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

Topic ban User:Sktruth

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

This is a single purpose account focussed on the article on Sante Kimes, convicted con artist and multiple murderer. After two days of discussion with this user all of the sudden a lawyer has filed a request via OTRS to have the article deleted. An amazing coincidence considering that we have had an article on this person since 2003 but Sktruth started editing it just a two days ago and has made about sixty edits to it in that time, mostly removing negative information, which is of course the bulk of the article since Kimes is notable for being a criminal and a murderer. Despite their repeated denials it seems exceedingly obvious that this user has some sort of conflict of interest and may be Mrs. Kimes herself or a member of her legal team. Since they won't admit to the connection I suppose an outright block is difficult to justify, but a topic ban from this article seems more than appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've totally heard of the "black widow" Sante Kimes (and her son Kenneth Kimes, her partner in crime who took a reporter hostage at one point while in prison, I believe). She is certainly a notable criminal, and there's no reason to delete the article. Topic ban or block: this is one AfD I can't wait to follow. Doc talk 12:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Username of "Sktruth"? Do we need a placard and trumpets to spot a spa COI? We shouldn't topic ban for COI alone, but watch their edits very careful and any shift from NPOV (including a frivolous deletion request) would be enough reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the math is more like this: obvious coi+trying to whitewash the article+calling a lawyer when that backfired=topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read long edit histories, but you're not surprising me at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblbrox is quite right really, this is gonna happen and perhaps sooner is rather less disruptive than later. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to help this editor by leaving a welcome template and some comments. This editor did respond back to me but when I went to the talk page I found that my comments, the template and their comments were deleted from their talk page. Reading the history of their talk page says a lot in my opinion. Also, the user name is in violation of usernames. At first when I made comments I thought this editor was making newbie errors but looking at what has gone on since I think this account should be blocked for violations of username and probably violations of COI and other policies. This editor isn't listening to anyone who has tried to help which is of great concern to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Any username with "truth" in it should be pre-emptorily blocked; we can then investigate to see if unblocking is advisable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, but of course they do very often turn out to be users like this who are on a crusade to right some perceived wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment at the article talk page. Sante Kimes (per the article) will be in prison til the 22nd century, so I doubt she is editing the article herself. Sktruth has alleged a number of factual errors in the article that should be easy to check out; for example, s/he says Sante Kimes was never convicted of arson. Parts of the article were apparently sourced to a sensationalistic-sounding book written by her older son, and that book could well be shaky. If Sktruth is willing to voluntarily stop editing the article for a while (let's say 2 weeks, after which we can see where we are), I can see some value to allowing talkpage participation while other editors check out his/her claims. S/he does seem to know a lot about the case. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page, they have computers in prison so it is not impossible, and I have already edited the article to reflect that she was not convicted of arson, just accused of it by her son who apparently committed arson and other crimes on her behalf as a young man. I don't think a two week topic ban is going to cut it, a crusader like this cannot be allowed to edit an article after they have gone so far as to call in a lawyer. There's no way that was just a coincidence, the article has been on Wikipedia for seven and a half years, and Kimes' lawyer is suddenly upset about it two days after Sktruth starts trying to scrub it? There is a reason we don't allow legal threats, just because this one came in from OTRS and the user is denying their patently obvious close connection to either Kimes herself or her lawyers doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are computers in prison just like there is TV, but it would surprise me if any prisoners have unlimited internet access. I read in the newspaper that a big problem these days is keeping cell phones from being smuggled to prisoners. Letting them online without a lot of monitoring and restrictions would defeat the purpose of the cell phone restrictions. Sante Kimes (even with net access) also doesn't seem like the sort of person who would edit like Sktruth. So while it's theoretically possible that Kimes is Sktruth, I consider it very unlikely. I do agree with the inference that Sktruth is communicating in some way with Kimes's lawyers. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban - After reading the talk pages involved, the AfD, edit summaries etc. there's really only one possible conclusion, that Sktruth is a SPA here to push a POV and whitewash the article on Kimes. Sktruth is certainly not interested in helping to create a NPOV encyclopedia. Sktruth may or may not be Kimes, or someone close to her, or may just be a groupie, but it hardly matters, the editor's behavior tells the tale. If I'm wrong, and this person is genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, their behavior post-ban will indicate that, and can be taken into account if lifting the ban in requested in the future, but in the meantime, there's no reason to allow this kind of blatant POV-pushing on behalf of a convicted murderer to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - per Kens reasonings. seems to be a groupie of some kind.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - Also per Beyond My Kens reasonings. Heiro 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - Just compare this to this. BMK is completely correct, SPA's should not be allowed to engage in such POV-pushing on their target articles. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: User has renamed to WPUCU1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via CHU. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support restriction against editing the article. For now, I don't see a need to prohibit continued talkpage participation (that can be revisited if it gets too disruptive). The article has gotten better because of it. Dylan620's diff is of course awful, but that looks like an early error, and the person has been interacting politely since then. I left a note at user talk:WPUCU1 asking for clarification about the connection with Kimes's lawyers. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• We appear to have strong support for a topic ban here. I have already informed the (now renamed) user of this as they have so far not participated in this discussion, but I think it would be good if a previously uninvolved admin made a formal statement to them informing them of the topic ban, so as to make it clear this is a community decision and not a personal vendetta. I suppose this should also be listed at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to report this but: Over the course of our conversation I mentioned the highly questionable nature of the "Sante Kimes Foundation for the Wrongfully Convicted" and noted that linking to their Facebook page was probably not appropriate. Lo and behold, as of today they suddenly have an official website and another WP:SPA, User:Jfaia is repeatedly linking it to the article. Without commenting on the validity of the link, does anyone else hear the sound of quacking? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have asked User:Stifle (who opened the AfD in response to the OTRS request that Kimes's attorneys sent) to check with the attorneys whether that "official site" really is one. If the attorneys confirm it then I suppose we should leave it in the article. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. We are under no obligation to provide promotional links to this kind of campaign when there is no public controversy about the convictions. If there was widespread concern about a miscarriage of justice, noted in reliable sources, than I would say that a NPOV would require a link to a legitimate campiagn for justice, but that is not the case, this is simply a career criminal convicted for their crimes trying the game the system. The link should stay out whether it's legitimate or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken, our general practice is to include links to official sites of all subjects that have them as far as I know. We have links to some very obnoxious sites like that of Stormfront for that reason. I could make a case for changing the practice on general principles, but I don't see Kimes as being exceptional (unlike Stormfront, I doubt the link actually brings any benefit to her cause). To Jfaia: we're not obligated to include the link. The guideline just says how we usually handle such links in the absence of special circumstances. If there's consensus that we should leave it out, then we can leave it out. The article talk page is the usual place to discuss such things though. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Wikipedia guideline: Official links "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template [http:// Official website] is optional.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline, e.g., Links to consider #4." --Jfaia (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

REFER TO WP GUIDELINE
"What should be linked" 1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. --Jfaia (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional website and your organization has no inherent right to have your website linked here in the absence of any public controversy about the conviction of the career criminal who is the subject of the article in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the quaking getting deafening in here? How is that SPI going so far? 2 SPA's showing up in a matter days pushing the same agenda is surely not a coincidence? Heiro 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Website in question is not an advertisement, it is the OFFICIAL website of the subject. WP GUIDELINE: Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.--Jfaia (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The website is promotional if consensus says it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the website seems to have been set up to specifically get around our rules on WP:VERIFY, WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, and who knows what else, per WP:IGNORE(one of our 5 pillars of editing here) we do not have to include a link to any site from here, official or not. Heiro 02:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is, in fact, the convict's "official" website, be it 10 years old or 10 hours old, it contains no new or useful information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For further info on Sktruth/Jfaia, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1. I don't understand why that character is still being allowed to edit, but maybe the admins are feeling generous lately. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of blocking Jfaia, an obnoxious SPA and likely sockpuppet. I'd keep WPUCU1 unblocked for the time being. Jfaia: it's not doing you any good to lecture about policy to participants of this thread. They are all WP dispute resolution veterans who understand policy a lot better than you do. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I blocked User:Jfaia, because of her being an obvious sockpuppet, and because her repeated copying of whole sections of policy was irritating me. But mostly because of the 'obvious sockpuppet' thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no internet geek, so I have to ask a totally ignoranimous question: Is it possible to easily determine when a website was created? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm no tech geek, but the Facebook page seems to indicate that the web site is brand new. Also, they have 10 'friends.' I know household pets with larger followings than that. Notice also the complete lack of any names or contact information in either place- a real 'official' web site wouldn't try to hide who was making it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so harsh. It's every bit as real as this one:[1] (Or maybe NOT, now that I think of it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand the latest sock is Dogma152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CU confirms all and a few more. Let the blocking begin, lol. Heiro 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Stifle to ask the lawyers to call off the socking. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask for it via the "official website"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• The copyright on the page is 2011, and it never showed up until yesterday in all the extensive searching I have been doing while improving the article. It's pretty clear that it was created specifically to circumvent policy after I spoke to the user about the advisability of linking to the Facebook page it mimics. The urge to defraud and lie is hard for a con to suppress, even after they have failed spectacularly at it. At one point Kimes was actually quite wealthy and could simply have "gone straight" and lived the good life as the wife of a tycoon in Hawaii had she had the desire and/or self control. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject's official website being remove

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, an article's subject's official website should be linked on the article. This is not being followed with the Sante Kimes article.
Subject's official website has been removed without cause, other than by biased opinion of the editors. Which say "no legitimate reason to link to this site, we're not here to help promote attempts by convicted criminals to game the system" written by Beyond My Ken this is obviously a bias opinion of the editor.

