RR rule I would appreciate the return of my rollback rights as well as the removal of the block from my user log. Thank you for at least reading this.Supertouch (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR doesn't just apply to reverting three times, it can also refer to edit-warring as a whole, which you were certainly doing. HalfShadow 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

...and using Rollback for non-vandalism? That's abuse of rollback privileges by the book there. It's a content dispute, not one for rollback. Block edit-warring valid. Removal of rollback (for now) due to misuse valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And as I explained earlier I was reverting vandalism. I quote from WP:VP:

“ Sneaky vandalsim: Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)... ”

This is without a doubt what the other user was engaged in and I was simply removing the compromise to the integrity of the information I added to Wikipedia. The sectarian nature of the second user's edits clearly illustrate his or her malice in this instance.Supertouch (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The block can't be removed from your log. Your quote "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)" would work if that was what Humaliwalay was doing. However, those hadith collection are Sunni hadith so Humaliwalay was clarifying it and it's not vandalism, even if it is not in the source. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It was improper use of rollback, and taking it away was appropriate. Vandalism is junk like "Hi Mom" or deletions of random chunks of text with no rhyme or reason. Rollback should be used sparingly. Otherwise, use the "undo" and replace the default text with an explanation. Edit warring is bad, and using rollback in edit warring over content is not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• A couple of notes on this. WP:VANDAL - "Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism." and WP:ROLLBACK when to use rollback -"To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" - emphasis mine, as other say above, this certainly isn't obvious vandalism. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• If Supertouch can't see that this is not vandalism then they do not understand Wikipedia's concept of vandalism, and in that case they are likely to make future errors in using rollback. For that reason Supertouch's arguments above are in themselves reasons for withholding rollback, and they increase the certainty that withdraeing rollback was the right thing to do. I am also not impressed by wikilawyering over how many reverts were within a 24 hour period. 3 reverts is not a right, and edit-warring is edit-warring, no matter what the time scale. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal patrol to Qatar, please

There's been a lot of IP vandalism on Qatar after the FIFA2022 announcement. I had it on semi earlier today but would be nice if it could stay clear. Would appreciate some extra eyes on it. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody semiprotected anyway. I did my best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Some seriously upset soccer fans out there, I guess. Thanks for trying. Ronnotel (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this incorrect use of a warning template?

I gave DD2K this warning for edit warring, I had warned the other party, TVC 15 as well. While TVC 15 took the time to respond to it in a polite manner, DD2K decided to warn me for "improper use" of a warning template. Which do you think was the right thing to do? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war? What edit war? I do not see any edit war. :-) I only see the two editors reverting each other only once in the recent history of the article. Where is the 3RR violation? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was an incorrect use of a warning template. I was not in any edit war, and only removed the material recently added by that user improperly. There are no reliable sources(Hotair, a conservative blogger named "Allahpundit ", and blogs) to back up the edits made, and the only sources there were reliable that were added to the references did not back up the edits. How is that an "edit war", with one revert? Per BRD, the other editor should have went to the talk page. Your use if the warning template on my talk page was inappropriate. Dave Dial (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is not just 3RR. It's refusal to collaborate with other editors on controversial edits. Also: I would like someone other that DD2K or TVC 15 to comment please. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The issue perhaps is what looks like a "brewing" edit war, with the two editors sniping at each other in the edit summaries, with comments they should confine (and refine) to the talk page. TVC 15 is a relative newbie, whereas DD2K has been around for about a year, so he probably didn't appreciate getting templated, especially when he had only reverted once, so Bart jumped the gun a bit. But the users need to use the article talk page to discuss, rather than trying to do it in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Also: Note the DISCUSS part of the BRD cycle... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, please do note the "DISCUSS" portion of BRD. That is EXACTLY, the portion of the cycle that is being ignored. The "sources" used for the edits did not back up the added material, except for the conservative Hotair blog, which is not a reliable source. Are we going to start linking to PeteFromOmaha on the DailyKos too? Give me a break. Dave Dial (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DD2K has cited WP:BRD, but it does not support DD2K's position; in fact, it says, "BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Also, some of the material that DD2K reverted was sourced accurately to the United States Department of Health and Human Services; I restored it and added a direct quote and links to the Congressional Budget Office report saying the same thing. I think anyone comparing DD2K's comments here to the actual edits and WP:BRD will see that DD2K is perhaps distracted in preparation for a vacation, and not noticing what the pages say.TVC 15 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, after you were reverted the first time, you should have gone to the talk page with it. Edit warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not entirely accurate to summarize the edit as solely a revert, let alone an edit war: DD2K objected to sources, so I added the CBO as a source and quoted directly from a CBO report, thus addressing the stated objection. We are discussing it on my Talk page, where I have also offered that if DD2K identifies any particular statement as unsupported, I will try to replace it with an official quote.TVC 15 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I specifically did not add in another revert on that article, even though you restored the exact same material with the exact same sources, to avoid an edit war. Hoping that either someone else would see the violations or I would post to your talk page. Yea, nobody can force you to discuss the edits. But it's part of the process. Dave Dial (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the idea that TVC 15 is more at fault here than DD2K. DD2K made only one revert. But TVC 15 then restored his edits (the problem) without discussion. If there is any problem here with any of these two that I can see, it would probably be that. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check the diff[24] before jumping to any conclusion. As the diff clearly shows, my "revert" did in fact address DD2K's objection about sources, specifically by quoting from and linking to the CBO, as well as narrowing the phrasing to match the WP:RS more closely. Also, it seems strange to call me "more at fault" (for a war that didn't happen) when DD2K's statement immediately above ("exact same material with the exact same sources") is demonstrably false. Facts do matter, and I think it would be more helpful to devote this time to getting the facts right in the article rather than opining about fault (especially without even checking diffs).TVC 15 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can developers remove edit filter logs in an emergency???

I just found an old edit filter log entry sitting around from a few weeks ago which is 100% outing of another editor. Can developers delete the entry, and where can I get the quickest response? Access Denied 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The fastest way to contact a developer is in #wikimedia-tech on irc.freenode.net. Nakon 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually an oversighter has the ability now to remove AbuseFilter log entries from the public. --Bsadowski1 03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When did they fix that? I guess I missed it... Dragons flight (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In principle, a developer with shell access (this list) could delete an edit filter log. I'm unaware of any circumstance where they have actually done so. The lack of better mechanism to remove edit filter logs has been considered a major unresolved bug. Dragons flight (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As BSadowski said - email the diff to oversight-en-wp‐at‐wikipedia.org  7  03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Email sent, thanks everyone. Access Denied 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The paranoia about "outing" is excessive. The Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy [25] only requires that information only available by "non-publicly-available methods" not be released. That refers only to logs and information available to admins and above. If personally identifiable information available to any user appears on Wikipedia, that is not a violation of policy. It may be deleted for the usual reasons for deletion, but it's not an emergency situation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn

Resolved

 – Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 is now at RfD; user has been advised not to renominate for speedy deletion after they've been declined. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) is tendentiously and perhaps pointily retagging this for CSD. He is being rude to me. I literally lack the energy to deal with it. Past my physical limits. Could someone please look at this? thanks. Dlohcierekim 04:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(notified)Good night! Dlohcierekim 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the tag with a clear reason in the edit summary. This should go to RfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 3 — Gavia immer (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully this will take the heat off it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged on here again? I followed all procedures and had my good faith tagging rollbacked as vandalism. The two admins that abused this feature should have it revoked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