The WP guideline for official websites is as follows:

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1.The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject.

Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article. When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article.[4] Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section.

No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article is unable to control the information being presented. Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawtn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How can a convicted felon have an 'official website'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While you single out one editor, it appears that three different editors and a bot have removed your attempted addition. This is a simple content dispute, and not anything an administrator can resolve for you. It is being discussed on the talk page, and should not be reinserted lacking consensus to do so. Resolute 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hawtn neglects to mention that (s)he was blocked for abuse of multiple accounts earlier today. I'm not sure who the puppeteer is, but I have blocked this account also for block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is that the presumed sockmaster, Sktruth, is not even blocked. Maybe someone should remedy that - and maybe block the underlying IP as well? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong is working on the check-user right now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it "sweeps" week? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Current state of play

All CU-confirmed socks indef blocked, master account blocked for a week for socking, article semi'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this user will be unblocked in a week I still think it would be a good idea for someone besides me (or I guess my fellow abusive admin Beyond My Ken) to formally notify her of the topic ban which we achieved a fairly strong consensus for above, and to log the ban at WP:RESTRICT. Any takers? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I am not now, nor have I ever been, an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still support it, and think the person should consider themselves lucky to still receive that and not an indefinite block or full site ban for some of their shenanigans in the last few days. Heiro 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think somebody forgot to actually perform the one-week block. But I don't see why we should restrict it to just a week anyway, nor why we would want to do merely a topic ban. This user kept creating new sockpuppets after they had been notified of the SPI and even after they had had the gall of defending themselves on that SPI. I've indef-blocked Sktruth (talk · contribs) now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Their renamed acct is User:WPUCU1 and it is set with a one week expiration of its block, think thats what Beeblebrox was referring to. Heiro 09:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I hadn't noticed they were now treating WPUCU1 as the master account. Sktruth was the one that had somehow escaped blocking. But I still propose we should raise the week block to indef, for blatant lying and continued socking while negotiating the sockpuppeting charge and promising to behave better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't object, but the community may want to extend them some AGF in other areas of the Pedia than this after a long enough block for it to settle in that what they did was unacceptable and a topic ban on this particular subject. Seems to happen that way alot. Heiro 09:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Coffin nails User:Getoffwelfareandgetajob, who trolled my talk page, now blocked as a sock of this user. As the blocking admin is also a CU I would assume that was used to confirm. Now it is really, really time to indef block this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do the block, but  Confirmed yes. Also Needhelpplease1 (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have known you didn't do the block since I did it. It was very gracious of you not to rub my nose in it. Ironically, I had assumed it was the "angry ip" from two threads down this very page. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Indef-blocked. I was the admin who unblocked this user three days ago on promises of good behaviour. S/he had a point initially; the article was in very bad shape, and has been much improved as a result of all this; but the sockpuppetry and trolling has become quite unacceptable and this latest sock and personal attack is the last straw. I have extended the block on the master account WPUCU1 (talk) to indefinite. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"S/he had a point initially;" No, not really, because her point wasn't that it was a bad article which needed to be improved, her point was that it was an article which needed to be skewed in a way that whitwashed Kines. Her goals and our goals overlapped momentarily, but very quickly diverged, which is why we gain very little from letting SPA's roam free. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon justice system, which posits that some version of truth will emerge from a battle between two advocates, we cannot be assured that every SPA will have an anti-SPA, or even that a SPA's activities will be noticed by unbiased editors, so our articles are more likely to be warped and unbalanced by the Sktruths out there then they are to be helped by the provocation. SPAs and paid editors are a much more serious problem to the project than unsourced BLPs, or improperly justified non-free images, or some of the other topics which have gripped the moral panic crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a funny thing, the harder I worked to improve the article, the more they screamed "bias" at me. You can't say we didn't try, this person, whoever they are, didn't want the truth, they wanted to broadcast the fact that Kimes claims to be innocent of the 100+ charges she was convicted on. Ironically, I also added that information, which was lacking, to the article and summarized the paranoid ranting statement she directed at the court during the sentencing phase of the Silverman trial, including her accusations that it was an elaborate frame-up, but apparently that was not enough. Whenever I get a message that nasty on my talk page I just know I did something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

89.100.20.87

I'd like a review of whether I had been handling the situation with the talk page of 89.100.20.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) properly, as well as any opinions on what should be done next with the IP's incomprehensible demand of, "I want my IP REMOVED NOW! ... NOW! REMOVE IT FROM YOUR SITE NOW! YOU DAMNED THIEVES!" Blanking? Blocking? Blocking and disable talk access? Thoughts are appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP has apparently now created an user account (Gherth5vdsf (talk · contribs)) and continues to "demand" the same. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to reason with them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

With this [2] and [3], do we really need them? Heiro 03:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It ring of deliberate trolling IMHO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What I thought as well, maybe indef and be done? Heiro 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP user could have been blocked for that back in December.

It's entirely possible that say this new user comes in, on an IP address that they just got due to router reboots that was previously assigned to a troublemaker and had a bunch of warnings on its talk page, sees the warnings, doesn't understand anything about how IPs work or what's going on, and freaks out. In this case, the new user isn't necessarily associated with the prior behavior at all. They just need to have the situation explained to them and for them to be treated decently now.

If it is the same person, and they continue that behavior, then all bets are off and their likely lifetime here is short. But there's no reason to assume that at the moment. AGF.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Its feasible indeed, but using Nigger in repsonse to Beeblebrox's explanation really? oops old diff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like someone who is just yelling for the sake of yelling to me. Racism, empty, illogical threats, not one constructive edit... I added a {{sharedip}} notice to the older talk page since it has now apparently rotated. We could maybe collapse the old stuff for readability as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a dynamic IP so if the user waits a while s/he will have a different IP adress and if s/he does not edit from that one ... problem solved. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You should first start by not restoring the blanking of the warnings on the talk page. The user has a right to blank their talk page under WP:BLANKING. And since none of the talk page's content falls under one of the very limited exceptions, you are actually violating the talk page policy by restoring them. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never been clear on if that applies equally to a shared ip talk page. It's not "your" talk page if the next time you log in you are suddenly on another ip. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shared IPs can remove the block notices/warnings. However, the "Shared IP" template should never be removed. Users simply blanking the page should be reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The only portion that can be restored is the Shared IP notice. However, even Dynamic IPs are allowed to remove warnings form the talk pages of their IP, even if they were not the original target of the notice. Therefore, Beeblebrox, I recommend that you restore the talk page to when the IP last blanked it you engaged in an edit war over the warnings, then reapply the Shared IP noticed. —Farix (t | c) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to want to be blocked: [4], [5], [6] JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's causing this much bullshit, maybe we should block him for disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody want to block this troll? I know I do. They've moved on to calling another user a "cunt"[7] and adding insults to pages related to me [8][9], apparently irritated that I don't always capitalize the term "ip." In order to avoid the appearance of a "revenge block" I suggest somebody other than me apply a nice, long block to this ip. Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Farix: Please look again at the edit history of the talk page and re-examine your accusation that I edit warred in this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Note the lack of a single positive contribution and the fact that the last block was for one month. ". Also note that the IP appears to be static, not dynamic (both by host name and, more significantly, that it is not listed in any of the Dynamic IP blocklists). JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I applied a 72 hr block. The next block I have to make would be another month, then six months, though. This has gone on for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which makes me curious as to why you went with much shorter block than the last one, which clearly failed to curtail the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automated controversial edits with alternate account

I am requesting that User:Plastikspork's alternate account User:Plasticspork be blocked from editing. Although it is a known alternate account, Plastikspork is using it to make 1000s of semi-automated edits before and after he/she learned that the edits were controversial. This use is clearly against the policy of using legitimate alternate accounts.

On January 312, 2011 I posted a question about whether his bot had been approved for 27,000 edits he appeared to be planning to undertake.[10] I noticed that his bot was not making the edits and crossed out my question. He/she and User:Bob the Wikipedian began a discussion in the thread I started about Plastikspork using semi-automated edits to make the 5000 or so edits carried out thus far. Plastikspork continued making the controversial edits with his alternate account from the time I asked about, without notifying me that he was doing so.