::RHaworth's tag reversion was improperly marked minor and had no edit summary. Dlohcierekim's accused William S. Saturn of "vandalism", and was also marked minor. Both administrators should know better, so two trouts there. One can understand why an editor would restore an edit reverted without explanation or with only of a false accusation of vandalism. Not the wisest move so a trout there, but understandable. Better to simply remove the tag with a "speedy declined, this is not an obvious case for deletion", and for all parties to use the talk page, right? So trouts all around. Three trouts! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) striking my comment as redundant - the trouts say it all - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• William, you can only tag pages for speedy deletion once. Once declined, it has to go to XfD. It's now at XfD, so there's nothing further to do here. Note for future however, if the speedy deletion template has been removed by someone other than the creator, take it to XfD; speedy deletion isn't for controversial cases. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the nomination was declined until Mkativerata's final removal of the tag. Reverting something as vandalism or with no explanation at all is not the same as declining a request. It's actually not much of anything. I would tend to summarily undo an unexplained revert of a viable edit I had made, if I didn't notice it came from an administrator or established editor, and I would be piqued if they made block threats or filed AN/I reports over it before trying to discuss - that looks a bit tendentious. That's the kind of random noise you just have to deal with when you edit here, and I hope admins can be careful enough not to contribute to the noise. Ideally William S. Saturn would have noticed that it was an administrator who removed the tag, and in lieu of an edit summary asked on their talk page if they had intended to decline the nomination, hence the third trout. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the tag is declining the speedy, and may be done by anyone other than the creator of the page. Once removed, the speedy should not be replaced. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts. Deleting a tag without explanation is not correct procedure, and he who does not follow procedure is in a poor position to insist on procedure being followed. Anyway, looking at the subtext, what we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. It's pretty hard to follow the flurry of talk page comments, but here is an edit that does show that he should have known the intent was to decline the speedy nomination. That was a few minutes before his third and final attempt to add the tag, so I think at that point he was indeed being unreasonable (counter to my earlier observation). I'm still sticking with my trouts though. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and I also deserve a little trout for the block threat in my edit summary, in light of the earlier circumstances. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment made after "resolved" and after getting up this morning to better expalin myself. My apologies for needing a trout. As I noted when I started this thread I was past exhausted and unable to deal with it or William. That's why I brought it here. I did not merely rollback as vandalism. (Though disruption would have been a better term. RHawthornes edit summary was quite clear.) I placed a note on William's talk page explaining my action. I repeat-- I did explain my action and that RfD was the pace to go. That post was removed and a snarky comment about signing posts was placed on my talk page. No one seems to have noticed that or the ensuing exchange. William had by then retagged again. Since he was not amenable to discussion, I brought it here in hopes that someone could communicate better. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 15:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did rollback as vandalism, please do not claim otherwise. Also, I tried to engage with you [26] but you left an unsigned comment on my page that explained nothing and gave the impression that you were completely unaware of the situation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

YM again - large photo poll on user talk page

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

Am I the only one annoyed by the photo poll on yellowmonkeys talk page? Or am I the only one here editing from a 256k connection? He has been repeatedly asked to shorter his mess of a header and he never even acknowledges that these complains exitst. His page takes eight minutes to load- that is when my browser managed to load it without crashing. If your Talkpage is causing web browsers to crash that is a serious problem. When I visit a talk page it is to talk to the user not vote in some silly photo poll. I'm bringing this here because o f his persistent refusal to acknowledge the problem. Access Denied 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Could some one wig a decent Internet connection please drop him a note about yhis discussion? My browser is being naught and not loading his page. Thanks Access Denied 07:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

he's obviously on a wikibreak, quit hounding him.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to remind you of WP:AOBF. YM has been asked about this before, and failed to deal with the issue. It's an unhelpful use of a user talk page, with an obvious solution. Rd232 ^talk 09:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly implemented subpaging of the photo poll. YM isn't around to respect the request or justify why not (apparently he's failed to do either in the past), and user talk pages are still part of the community. They're there for communication, and the photo poll was inhibiting that. Rd232 ^talk 09:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• While you were doing that, I was looking into putting <gallery>…</gallery> around the image galleries, which was an equally obvious thing to do. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • How would that (Wikipedia:Gallery tag) help? AFAIK the page load won't be any less, and the combination of the photo and the poll will take hardly much less space - plus linking the photo with the poll is then an extra issue to deal with. Be that as it may, there are obviously multiple ways to resolve this. For instance, a fairly obvious but so far unasked question is why article content issues are being systematically handled on a user talk page in this way - this does not strike me as in keeping with the way these things are normally done. When it's just sports photos it doesn't matter greatly, but it's a poor principle to follow; it's the sort of thing which would normally be a WikiProject subpage. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Simple: The images are smaller in galleries. There's less to load. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That is true, gallery images are only loaded as small thumbnail graphics (I believe 180px). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. Then it wouldn't help in this case as the images are already formatted as 180px. In fact the gallery tag can format them to be smaller than that, but that would conflict with the purpose (photo poll - need to see the photos properly). Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
          • The default is 120px, not 180px. This is in the documentation. Or you could just have tried it, as I was in the middle of doing (using preview) when you made your edit, and seen that the images come out smaller. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, OK, it's in the docs; I went with Gwen Gale's remark. Subpaging is better here (for this number of pictures), being less work to do and more effectively solving the problem. And as I said 120px (or less) might be too small for the purpose (photo poll). Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one annoyed by the photo poll on yellowmonkeys talk page? - Well, it's been like that for years, and there are many who like it that way.