He/she used the account to evade my scrutiny of his/her edits. Therefore, this is not a legitimate use of an alternate account and the alternate account should be blocked. He/she could have simply posted a link to the alternate account to show that is where the editing was being done, but instead, acted in a deceptive manner about the account, not coming clean that that was how he/she was editing. And he/she is continuing the edits in spite of the controversy about them. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose as a bearer of evidence, be it for or against, I should bring that to the floor. More information regarding this situation may be found at Template talk:Taxobox#RfC 2. Please have a look at it before making any judgment here, as it explains the nature of this case. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this is another point about these edits. They appear to require an RfBA, and, under bot guidelines, the bot task would probably not be approved. 27,000 edits which do not improve or change an article do nothing. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And also Wikipedia:Bot requests#Taxobox maintenance, one-time. Thanks for reviewing these related discussions. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Not a specific reply) In light of Kleopatra's question atWP:BOTN about whether a RfBA would be be needed for such a task, I would like to clarify that per bot policy, number of edits per se does not require one to file for a RfBA. The qualifying criterion for a RfBA is rate of edits, as a measure of whether care and attention is being paid to every edit. I haven't looked at the specific case here but I thought I'd point out that 5,000 edits alone does not require a RfBA; 5000 edits in 24 hours does. Of course, that does not mean that PS is in the right here, only that he is not necessarily in the wrong on this particular issue. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. A slow-moving bot pays no more care and attention to its edits than a fast-moving one. Approval should be required regardless of the bot's edit speed. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is about where, in a mass-edit, the line is drawn between RfBA and regular editor AWB. The OP notes that PS did not reveal that their "AWB-account" did the job. To be clear: User:Plasticspork has two extra accounts: User:Plasticbot (a bot) and User:Plastikspork. Both extra accounts have AWB permission. Probably there is an accepted reason PS does not reveal the Plasticspork ("AWB") account. If so, then PS should prevent confusion some other way -- but preventing should be done. If there is no reason, e.g. because the account is allowed for "maintenance", then the second [third] account should be clearly linked to the main account. Either way, PS is failing. One of the effects of this hiding is that at least one user got lost is researching what was going on [11], where to state controversiality at all, and in the process loosing trust in admins ability for self-regulation [12],and worse [13]. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My alternate accounts are both disclosed on my userpage, they are "SporkBot" and "Plasticspork". As far as I can tell, "Plasticbot" is run by a different user. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found them. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from a post on my talk page. This seems to be a big misunderstanding. First, the reason why I didn't disclose anything to Kleopatra is that Kleopatra "retired" hours after posting to my talk page. So, I assumed Kleopatra was no longer watching my page, or editing on WP. Second, the reason why the edit history is split to an alternate account is to limit the possible damage done by that account, and to isolate the semi-automated/AWB edits from my normal editing. The existence of this alternate account is disclosed on my user page. Third, as soon as I became aware that the task was controversial, I stopped. I was under the impression that this was more than a cosmetic change, and that there was some consensus for this change. This is the first time I have had any objections to my cleanup work. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I do plan to file a formal request for bot approval if there is consensus from the RFC. FYI, the edit rate was roughly four edits a minute, which was somewhat tedious, but not so bad since it just amounted to checking the diffs, and pressing a button to commit. Let me know if I can answer any other questions. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So you embarked upon 100 hrs of AWB edit checking? And the thought of using a bot did not pop up? First of all, it was a botrequest. Curious. -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I was going to be the only one, which is why I said "help with this task" rather than "handle this request". Given the chance to respond again, I would certainly do things differently. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you did not create an auto-save gadget for AWB? Well, Kleopatra added this here below. Considering your actions, the timeline, and the behaviour, I see this: at every moment of choice you passed, you choose the evasive option. And that is what your comments on this say too. I won't criticize these individual moments here. But the general line is there: any editor is supposed to deserve good faith , when working in good faith. On top of this, an experienced user, an admin & bot owner at that, should know this by heart & intuition (is why I don't link to policies &tc, right?). That is missing here, PS.

(Disclosure: I am here because I was surprised that PS wrote ... in a "semi-automatic" [quotes - sic] mode using my AWB account' [14] -- wow, I didn't know such an account existed --, and an editor complaining about non-responsiveness by admins).

Proposal (Well, maybe the outcome could be a block, but more or less PS has admitted it should not have gone this way). Plastikspork, I suggest this solution: could you come clear about your actions (making it more easy easy to AGF), and step forward to Kleopatra to invite them back from retirement. Kleo is not that far away, we know. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted my initial concerns about the edits at 7:54 am, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7).[15] You had already started editing with your alternate account at this time.[16] You made at least 1000 additional edits with your alternate account after I posted my concerns, and did not disclose your alternate account on the bot request board.

I posted an additional concern about the task at 10:16 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−7). You were editing with your alternate account at these times.

I posted another concern about the edits at 10:19 pm, 31 January 2011, last Monday;[17] your last edit by the alternate account was at 17:07, 1 February 2011.[18]

I made 2 posts at the bot request board indicating my concern and two posts on your talk page indicating my concerns and that I was attempting to scrutinize any edits your bot was making. Instead of notifying me that your alternate account was making the edits instead of your bot, you continued to edit and made more than a thousand edits with your alternate account knowing that I considered the edits controversial. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Plastikspork, can you declare that you did not use any extra automation when doing the AWB edits? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is sock puppetry forbidden or not

This,

"While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden."

is what it says at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

1. User:Plastikspork made edits after I posted my disagreement: against ommunity consensus.
2. He did not disclose that his alternate account was making the edits after I expressed my disagreement and after I questioned whether his bot was making the edits:deception.

His alternate account should be blocked for sock puppetry. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Economist letter to the editor (currently being discussed on Jimbo's talk page:[19] "I have been a contributor since the summer of 2009, mostly to articles on race issues, and during this time I’ve seen several members quit the project. Every person I know of who has left provided the same reason, which is that Wikipedia’s rules are enforced selectively, especially the rule that members treat each other in a civil manner. ... The surest way for administrators and ArbCom to retain their positions is to appeal to popular sentiment among the ordinary members. By doing so they drive away members who might have voted against them. ... This self-sustaining cycle of bias, the decline in participation and Mr Wales’s gradual delegation of authority to the community and to ArbCom have all occurred since 2007."

The article in the Economist includes this information:[20] "The number of regular contributors to Wikipedia’s English-language encyclopedia dropped from around 54,000 at its peak in March 2007 to some 35,000 in September 2010 ... Perhaps, but some evidence suggests that neophytes are being put off by Wikipedia’s clique of elite editors."

The New York Times article on female contributors:[21] "bout a year ago, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that runs Wikipedia, collaborated on a study of Wikipedia’s contributor base and discovered that it was barely 13 percent women; the average age of a contributor was in the mid-20s, according to the study by a joint center of the United Nations University and Maastricht University."

So, I ask, are there special rules that only apply to administrators, namely, you don't have to follow rules? Or are we creating an encylopedia here that may require the knowledge of someone besides 20-something men? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was sockpuppetry, he would have signed using the other account. He clearly stated using his primary ID that he was volunteering. Following your advisory not to move forward, I countered that explaining the rationale very soon afterward. I wouldn't blame him if he assumed that my rationale cleared up your concerns. When you posted a second time, wondering where the bot request was, I explained the situation to the best of my knowledge. No, I hadn't been made aware at that point that Plasticspork was a maintenance account being used in the approved manner listed at WP:Multiple Accounts under the bullet labeled "maintenance"-- up until he said so, I'd assumed he was doing it with a bot and wondered myself why the request had gotten action so quickly, but since bots aren't my thing, I assumed the folks at WP:Bot requests would notice anything suspicious if it were indeed suspicious. Of course, as the situation developed, it became clear to me that the discussion wasn't being monitored, or a bot owner would probably have contacted him asking him to hold on before I did so. This much does disturb me, that other bot owners weren't monitoring the activity there, which should have been clear from some of the edit summaries.

Once it was revealed that this was not being done with a bot, the lack of procedure taken prior to the edits made a great deal more sense. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob the Wikipedian

New subthread, splicing for User:Bob the Wikipedian. Another disturbing line of behaviour in this is by BtW (of admin priesthood). Here above they wrote being bearer of evidence to create "perspective" -- BtW you were in the middle of the happening when it happened, not an outsider witness. Elsewhere (not here) you claimed some sort of responsibility off PS's shoulders [22], away from manual AWB-saving?. In that same post, you introduced an after the fact RfC to create "some level of community approval", while BtW started the bot request we are talking about (where Kleo responded along the line: "well, I'll see that RfBA when it happens"). I state that BtW (an admin) should have the intuition and AGF state of mind to prevent this derailing. BtW should have actively prevented this, they knew it was controversial. There were multiple moments BtW could have acted. On top of this, BtW is rudely dismissive to an editor when pointed to this behaviour ("I half-expected the scandal would reach this far", and "... your feelings toward administrators ..." --no, it is about admin's behaviour, BtW). The edit summary in this final link was "adios" -- which proves bad faith. I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor.
I support the general question Kleo puts forward in this case: why are admins treated different towards policies? Any non-admin with such behavior (including PS, ping-pong is a tango sports) would have been reverted first, before talking. At least. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DePiep, I highly encourage you to investigate the discussions at Template talk:Taxobox, Template talk:Automatic taxobox, and then decide who is acting rashly. I think it's safe to say by now that this is a personal attack from Kleopatra which she has extended toward Plastikspork. This personal attack seems to have begun months some time ago ^{(when you are as busy as I am, days seem numbered several times over) - comment corrected at 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) by Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)} during the development of {{automatic taxobox}} and is now being unleashed at a much wider degree than before. Having stated this, yes, I was aware that Kleopatra objected, but never once in the history of my knowing her has she ever supported anything I've done, even though those around me do.

On a side note, but probably an important side note, I've got a ton of homework at the moment and won't be able to say much without cutting into that until tomorrow evening (I'm on UTC-6). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I was not trying to appear as an uninvolved party; in fact, I was trying not to create bias in the discussion but merely trying to be helpful in linking to the relevant discussions. Also, I'd like to know how "adios" is bad faith...I say adios in ending conversation all the time, and that was my response to her saying she was leaving. If I'm not mistaken, the word has its etymology somewhere along the lines of "God bless", so I'm quite confused as to how that's rude. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This thing began with the bot request by BtW (Jan 30, 23:56 UTC). Nowhere in the subsequent branching threads I have found a post by Kleo that would require outside correction. Also, BtW here also does not provide such an edit. Now BtW invokes previous discussions. But apart from cumulative warnings etc, fueds do not weigh in disputes. Even worse, surprisingly BtW introduces them as if they matter to (excuse for ) current behaviour. To me, if they are unresolved disputes, this is not the way to resolve them. No way they are a pass to go ahead undiscussed. And BtW admissed a dispute by the late introduction of RfC. Simply: if Kleo's contribution was that negative, why not go for RfBA from the start? Why could you not have get the outcome you'd propose?

I am with Kleo on this point: I do not expect superior behaviour from admins. I only expect that they apply the same rules for themselves, as they do for other editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"I state that BtW knowingly evaded policy, and was uncivil to an AGF editor." Accidentally, I've been watching this WP:DRAMA from aside, and I cannot possibly agree that Kleopatra was an AGF editor. On the contrary, she has exhibited everything but good faith. I don't know the whole history between herself and BtW, but all I saw from her side in last 3 days was just complaining that the policy is not followed and screaming administrator abuse in various forums. I would have a greater level of sympathy if the edits in question somehow had an adverse effect on her own work, but all I saw was just complaining for complaining's sake. May I remind everyone on WP:BURO and WP:IAR? And you aren't helping much, DePiep, with such inquisitory attitude. While I will agree that Plastikspork blew the procedure and didn't follow the bot policy to the letter, I don't see any particular harm having been done so far, except for the feelings of all involved.

My suggestion is as follows: slap two WP:TROUTs to Plastikspork, one for BtW and Kleopatra each, then let the RfC about the edits finish; depending on the outcome, complete the job or revert Plasticspork's edits. As far as I can tell, there was no rush to perform these edits, which would justify the speed in which they were executed. Also, there was no harm being done to the encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do see the harm in what I've been complaining about all along. Wikipedia is not many things, but it's also not a place where admins have an exclusive right to edit fully protected templates:editing of fully protected pages requires community consensus for substantive edits. Bob has now told me that I, too, could edit the template as much as I want if I increased my access rights by gaining adminship like he did.[23]

This is not what full protection is for: granting edit rights to admins that non-admins don't have. And it's not the reason for fully protecting this template: to limit editing to admins. The point is to limit editing of the template due to the number of articles it is on and the potential damage that bad edits could cause. Editing articles is the primary purpose of editing wikipedia. There are many excellent editors who aren't admins. These editors may have excellent template-editing skills and insights into good/bad edits to fully protected templates. They should be consulted by gaining consensus as the policy requires.

Alternative accounts have rules. An experienced admin who is also a bot operator should know these rules. One of the policies is that you should not use the alternative account to avoid scrutiny. And, PS not only did avoid scrutiny, he made over a 1000 edits for hours after I first made a comment about the edits, indicating there was controversy. In addition, knowing that I was scrutinizing the edits, in addition to moving forward making them in spite of the controversy, he continued to make them with his alternate account without stating that that was what he was doing. He had plenty of opportunities to disclose his alternate account edits or stop editing. He was signed in on both this alternate and main account while editing, so he had plenty of access to his watch list to see my posts. He responded to Bob about the editing after I had posted my concerns. What good faith should I assume when an editor uses an alternate account to avoid scrutiny of controversial semi-automated edits rather than his bot or main account, both of which I am obviously scrutinizing? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re No such user. Tellingly, you provided no diffs to illustrate the "shouting" or "everything but good faith" and such. My reading (of the same) is that Kleo kept posting seriously and to the point; any frustration showing is no reason for any editor to become dismissive or rude. And of course, one does not need to be hindered 'in one's own work' to complain. The sequence is clear: in the Botrequest Kleo noted an objection, which was circumvented at first and later acknowledged by BtW/PS. If there were other arguments, they could have been put forward. What I would propose is that BtW (this subsection) acknowledges their mistakes. Trouts just get smelly. Without some change it would just become a fish slapping dance. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would provide a surprisingly vast array of the edits NSU's referring to, but apparently involved parties are not allowed to bring forth evidence, so I won't unless someone requests it from me. At this time I have no apology to make other than for anything rude I may have said to you, Kleopatra. And until someone can prove to me I've wronged anyone beyond that, that's where I stand on that. I believe Kleopatra also owes Smith609 an apology as well for her most recent remarks about him. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For his disparaging Americans? No. I like Americans. A lot. There's no place for insulting people for their nationality. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

[24] Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DePiep, your selection of words like tellingly suggest prejudice. But since you insist...

Here on Template talk:Taxobox Kleopatra starts [25] and continues [26] further [27] suggesting that the high-risk template was protected by administrators so that in effect they could ban ordinary users from editing, and requesting that all edits, no matter how small, must receive consensus in advance. Fair enough, she's entitled to that opinion, but that was not the opinion of other commenters (Kim van der Linde, Rkitko), who basically said that it is an exercise in bureaucracy, and that admin edits to fix bugs (without seeking consensus) are OK. I invite all interested to read the thread at Template talk:Taxobox#Permanent protection of this template for administrator only editing?. The representative comment by Kleopatra is "So, it's a null edit, so it doesn't impact anything, so it improves things, so it's still a fully protected template. Can I start making test edits to it? No. Please gain consensus for all edits before testing."

Angry, she puts a {{retired}} [28] on her user pages on Feb 1. On Feb 2, Plastikspork explains to Bob on his talk page [29] that he is using "his AWB account" to make the edits to the articles (not the protected template). Both his alt accounts have been declared on his user page for a long time (Dec 2010). True, he did not answer to Kleopatra which account he used, and he explained later that it was because whe was retired, so the answer would have been moot. Do you believe him? I don't know, but WP:AGF says you should. She apparently doesn't [30]

Suddenly, Kleopatra un-retires, accusing Plastikspork of violating the bot policy, avoiding scrutiny [31] and requesting him to be blocked. The argument continues on Bob's talk page (from [32] onwards), Plastikspork's talk page etc.

She is apparently, and to an extent justifiedly, frustrated that she couldn't edit the protected template, and that administrators did, even without seeking consensus. On one hand, she has a point that, strictly speaking, this is against the policy. On the other hand, she was pretty alone in her insistence that the policy is to be followed to the letter; the counter-arguments are that we have long-standing practice that we do not follow rules just for rules' sake and as long as you're improving encyclopedia and not harming anyone, you're OK. So yes, Bob and Plastik maybe were overly rash to "fix" things around, even if that meant bending some rules. But I think that her anger blew it out of any reasonable proportions, and clouded her judgment. Your opinion who is at fault may vary; in my opinion, everyone is to a certain extent. But I'd like this WP:DRAMA to die out (and, DePiep, I don't think you're helping; heck, I doubt I'm helping, either), because no harm has been done to encyclopedia, and nobody really wanted to harm anybody else. The damage to feelings has been done, though. No such user (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't twist my intentions to suit your accusations. The null edit is about one specific aspect. Bob didn't make just a null edit. He made a dozen edits in a short period of time, including a null edit, multiple partial edits, and edits where he forgot symbols to a template which appears on ten of 1000s of articles, if not 100,000 articles.[33] The reason this template is fully protected is to partially to prevent editing just like this. If you have to edit a template that appears on 100,000 articles, then you should know what you are doing, rather than make multiple edits that could be the equivalent of a million edits. If he had posted his intentions clearly on the template talk page, after reaching consensus for the edits, other editors and administrators could have commented and made sure he had it right before editing. Instead he admits he didn't gain consensus for at least one edit, another he gained consensus on a user talk page, etc.