I'm bringing this here because of his persistent refusal to acknowledge the problem. - I don't see it as a problem.

I'm guessing here: My guess is that YM doesn't see it as a problem, either. But as I said, it's a guess.

Why are people harassing YM? Have I missed something? I don't understand the unpleasantness and the intollerance. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF. This is objectively a problem - just because it's not a problem for you, and you're used to the situation, doesn't change that. Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF - Wikipedia:Assume good faith#Accusing others of bad faith. Are you stating that I am accusing you of bad faith? Please explain! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Why are people harassing YM?" is an accusation of bad faith, most obviously directed at the user who started this thread, but clearly not limited to them. See also WP:AOHA. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am having problems with your interpretation of my words. Most particularly, with YOUR lack of WP:AGF.

It is a simple FACT, not an opinion, that "Why are people harassing YM?" is a question. Questions are questions. Questions are not accusations. The rest of your statement is also inaccurate - they are YOUR words, not mine. Not only did I not say them, I didn't imply them. In fact, ironically, the most concise and accurate reply to your response is: WP:AOBF. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL - your sophistry-fu is weak, old man. You may wish you had asked "Does this amount to harassment of YM?" but you didn't. You asked "Why are people harassing YM?", which implies it is a fact that they are, which is therefore an accusation of harassment. Rd232 ^talk 12:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are rude, arrogant, don't listen, have a poor command of the english language and are only interested in being "right". Further, you are wasting my time. Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that sums up my experience with you in this thread. I presume you're not always like this, or you wouldn't still be around. Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: be civil. Assume good faith. Don't make personal attacks. Goodbye. access_denied (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is objectively a problem - I'm afraid not.

"Objectively", the page is just a collection of data.

By definition, a problem is subjective.

The subjective nature is further demonstrated by the fact that you think/feel it is a problem, and I don't.

So, beyond WP:I just don't like it, what's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Objectively a page filled with that many photos is (a) hard to impossible to load on a dialup connection (b) confusing and hard to navigate, particularly for newcomers and/or users on devices with small screens. I'm not personally affected by any of these and apparently neither are you: but the problems objectively exist. Rd232 ^talk 11:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "objectively" means. Removing the first two words of your reply:

a page filled with that many photos is (a) hard to impossible to load on a dialup connection (b) confusing and hard to navigate, particularly for newcomers and/or users on devices with small screens.

Well yes, I agree. But that does NOT "objectively" make it "a problem".

As I said above, by definition. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is objectively a problem. You however, are saying that in your subjective opinion, you don't care about that problem. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the second time you have tried to put your words into my mouth.

You are rude, arrogant, don't listen, have a poor command of the english language and are only interested in being "right". Further, you are wasting my time. Good night. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You said above "you think/feel it is a problem, and I don't." And then agreed with my factual description of the nature of the problem. Hence my conclusion that you don't care about the problem (which is your prerogative, and fits with other statements you've made about this elsewhere). Rd232 ^talk 12:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Why are you...?" is not just "a question", it's what we who have a good command of English call a "loaded" question, on the order of "Are you still beating your wife?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the header for this thread; can we please have neutral and descriptive headers at ANI (as well as elsewhere, obviously...) rather than accusatory ones. Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got an old PC with an old browser, and no problem. But if others are having problems, is there any reason not to wrap the problem area on the user page with a hat/hab construct? Just because he's an admin doesn't give him any special privilege to cause this kind of problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

hat/hab wouldn't work, as the data is still loaded anyway. Support subpage solution. Physchim62 (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