Harm is done to the encyclopedia when administrators and editors create an atmosphere whereby editing is hindered by an inability for users who don't live and breath wikipedia to understand how to edit here. See Jimbo's talk page for these discussions all of the time: how to gain more experts, how to gain more female editors, how to retain them and experts, how to retain editors in general.

Should I follow policy? No. If I shouldn't follow policies and gain community consensus, what will happen to me if I don't? Well, if I don't, I'll get blocked by an administrator. Do administrators have to follow policy? It appears not.

Plastikspork made 1000 edits after he saw me post in the original consensus discussion that I objected to the edits. The edits are controversial. He continued editing after I posted on his talk page questions about whether he was making the edit. The edits were being scrutinized. How much bad faith will you assume of me, a lowly expert technical editor, and how much good faith of any administrator? How can I possibly edit here and follow the policies and guidelines when their enforcement is arbitrary or biased in favor of administrators? I'm not an administrator but you and Bob are smearing me for my failure to follow rules; yet you don't hold Plastikspork to any such standard and declare your assumption of good faith for his behavior no matter how the edit history shows he knew there were objections in the original request and later on his talk page and that I was scrutinizing his edits and didn't know about his alternate account. It's called sock puppetry.

And, I have retired from editing. I edit articles. That's what wikipedia is: a collection of articles. And that's it's purpose. If you consider my engaging in these discussions to try to protect the rights of others to be able to understand policies and actively edit, you may be right. In the long run, if administrators learn to follow policies and edit according to policies and understand how frustrating it is for lowly ranked editors like me (as Bob calls me) to see that one set of rules applies to administrators (do what you want if the outcome is good without considering the community) and their example should never be followed because another complete set of rules applies to low ranked editors (follow policy), then wikipedia will be able to retain editors, get more female editors (yeah, I have a good idea how many male administrators are going after me here and will soon jump on), retain female editors, get and retain expert editors, get and retain editors at all. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow..way to paint every administrator with the same brush, and every male administrator at that. And you wonder why you are having a hard time convincing anyone of your position while you single handedly throw attacks and bad faith assumptions at hundreds of editors? -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't painted every administrator and every male administrator with the same brush. And I don't feel they need to be. The majority of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do a lot of tedious work. However, there is no way that my arguments are being listened to, and I keep having to repeat myself, and try to move this back on track as Bob and No such keep trying to move it away from the administrator and his/her socks back to me. See my quotes from the Economist and the New York Times above, though, before you decide it's your time also to start attacking me for trying to get the same rules enforced for administrators that are enforced for me. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So rather than bringing it back on track, you introduce sexism. I happen to have a great deal of respect for women (thanks to natural selection), and I'm insulted you would imply otherwise without anything to back it up. If I've ever even implied that women are not capable of being as good of Wikipedians as men are, I'd like to see the link to that statement. I was hoping that apologizing last night (see the last numbered link I posted above) for challenging you and carrying on with you over this would at least doctor some of this up, but it looks to have been tragically ineffective. I've put up an RfC already and agreed to follow a new policy where I document all my changes on the talk page of each template within the WikiProject. What will it take for you to stop hounding me about this otherwise noncontroversial series of edits? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re No Such User. First, thanks for all the diffs. For sure, Kleo wrote strong opinions, but non are "screaming" nor "everything but good faith". These qualifications NSU used are not substantiated, and I even read some acceptance for Kleo's points in NSU's reply here. It distracts anyone, while they are not relevant for what happened. Next I thing I want to get rid of is that off-topic "protected template" discussion that is introduced here. Simply: if it is solved, then it's done. If not solved, then solve it anywhere but in this thread. Not actions or behavior here can be justified by some feud from outside.

About invoking "bending the rules", "no burocracy", and "not helping much", "no harm done to the encyclopedia" to conclude the debate -- well, that can kill every discussion, and the ANI and Policy pages could stay empty (the discussion shifts to: when should we invoke these uber-reasons &tc). At the same time, you are very sharp about Kleo saying "Retired" while keep editing -- why not bending that rule?
And now for my substantial reaction. What is left is, unclouded, the original Botrequest and it's subsequent threads and actions. NSU, I am not the only one thinking that it might be better to find consensus first for a 26K article edit. Eventually, both BtW and PS stopped the process just to make sure that my claim for this being noncontroversial actually holds water (BtW). That is: RfC or RfBA. If Kleo were talking nonsense or worse -- the discussion would conclude such. If Kleo had reasonable arguments -- the discussion would conclude so. Whatever, the bulk edit would be based on that. The fact is: none of Kleo's edits in this justify the massedits being made secretly or without seeking consensus. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editor

Resolved

User1389 (talk · contribs) is continuously making disruptive edits in regards to the flag used by the Kingdom of Serbia. Ironically he does provide a source for his reasoning in the summary, but that source completely contradicts his point and only validates my own. I have brought up these points on his talk page, but so far he has completely ignored any communication and prefers to conduct an edit war, as follows: [34],[35],[36],[37] to list a few. This is also the case on the List of national mottos, where I've quite clearly tried [38],[39] to inform him that Serbia does not have an official motto, i.e. not sanctioned by the government, I have even asked him to provide a source at least, which he has still not provided. To date he ignores this and inserts a motto anyways. Buttons (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(tweaked user link) --Mirokado (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this text:

"An article in the bimonthly political magazine Srpska Rec (undated, probably from December 2001) explains how the working group presented their proposal for the new symbols of Serbia on 23 November 2001. The working group decided to propose the readoption of the 1882 symbols - the plain tricolour as the national flag, the tricolour with coat of arms as the state flag, the coat of arms from the Obrenović dynasty period and the anthem Bože pravde, also from 1882."

from the source support his contention the new flag is the same as the 1882 flag? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a day to stop the edit war. You're both 3RR. I have also left a notice on User 1389's talkpage informing him of this discussion.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Torchiest, the national flag used during the Kingdom of Serbia (1882-1918) was the plain tricolour as is supported here, same as it was during the Principality of Serbia before it. The problem lies in User1389's insistence on using the civil flag in its place for some reason, even using the same source to ironically try and justify their point. I've pointed this fact out to them several times with absolutely zero cooperation or communication on the matter. Buttons (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked User: 1389. He made another revert after being asked to stop and being notified of this discussion. He has a number of earlier blocks for similar behaviour. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of dubious, improperly sourced, unencyclopedic material

Resolved

Atechers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added material ([40],[41],[42]) to Advanced Technologies Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is dubious in origin, apparently being transcluded from a privately-operated Web page. The material is unencyclopedic in nature, taking the form of a trivia list. If I attempt to remove the material again I will violate WP:3RR. I do intend to warn the user regarding the apparent conflict of interest and possible username policy issues. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They have not edited for over 30 minutes; perhaps the warnings are starting to sink in? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That or their other activities[43] are getting them more noticed than they'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No activity in over 24 hours. I'm thinking this has resolved itself. Thanks, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:NYScholar back with new IP address.

I am sorry to have to report that this banned user appears to have returned again one day after the most recent IP block, this time as 69.205.77.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). Previous discussions on this at [44], [45], [46]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NYScholar, just lay off for a while, ok? When a banned editor quietly starts making good edits that don't repeat the conduct that led to the ban, other editors (per WP:IAR) will often decide to look the other way and not notice the ban evasion. But you can't be in their face about it, such as getting into any sort of conflict, or coming back to the same article 1 day after getting blocked. Better yet, why don't you edit Wikibooks for a while? It doesn't have a book about Pinter at the moment. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter now semi-protected 3 days. If necessary, we may need to semi-protect the talk page or escalate the protection on the article page to full. –MuZemike 02:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(Pause) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions, MuZemike. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User Vidboy10

Resolved

 – Dreadstar indef'd Vidboy for disruptive editing; the Egyptian protests are now a little less chaotic. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This user continues to chgange the infobox in the article 2011 Egyptian protests I reverted the first time stating to take it to the talk page as the issue of a military infobox had been discussed there but the same user again changed it a 2nd time, a warning was given on user's talk page and I changed it back a 2nd time when he changed it back a 3rd time going against 3RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You never mentioned my name in the talk page nor acknowledged that i should stop reverting the page back to a military box, you only labeled down on what needs to be done User:Vidboy10 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (PST)

I mentioned your edit in the edit summary to take it to the talk page to discuss. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The same editor has placed the infobox in the article two more times and with 3 editors against and 1 for adding the military infobox, no consensus to add it has so far been reached and other editors are now involved. If I am making a mistake by comming here im sorry for that I just feel a consensus should be reached here without all of this adding and removing of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the user reporting this case referred to the infobox change as "vandalism" in his/her second revert, when this is clearly a good faith (if a bit misguided) edit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be also mentioned he (and I mean Vidboy) just did it once again. For at least 6th time in 24 hours and possibly many more. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And again. And won't stop unless he is stopped. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• This user also removed a photograph on the specious grounds that it is "disturbing." [47] ScottyBerg (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh (Vid)boy! --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Dreadstar indef for disruptive editing. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please revdel this?

[48] I know the guy's long dead, but his descendants may well be justifiably upset. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought RevDel wasn't supposed to be used for material that could be handled by reverting? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

These kind of requests shouldn't be brought to ANI - it just advertises the information more. I think it should be taken straight to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, non? GiantSnowman 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If revdel is all that is needed then an email to an active admin is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with these. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas)

There seems to be a habitual section blanking problem here, likely with representatives from the school, what can I do to protect the page?Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP that removed it geolocates to the school itself. An inside job! I will watch-list the page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While it may seem unfair that the kid got expelled, it's a private school, and he should have been aware of what he was getting himself into. It looks to me like "undue weight", as I'm sure there have been a number of students expelled over the years, for a number of reasons. I expect the school is pretty strict about anything sex-related. I can only imagine how they handle student pregnancies, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's undue weight. The kid is notable enough that he has his own article: James Barnett. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and according to his article, he was not actually expelled from the school. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy section should be there. It's a 1E issue. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Well it's not like the school's so notable that a single event that happened there would be insignificant enough for the school to overshadow it. I think it's worth mentioning. -- œ^™ 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Actual discussions about the content of the article need to be handled at the article talk page. Please keep the discussion here relevent to the need for admins to do something, not about what the article should or should not say. That really needs to be discussed on the article talk page. --Jayron32 05:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything here that needs admin attention. According to the kid's article, it was the kid's parents who decided to pull him out in order to save face for the kid. There's no hint that the school thinks they did anything wrong. This looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's no "habitual" blanking. The IP did it once - in October. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• According to this article, the school was planning on expelling him because he refused to take down the site and make a public announcement that he was "confused", so his father instead just removed him from the school so the expulsion wouldn't end up on his permanent record. Man, this story really hits home. :/ Silverseren^C 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They were nicer to the kid than they had to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've upset someone

Resolved

 – User indeffed (and vanished)  7  04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin decide how to handle this attack on me. I feel I've acted fairly with the reverts, warnings on the users talk page and on WP:RSN, and I don't feel the attack against me is justified... but I obviously have a biased opinion.  7  06:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear uninvolved admin: There was a lengthy discussion between User 7 and myself on User 7's discussion page which he/she has now removed/deleted, therefore I can not access it to use as support/evidence for my comment (which User 7 cites above) which I made on my own discussion page. Now the questions are: Did User 7 remove the evidence for the purposes of disposing of the evidence? Did User 7 remove the evidence to put it out of my reach so that I can not use it to cite his/her bullying and abusive manner? Or is User 7 's removal of our discussion from his discussion page a mere coincidence? I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I do think they are relevant.Sjte5409 (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You can see the material he removed here [49], it's not deleted from the records.

However, he's completely right in his warnings towards you, and his deletion of that material. It's trivial, it's badly sourced, and a list of casual sex partners has no business on a BLP. Perhaps if there were a Stern-o-pedia, but not here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE THAT DISCUSSION WENT. THANKS AGAIN.

THAT IS YOUR OBVIOUSLY BIASED OPINION AND YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT READ MY DISCUSSION PAGE ON THIS SUBJECT OR ELSE YOU WOULD SUPPORT YOUR OPINION STATEMENTS WITH EVIDENCE. OH GOD I HOPE YOU ARE NOT THE UNINVOLVED ADMIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjte5409 (talk • contribs)

I'm familiar with this edit, and yes, it shouldn't stand. I've warned you about edit warring on your page, please start a discussion on the article talk page if you disagree with the multiple editors reverting you, and try and explain how your addition doesn't violate multiple policies and has encyclopedic value. Dayewalker (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NOT ONLY ARE YOU EDIT WARRING, BUT YOU ARE AT THIS VERY MOMENT ATTEMPTING TO WAR WITH ME ON A PAGE AND IN A SECTION THAT WAS SOLELY MEANT TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE CONCERNING MY COMMENT ON USER 7'S ABUSIVE TONE AND ACTIONS. SO GET LOST AND PUT YOUR OPINIONS ELSEWHERE, YOU BULLY! Sjte5409 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS????????? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

User has been politely asked by several people at his talk to stop with the all caps, but so far refuses and explains his reason for SHOUTING ast the rest of us. Heiro 07:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank God - he's finally blocked. Unbelievable... Doc talk 08:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It should have been indef. There is no excuse for stuff like that. None. –MuZemike 08:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It will greatly surprise if upon their return in 3 days they last a whole day before being reblocked for much longer. Heiro 08:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He is apparently requesting WP:RTV. Is this applied in such cases?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is: do we want him around? We can work some sort of understanding: indef + vanish :) -- Luk ^talk 09:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if WP:RTV is applicable here, it does not entitle the user to deletion of their user talk page. 206.205.46.18 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there's no technical means to delete a username, and per the licensing a reason not to. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 01:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We can rename it to something not associated with other pseudonyms or real life identity, though.

In this case neither of those seems to apply though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rules were RTV was not given to vandals/people we may need to track the activity of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SHOUTING IS FUN! But seriously, I think 7 has acted correctly, and disagree with Luk's idea about an indef. GiantSnowman 01:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy

George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.

Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[50] --

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".

After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[51],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia: FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.

This [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

• Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".

• Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't.

• PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
• The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
• Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
• The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.

That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Hans, FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How was the discussion related to improvements of any of the following articles? list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science. I think I can be forgiven if I got the impression that you selected these articles because you expected to find a certain type of editor there, rather than because of any relevance of the question to the articles themselves. You could just as well have notified editors at articles such as Catholicism, Discovery Institute and parapsychology. That would not have been OK, either. Hans Adler 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected editors at talk at list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, and pathological science to be interested in what or what is not RS for pseudoscience, when there is a claim to use a scientific method in the article in question (as was made in the electron miscroscope article on nanoparticles in Homeopathy. In circles I travel in, junk science is used more commonly than pseudoscience to describe the same thing. Pathological science and pseudoscience are often used interchangeably, e.g., by what Brangifer referred to about DNA-electromagnetism studies and homeopathy (called alternatively pseudoscience or pathological science. I almost did not post at these, thinking it would attract a bunch of nuts, but I decided to do it anyway because I thought I was being biased if I did not. PPdd (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith, I have tolerantly read George1918's extensive ultra-POV comments at homeopathy talk, as well as the full and sincere time other editors have spent responding to them. His proposal for Homeopathy as RS to put science and medicine things in the homeopathy article was voted down by unanious consensus. George1918 has made ZERO contributions to WP other than (1) many huge comments at the talk page of homeopahy, (2) linking a single date (e.g., "1918" to "1918") in a handful of articles (edits that were immediately reverted, with edit summary not to link dates, which he ignored), and (3) capitalizing "no." to "No" in one article.[63] It is odd that he created a new account a short time ago, but seemed to have sophisticated knowledge of WP policies from the outset. The extensive and ultra-fringe POV expressed in comments seems highly disruptive. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot and Rich Farmbrough

Two days ago Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked SmackBot (talk · contribs), operated by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Rich Farmbrough unblocked his own bot soon after. MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reblocked, and Rich Farmbrough unblocked again this morning. I've made a procedural reblock of the bot without no comment on the original block. Rich Farmbrough's potentially quite serious violations of administrator conduct policy merits review here, as perhaps does the original block. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While his unblock may be technically incorrect, he did follow the text of my block notification: "I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits, which hve approval and don't seem to be problematic" (well, despite what he claimed, he didn't follow this the first time around, when he went stright back to the kind of edits that lead to the block, but the second, current time he did follow what I posted.) I have now unblocked SmackBot, with the understanding that Rich Farmbrough doesn't restart the type of edits I blocked the bot for until there is evidence that it is an approved task, and with a lower error rate than the run before the block. Fram (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