{{hat}} doesn't affect the pageload issue. It would help with the space issue, if the content was just text. The most appropriate solution will vary depending on the content, and if YM were here, we could discuss his preferred solution with him, but in his absence, and since he's been asked before to deal with it and hasn't, the subpage approach does the job, and probably any further discussion is best left for his return, if he wants to talk about it then. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was one of those previously asked him about the same issue. While i continue to have that opinion, i acknowledge it is his right to have what he wants on his page unless it is something plain offensive. unilaterally removing it is absolutely wrong and by the editor who is involved against him in RFC and ArbCom proceedings can be compared to a lot of things. I would even suggest this issue be brought up at the ArbCom. the only way forward is politely request him again couple of months after the Arbcom proceedings are over. --CarTick (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to clarify your statement that I'm involved in RFC/Arbcom proceedings. I commented on the current WP:RFC/U, and on the current Request for Arbitration. I have not been involved prior to that. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, CarTick, I don't think we need to go to ArbCom to sort out a problem with an admin-oversighter-CU talk page! Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Usertalk Proposal

Since several editors have chosen to edit war on YM's behalf to unfix the long-term problem I had fixed (history), I guess we have to waste some more time on this.

Proposal 1

• User talk pages are primarily for communication, and should not contain content which unduly inhibits that purpose. Large image content is a particular example of content that may be better placed elsewhere, for example on a user page or user subpage. In addition, user talk pages are not the primary venues for discussing article content - article talk pages are. This general principle should be agreed reaffirmed, and precise wording worked out at Wikipedia talk:User pages. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• User talk:YellowMonkey's talk page has for some months contained a large photo poll, which makes the page very large. This content should in the short term be moved to a subpage (done here: User talk:YellowMonkey/photo poll), and in the longer term such polls should be handled elsewhere. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 3

• Exempt User:YellowMonkey from the requirements in Proposal 1, because he has lots of friends who like his page just the way it is. Rd232 ^talk 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 4

• Users with slow internet connections could turn off the 'load images automatically' in their browser. This was the solution in days gone by. jmcw (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that knowingly making life difficult for other Wikipedians without any real reason is purely disruptive. In this case, YellowMonkey makes life difficult in two ways: slow loading of the page for any browser, and especially for those without broadband; and confusing navigation, especially for inexperienced editors.
So, we've established it makes life difficult for other Wikipedians. YellowMonkey is very much aware of this. Now, let's examine whether there is any reason. I can't conceive of any reason at all why the poll cannot go on a subpage.
So it's disruptive, simple as that. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support proposal 2. Proposal 1 should more or less already be common sense. There's room for leeway, but not when that leeway interferes with the primary function of user talk pages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's common sense and kind of covered by WP:OWNTALK; but not clearly enough for this type of case, with OWNTALK seemingly written with excessive Myspacing in mind. Rd232 ^talk 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal 2. I just reverted on that page, since it has the effect of making it difficult to communicate with the editor. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also fixed editnotice to point to new location of photo poll. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal 2, as above. When a talk page gets so loaded down with other stuff that it's no longer easy to use as a talk page, fixing it is the only helpful thing to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposals 1 and 2. But proposal 2 should be implemented without waiting for 1.--Korruski^Talk 14:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support door number 2 (non-admin here). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal 1 and 2. The fact that you have to go over two-thirds of the way down YellowMonkey's talk page before even seeing any real discussion is just absurd. The sheer extent of this is, in my opinion, an abuse of the talk page feature. This poll simply doesn't belong there. I have no problem with this sort of content on the main user page or a subpage, but as has already been stated, this is causing disruption for other users. The ability to communicate comes first. --Dorsal Axe 15:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2 and a clear memo to YM that 1 is an accepted measure. Disclaimer: I've had a PC crash a few times on YM's talk page, so I'm a bit biased and interested, which is why I read this thread. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2. This issue has come up in the past, although the user talk archives are rather odd and make it difficult to locate much of anything of significance. Enigma^msg 16:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal 2, and 1. Talk pages are for communication, and anything that keeps editors from being able to communicate should be moved somewhere else. We have enough editors who don't communicate well (not referring to the subject of this report) already, what happens if one of them decides to put up their own photo poll to keep people from being able to quickly post on their talk pages? I have no problem with the content at a user page, or more preferably a subpage. Dayewalker (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal 1 and 2. His talk is too hard to read. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2 & 1. The page is simply too long. GfoleyALT / Sock of Gfoley4 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know I'm going against the trend here, but I disagree with the way the options are presented. Option 1 seems to propose a new principle, and wants to remove the material on the grounds of a principle which hasn't gained general consensus. Option 2 wants to remove the content without a general principle, and option 3 wants to allow a special exemption to a principle which doesn't exist. Option 4, of course, puts the weight on the end user, which is also a problem. So I'm opposed to this approach, if not the end result. - Bilby (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say the general principle for Option 2 is "Don't disrupt the encyclopedia", and making it difficult to use a User talk page for its intended purpose would seem to me to fall under that heading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as disruptive, per se, and it is intended to improve the encyclopedia. I do see it as obsolete, as the last main votes were months ago, and in 10 months you can probably tell which way the wind is blowing, especially given that many of the photos seem to be in articles now. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

YM has had these sorts of photo polls for years, as far as I can tell. It's a perennial issue which archiving this particular poll as stale wouldn't resolve. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1 is not for a new principle - this is an existing principle which merely isn't clearly enough written into policy. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, then perhaps you shouldn't add the "this general principle should be agreed ..." part, as that presumes the general principle hasn't been agreed to. Generally, though, I don't like this approach, as it presumes that you're correct and there is an unwritten principle that we either support (with option 1) or support (with option 3) but can't deny. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, clarified Proposal 1. The principle exists. If you wish to oppose that principle, then explain why. Rd232 ^talk 21:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work either. But this is irrelevant, and I don't want to derail the conversation about this - I just want to be clear that this sort of poll, where the options all presume guilt on the part of the user (option 1: guilty of breaking an unwritten principle; option 2: maybe not guilty of breaking something, but let's act as if he is; and option 3: guilty per option 1, but let's let him get away with it; option 4 isn't viable at all) is not how I think we should be tackling polls. Anyway, it is clear where consensus is going - I'd just be happy with IAR, rather than this approach. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Guilt? What are you talking about? No one's trying to make YM guilty of anything. They're just noting that his talk page has become difficult to use and wondering whether anything can be done about it within policy, and whether policies should be developed/clarified to deal with similar situations. There have been instances of editors deliberately keeping their talk pages long to discourage communication, but I doubt YM is one of them. So far as there being no consensus for this, it looks to me as if consensus is developing here, right now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support proposals 1 and 2, oppose 3. So far as 4 is concerned, users can set their browsers any way they like without having a policy about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Trout YM is guilty of bad manners: i.e. she has not considered the effects of her action on her community. I commend Rd232 for her good-willed actions to help the community ( although she (in good faith) also showed bad manners by editing someone else's talk page). Policies and Guidelines are too important to be clutter up with clauses dealing with bad manners. I suggest Trout: that YM ( when he turns up again) be slapped with a trout and that he cook it nicely for dinner for YM and Rd232. I offer to help AccessDenied find an alternative browser that works better ( I use a 400 Mhz PII although with DSL). jmcw (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring and verbal abuse from IP user

Resolved

IP user 24.129.175.63 has recently been edit warring on the articles The Howling and The Howling III: Echoes. Without going into detail about the subject disagreement itself, 24.129.175.63 has been reverting edits by several other users for quite some months now, but in recent weeks he has become extremely offensive towards the other users calling them "fucking morons" [27], "bloody idiots" [28], and "grade school drop outs" [29] in his edit summaries. When challenged by one editor (User:Half price), 24.129.175.63 called him a "motherfucking idiot" on his talk page [30]. Another IP user attempted to discuss the matter with 24.129.175.63 and left him a message on his talk page earlier this week which asked him to stop his edit warring and engage in discussion on the article talk pages as well as warning him about WP:NPA, but 24.129.175.63 ignored this and has simply continued edit warring and called the user a "fucking idiot" in his edit summary [31]. Given the increasing hostility from this user and the fact that that there are other complaints about his behaviour on his talk page, I am requesting that this IP address be blocked indefinitely. GoldCoaster (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep... Came across this user while monitoring recent changes and found his edit summary very rude and inappropriate. I warned him accordingly, but I definitely support a block. «CharlieEchoTango» 07:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs are not blocked indefinitely. He's received some warnings, but has not edited since. Should he recommence attacking others, please inform me or another admin with reference to this thread, and an appropriate block will be imposed.  Sandstein  08:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User 24.129.175.63 has now resumed edit warring [32] on one of these articles after repeated warnings and after this report was made. Surely a block is now needed. GoldCoaster (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h.  Sandstein  21:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP user 98.94.164.237