To be fair, both Fram and MSGJ are much too involved to be making blocks in this area, in my opinion. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't block Rich Farmbrough, but SmackBot is just a bot, not an editor. Fram (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old, I think you guys need to kiss and make up. GiantSnowman 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I unblocked SmackBot, and Richard thanked me, so there may be some progress from both sides :-) Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One small step at a time :) GiantSnowman 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Genuinely surprised by the suggestion that I am too "involved" to take action here. All I have been doing is enforcing bot policy and this editor's editing restriction. I purposefully have not got involved with details such as which edits are problematic (and do not have any prior disputes with this editor), but have merely acted according to policy and consensus. So perhaps you would like to reread that link you cited and explain why you think I am too involved? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Simply put I don't believe you should make blocks here since you're likely to be effecting by a conflict of interest, due to having strong personal opinions on this subject and editor. And these opinions aren't necessarily representative of community consensus or policy. For example, you've made it fairly clear in the past that you think he should not take part in any automated editing, although policy doesn't specifically prohibit this, and the ban proposal which was basically for that didn't go through (although admittedly it was never reviewed properly, and there was some significant support (I would consider myself too involved to judge it too)). All that said, you are very easy to get muddled with CBM, so I may be mistakenly attributing some of their comments to you - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Immediate first thought upon seeing this section on watchlist: Dear god, not again! Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see this Persondata casing dispute finish. Rich, nobody agrees with lowercase parameters in Persondata. Please modify your code because it creates Persondata with mixed case parameters. This change isn't even part of AWB's general fixes so I don't understand what kind of "cosmetic changes" is that. It causes problems with current AWB's version, slow edit wars because AWB will correct to uppercase when a change is made to Persondata and more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

editor User:Intermittentgardener (reposting after archive without comment)

A little while ago I raised an issue at this noticeboard about this user who refuses to justify a reinsertion of texts at Independent Payment Advisory Board which have been seriously challenged. The editor continually reinserts the texts. For instance here, here, here, here, here, and here, The editor accepts that I have explained why I have deleted the texts but says only that my explnations were "incoherent" and has so far refused to justify his or her own reasons for inserting the texts. The editor has unfortunately re-emerged and begun inserting the offending texts yet again.

I have checked the edit history of this user and it is very typical of accounts created for sockpuppetry. The early edits are nearly all inconsequential edits moving texts around via cut and paste (sometimes in different edits) and slightly rewording. Hardly any of the edits had any meaningful impact on the content of Wikipedia until the editor began editing this article and its predecessor. I have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged, but his or her editing behavior for trying to reinsert them after I deleted them leaves me to think that they may have been. I have been challenged several times about my suspicion of sockpuppety at this article and asked to raise a formal complaint. I have trouble doing so because the complaint procedure requires me to name another user as the so called sockmaster but I have no idea who that may be. Notwithstanding this, the editing behavior of this editor is unacceptable and I ask that an edit ban be imposed.Hauskalainen (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This looks very much like a content dispute at core, and it is significantly easier to identify tendentious editing when consensus has been clarified by a broader group of participants. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution with a probable sockpuppet? Have you looked at the editor's editing history? That does not seem likely to produce much of a result. I have listed all the problems with the text he or she is inserting and just refuses to justify the edits. Did you look at the issues I raised? The users inserts are clearly problematic.Hauskalainen (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI is another board. And yes, you must name a sockmaster for a report there and not just continue to accuse the account of socking without any evidence save your suspicions. You "have not checked if the editor was the original source of the edits that I have challenged"? Well, do some homework and see if you can determine a sockmaster (if it is indeed a sock). This is the third time you've filed a report here concerning this exact same editor and issue within a week. You were advised after the first report filed on the 28th to let the WQA run its course, and even that's been archived as well because of lack of input. The fact that the last AN/I report filed two days ago was archived without any input from anyone just might tell you that you are possibly beating a dead horse. "Try dispute resolution" is some very good advice you might want to take. Are you planning on filing this report here yet again if it gets archived? I sincerely hope not... Doc talk 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It really does not matter WHO is the sockmaster, the account has all the chacteristics of a sock. I'd suggest the WP:DUCK test is relevant here.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As Doc notes, we can't treat this person as though he is a sock without some evidence that he is a sock. Even if he had prior experience on Wikipedia, he might be a user in good standing under a "clean start", for instance. The advantage of dispute resolution is that in drawing others into the conversation, you make the problems more apparent to outsiders. His response to you, that your explanations are "incoherent", is hardly in keeping with expected behavioral standards, but it is not alone sufficient cause for blocking. There does seem to be edit warring in the article, but as an outsider I cannot easily determine who is at fault and to what degree. The more people to nail down consensus, the easier it becomes to see who is ignoring it to promote their own preference. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor has editing account has edited very few articles in its very brief history. I suggest that someone look at all of them because it will only take a minute or two to compare the before and after edits that the account has made. There is no need to be selective (i.e. for me to suggest which ones to look at). These are the typical edits of accounts used for suckpuppetry and quite unlike those of serious editors.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like edit warring and thus is blockworthy. Any admin should be able to do it immediately since the editor in question knows they are doing it against the wishes of another editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Which editor would that be? The one mentioned in the report here or the one filing it? They have each been reverting against the wishes of another editor. This is why it's much easier to tell who is being disruptive when multiple people are involved in a conversation. It may be tedious, but it's worthwhile, when the content is not obvious to those unfamiliar with the issues.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine Brangifer means User:Intermittentgardener because I gave a very detailed explanation of all my edits at the TALK page. User:Intermittentgardener 's contribution was just to admit that I had explained them in great detail and then just went on to say that they were "incoherent". That is is hardly engaging in the normal editing process.Hauskalainen (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But the only other person to have weighed in at the talk page seems to feel that you are the tendentious editor ([64]; [65]). Uninvolved bystanders who do not know you or any of the participants in the page cannot easily determine what's going on based on the little bit of interaction provided. It is not our job to lay the groundwork for a listing here, but yours. If you think he is a sockpuppet, you must provide evidence that he is disruptively using multiple accounts. If you think he is tendentious, you should provide us with clear evidence that he is the disruptive element in this article. Otherwise, people will do as evidently they have been doing: glance at your listing and ignore it, because it is not easily resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Intermittentgardener should have definitely engaged with discussion before performing all of those reverts, but Hauskalainen can be disruptive, IMO. I've had to warn about/clean up their WP:SOAP/advocacy/WP:V issues as of late.[66][67] Jesanj (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group

I have twice restored removal of sourced text here under WP:Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Wikileaks. Can someone double-check me on this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given the other editor a 3RR warning. Haven't gotten to the source yet - does it confirm the material being removed? Alternatively, does this material really add a whole lot to this article? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For form's sake, I should note that you've reverted 3 times as well - I'm assuming you'll read this rather than a template on your talk page. Let's back off a bit and figure out where consensus lies, ok? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bueno, thanks. I'm off it for now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This actually involves two articles - The above United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group article and the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group. The removal from the "Naval" article is a section that begins with the idea that the subject's organization "can only be speculated upon", and proceeds to speculate for two paragraphs. I don't have an issue with that removal, though it should have been discussed first. The "Navy" article, meanwhile, is a sourced statement about the structure of the organization - and that shouldn't really be removed without discussion, if the source is indeed reliable. I don't think, personally, that it adds a whole lot to the article, but that's just me. I'd like to hear from others, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone more knowledgeable than I wants to tackle the merge, these are on the exact same topic with slightly different but useful variations. I am not married to the stuff staying, I am just against censorship of published material in an international encyclopedia not beholden to a single set of classified rules.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can work on it. I've also blocked User:LMT1978 31 hours for edit warring, as they ignored my notice and reverted again (once on each article). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see several discussions on both talk pages encouraging a merge, and I see no sourced information at the "Navy" article (apart from the bit under dispute, but that's discussed at the "Naval" article anyway). Since everything substantive is already at the "Naval" article, would a redirect be in order? Or a full history merge? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would do a history merge to preserve it, and some of the stuff (graphics) differ.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The only image in the Navy article is also in the Naval one, so images look ok. I'll take a crack at the histmerge later. Note also that LMT1978 was blocked indef for dropping a legal threat into his/her unblock request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone probably needs to take the source, specialoperations.com, being cited in United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group, to the reliable sources noticeboard at some point. They don't appear to have come up before, they're used quite extensively and it's not at all obvious that they are reliable for anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. History merge complete, everything is now at the "Naval" article, and the "Navy" article redirects. I did not history-merge the talk pages, though the navy talk page redirects to the naval talk page. If I screwed something up, feel free to trout me and fix it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum blocked by User:Geni