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

This is the latest IP of a banned user whose entire M.O. is to disrupt the Charles Whitman article and specifically material related to Houston McCoy. There's been a report sitting on AIV for a couple of hours without action, and in the meantime they have a large number of edits past their final warning. Any chance someone can enact a block on them? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, as a side note, there are three older unaddressed reports on AIV as well, though they are probably stale now. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gavia immer did not notify me of this posting as noted in the rule. Also, as a contributor, I made a "Good Faith" edit to the Charles Whitman article, sourced it, added a direct quote from the article by the LA Times (a known reliable source), several days ago.

Today it got reverted for vandalism by a user unknown at the time of this writing, it is in the history. After reviewing the the claim of the original revertor, I reviewed WP policies and felt the revertor was mistaken and reverted the article back to include the good faith contribution, with an edit summary. BUZUK and GAVIA IMMER both started reverting the contribution with bad faith claims of vandalism, that is untrue, then accusations of sock-puppets appeared, that is not true, and now they are sourcing Jimbo Wales as a reason to revert over some issue with another contributor in the past, which brings to Gavia Immer's claims here.

I have asked an admin on another board to look at the contribution, determine the verfifability, sources and content of the contribution and nothing has happened except an edit war with falsehoods all over the map. Neither Gavia Immer nor BUZUK have been cordial let alone civil or assummed good faith, after I have asked them to review the contrib and prove it wrong. If anyone should be banned here it is Gavia Immer and Buzuk for tag teaming on an edit war that has no merit or basis for reversion. I will not even go into the false allegations at this time. Thanks for your attention, and please review the contrib as it was intended, in "good faith"! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I will admit to having overlooked notifying the user. Can someone block them now? — Gavia immer (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

article is over 3rr now for all parties involved, Gavia I'd like to side with you, this looks highly disruptive but the IP is using edit summaries and I've seen something similar with Beyond my ken, it got him blocked for edit warring, this board needs more eyes--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I know something about the background on this. Longtime banned user, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks Gwen, mark as resolved or are Gavia and Bzuk in hot water as well? I'd like to think the IP was the one misbehaving here--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits of a banned (not blocked) user are revertable on sight, and doing so is an exception to the 3RR rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only the IP (banned user) ever breached 3rr. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok so resolved then--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for indefinite semi-protection. We'll see if they agree to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They've set it for a month. Maybe that will help fend off the unwashed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

already reported this one

Resolved

 – content issue

• 121.116.223.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of
• 220.220.159.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),

still going at Antisemitism in Japan, last time the handwringing answer was "but he's a good contributor otherwise". That is no excuse for him to be disruptive here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a content issue, not so far discussed on the article talk page. I've left a note there. In view of the user's comments it has the potential to swiftly rise beyond content issue, but at this point AGF is appropriate that discussing it might work. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all out of good faith for this WP:DICK, after I got called an antisemite. I'm running out of good faith for handwringing, too.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Did he repeat it? Not as far as I can see. Rd232 ^talk 15:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, instead I got called a vandal. Amending my previous statements. Full out shame on you. An IP that adds POV redlinks to an article and then insults those who remove them should not be coddled.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Clear sockpuppeting and disruptive editing. IP blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you know something I don't, there is zero socking here. One IP stopped editing on 25 November and the other began on 26 November - it's either a dynamic IP or a person editing from somewhere else. And it doesn't qualify as "disruptive editing", it's a content dispute, in which the IP used some inappropriate terms but didn't (AFAIK) repeat them after being warned. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, there is a third IP I overlooked, blocked this morning by User:Edgar181: 202.57.238.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Still not enough to say "socking", there's only a little overlap. Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

and while it is entirely possible that three different IPs just happened to all support those edits and have no connection at all, I say its very unlikely. That coupled with the abusive behaviour is enough for me to block the IP. You can disagree, and you can unblock with no expectation that I'll wheel war, but that's my take on the situation. I'll agree that the blocking reason isn't correct, I meant to click sock / meat puppetry. The semiprotection on the article is solely to stop the sock / meatpuppeting...and since there's no indication that Kintetsubuffalo or the other registered editors are themselves sockpuppeting then they shouldn't be penalized by full protection. The IP can register, or can bring up the content issues on the talk page. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, please listen more carefully. I've already indicated that it is likely the 3 IPs are all the same person - but only 2 of these overlap in time, and not to any extent that suggests deliberately socking. As to the semi-protection, I already referred you to WP:SEMI, but let me quote: "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." I had already left the user a message about registering an account, and started a discussion on the talk page, which no-one had previously. If we WP:BITE newcomers we risk running out of them, and this seems a clear over-reaction given that there was nothing current that qualifies as abuse. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave the block, if the user appeals, someone can handle it. I've lifted the semi-protection, partly because the length (3 months) is also grossly disproportionate. Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the newcomers jump to calling people antisemites, I think we can do without them...especially if they are likely to run off longtime contributors. Your opinion obviously differs. Syrthiss (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind the generalisation: this user hasn't AFAIK done that since being warned. Are we giving up on the concept of people learning? Seems strange for an encyclopedia... Rd232 ^talk 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. There's something I don't understand about this. First, it's not against the rules to edit from an IP. So, suppose I'm doing that and, for whatever reason, my IP changes and I keep editing the same articles. Then I'm at a friends house and I make a few IP edits there. Then I go home and do a little more editing. This is suddenly sockpuppetry? Even if I never make a false or deceptive claim about not being the same person? Sounds as if we might just as well ban IP editing. Either that, or tell IP editors to be very very careful that they only use one IP. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:212.179.57.94 and fake billionaires

Recent example is: [33] but there is a pattern of dubious contributions going back at least to 2009. I've asked the IP politely to stop faking billionaires. Characteristic contribution is to attribute someone with a grandson who's usually a billionaire and involved in recycling. None of these well-known philanthropists leave any traces in Google at all. I think some of the shipping company edits are also fakes as well. Have a look. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have schoolblocked the IP address for 1 year. Adding false information to articles is the most harmful thing an editor can do. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have checked many of the old edits and cleaned up some that had been missed by other editors; others require attention, though. I think we get false information all the time; the most harmful thing an editor can do is not correct it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User 174.127.67.237

Reverting all the clean up as from above. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That IP was had more open ports than the Port of Los Angeles. Whacked as an open proxy. –MuZemike 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

It is most likely empty, but this looks like a legal threat to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this is block evasion, and hence I am hardblocking. –MuZemike 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of BigMattyO

Chaser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked BigMattyO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without being aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigMattyO/Archive, which confirms many sockpuppets since the initial block, the last mere days ago. Chaser has said in the discussion at User talk:Chaser#BigMattyO unblock he has no objections to anyone re-blocking, but I thought it might be best for some wider discussion maybe. I will say I have had experience of the disruption caused by this editor and his sockpuppets, and I am personally in favour of immediate re-blocking. O Fenian (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the blocking history of BigMattyO - I blocked BigMattyO just for vandalism (his first and only block) in September, there were no messages on his talk page about socking. User:Chaser, asked me if I was against an unblock, as BigMattyO had given an example of better editing and had then requested an unblock. I said he could unblock if he thought he will be a useful contributor.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

IP address harassment

Hi, an IP address has been for the last few hours reverting my edits and giving out links in the edit summaries to my profile on DeviantArt, and just then he tried to give out my phone number[34]. Can something be done about this please? I reverted the edits but his edit summaries are the problem since he puts things about me IN the summaries.142.162.192.210 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And you are User:Kagome_85 HAHAHAHA

142.163.146.217 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And you are the users Moukity, Blackmagic1234, and Higgys. 142.162.192.210 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

your so funny and that's why it says that YOU are Higgys ah hahah