That's quite enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Blocked, unblocked. Carry on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Geni blocked Malleus for 24 hours for saying "There appears to be a great deal that is beyond you Kingturtle, so why not restrict yourself to those things which are not beyond you?" with the reasoning that "Past experience suggests there is little reason to expect you to discontinue to the behaviour so I have blocked you for 24 hours." This strikes me as needing a review. Nev1 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The block was made a full 10 hours after the comment. As I've already noted on Geni's talk, I believe it to be excessive and suggest immediate unblocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also support an immediate unblock - totally overboard unnecessary use of restrictions.Hours after the block for a totally minor adult comment that was imo completely correct. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Agreed on unblock, but with a slap on the wrists for Malleus, the incident is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) It's quite stressful tending an article for TFA - an article of this sort inevitably attracts opinion and comment. To block the main editor hours after a comment was made, while the article is still running on the main page is irresponsible. Support immediate unblock. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I think blocking for that comment is questionable at best, and hours later it becomes purely punitive. Bad block.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Urgh. Yeah, unblock him. The worst part of this whole thing is that now we all have to listen to Malleus's one-note symphony about how all admins are worthless and corrupt. Like we all need more of that sort of silliness. Thanks for that, Geni. --Jayron32 13:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 1)Malleus certianly claims to be british. I would suggest I'm in a better position to judge the severity of the insult than those don't share that cultural background. 2)This was not a civility block per se but a dissruption one. The talk page of the days featured article should be a place where potential new editors feel that they could fit in. Creating a poisonous atmosphere in such an enviroment is unacceptable since it dissrupts wikipedia's ability to gain and hold new editors. If such comments had been made on a more inward facing page well eh thats Malleus for you.©Geni 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) There is no policy that allows you to apply uncommonly strict standards because a featured article is a place that might attract new users.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Nothing like Wikipedia:BITE for example? While just a guideline this is covered in the five pillars, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC) He was rude to a Wikipedia admin and bureaucrat, how on earth is that like biting a newbie? It doesn't matter where one bites newbies either. Geni's claim is that certain articles, because they attract newcomers, should be treated with stricter standards. Again, that is not supported by policy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also am reminded of this poor block in December from user Geni - her reason - overly strident language - block was overturned in 14 mins. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I don't usually get involved in these but this is an egregiously bad block. This kind of irritable exchange is not what WP:CIV is for. Fainites barleyscribs 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I didn't cite WP:CIV©Geni 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Support immediate unblock. Ridiculous block, clearly punitive. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC) have you read my reasoning? Anway I've got to go for now per my standard WP:OWN approach anyone can unblock but I will hold them responcible for any bad behaviour by Malleus within the next 24 hours.©Geni 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yes. A reasoning not based in any policy at all. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Recently we have a new way of dealing with these issues, admins should not have to reverse another admins poor unsupported block, the admin that makes them should unblock the person they blocked and then block themselves for the same time period. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) "..and then block themselves for the same time period". Seriously?? -- œ™ 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I haven't figured out what this was supposed to stop... it was 10 hours after the comment and a full 8 hours after Malleus quit editing, this was obviously turning the whole of Wikipedia into a complete cesspit and needed immediate attention, obviously (sarcasm, for those who might miss it.) Wouldn't it have been better to address the vandalism on the article itself instead? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Support unblock, please Geni, just do it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (multiple ec) A block that long, made so long after such an insignificant comment, looks worse than punitive. It looks like "I want to block this editor, can I go back through his history and find something to hang it on?" DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I've unblocked, based on the majority view here and on both users' talk pages that the block was excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Concur. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Utter stupidity. Parrot of Doom 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Ok. Clear personal attack for the other editor making a policyMOS-based suggestion, 24 hour block -- but just because it's Malleus, he gets a speedy unblock? Something is clearly not right here, and I don't think it's the original block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) A block that was made several hours after the comments which supposedly justified it. Yes, something is clearly not right. Parrot of Doom 14:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Yep, pretty clear that if you are of a certain class of editor you can make backhanded comments to simple good faith suggestions (whether they are correct or not) and walk away. Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC) What disruption did the block prevent? By all appearances, MF had stopped editing already. Not that a warning would have done all that much, but what did the block accomplish exactly? apart from WP:DRAMA? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (ec)Stop with the drama please. I don't see any special treatment here. Comments like that are the kind you warn the user for making and save for an RFC if they are repeat offenders. On their own, 10 hours after they are made, they are clearly not blockable offenses. If Geni had warned him for the comment, and he continued to make such comments in the next few days, that's another matter. If he makes more in a month and then more in another month take it to RFC.Griswaldo (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) The worst sort of awful block.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Look, can we close this? Malleus has been unblocked, so there isn't anything else to do here. Let's just move on. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Agree, nothing more to see here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Sure there is. At minimum we need an acknowledgement from the admin that they understand why the block was overturned and a statement that in the future they'll comply with the will of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Geni seems to have stopped editing, and their comment above indicates that they're done for awhile. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Wait, what? Geni needs to write a paragraph explaining what went wrong and that they understand? This isn't high school detention. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) An acknowledgement of the bad block would be nice, and would be in Geni's best interest. However, if it never comes what's going to happen? Nothing. The bad block is on record as such. A couple of more of these bad blocks someone can seek sanctions or other actions against an admin who is abusing their tools, but I don't think its warranted yet. Overreacting to Geni's bad block isn't much different from Geni's overreaction to Malleus. Let it go until it is meaningful to talk about further.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC) If Geni's stopped editing then in addition it's important to make sure that Geni understands that making a controversial block and then disappearing has been repeatedly viewed as unacceptable.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I'm sure she knows this is what the community feels about her block, and her dissapearence. Feel free to point it out directly to her on her talk page. I doubt she's missing this discussion though. In case it isn't clear, I agree with all of these sentiments, I just don't think anything productive is happening here at this point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) As noted above, I have also been on the receiving end of Geni's attitude that blocking hours after an event is not at all punitive (and indeed for comments that would be marginally blockable in the first place IMHO in this instance - no commentary on my block by Geni in that regard). I suggest Geni needs to re-read WP:BLOCK in detail and perhaps assure the community that their Wild West gun slinging attitude to the block button will not continue. Pedro :  Chat  14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Another year, another block...Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Standard punitive block. I haven't read WP:BLOCK lately; do we still pretend that blocks are "preventative not punitive"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Blocks should not be punitive Blocks should not be used: in retaliation against users; to disparage other users; as punishment against users, or, where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. Blocks should be preventative Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved. Count Iblis (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Looks like it was preventative Nikkimaria doesn't appear to be around so would anyone else like to do the honors??©Geni 19:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) No action needed for that one, imo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC) If you want to reblock for that you need to go now.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing by User:Pablozeta

User:Pablozeta appears to have been inappropriately canvassing in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine. He has sent the same inappropriate notification to multiple editors, based on their presumed opinion over the issue: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] (- this is a slightly different message). In fact, a look at his user contributions [[75]] shows that he has contacted each of these individuals more than once - this canvassing is a repeat of a similar earlier message.

Given this attempt to subvert due process in relation to the AfD discussion, can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clear canvassing. User has few edits- it's possible they're not aware this is inappropriate. Have they been informed? --King Öomie 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have informed Pablozeta: see User_talk:Pablozeta#Canvassing_re_White_Argentine_AfD. He has been contributing since September 2009, and has made 875 edits [76]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think King Öomie meant; have you explained to them that this sort of activity is against our policy? And did they continue after you explained? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much, from previous experience, that Pablozeta would take much notice of anything I told him about policy. He has been editing longer than I have, and seems to know his way around noticeboards etc well enough. If he isn't aware that canvassing is inappropriate, he should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just mean to make sure. Unlike criminal law, we work very hard to avoid punishing people who legitimately aren't aware they're breaking rules. WP:CANVASS is one of those that's A) Not encountered often and B) not immediately recognizable as a policy violation (as in, it's okay basically anywhere but Wikipedia). Obviously, if he's aware of the policy and acted in spite of it, action needs to be taken. --King Öomie 16:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Pablozeta was aware that canvassing was against policy, it has now occurred. I think that this should probably be made clear in the AfD, if only to make the closing admin aware of the situation. Perhaps an uninvolved person could add a note? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just the blanket "If you are here because someone asked you to comment..." thing we put up on things. Not sure what that template is. --King Öomie 17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the {{notavote}} template, although that's usually for off-wiki canvassing. -Atmoz (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pablozeta has just canvassed the same people again (see [[77]]). I fail to see how this can possibly be allowed to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He is now canvassing other users to start canvassing themselves: [78]! AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize; I was not aware that this action was called canvassing, and that it was forbidden. I thought it was perfectly right to notify other users who may have the same point of view that an AFD is in course on an article they have contributed to. Check the history of the article and you'll find most of the users I contacted.--Pablozeta (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologizing is the best thing you could have done, Pablito! Diego Grez (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good on you, Pablo. To clarify why this instance was canvassing, even though the users you contacted were involved-

• Your language is clearly intended to campaign for a given viewpoint, in this case that the article should stay
• You are vote-stacking, posting to editors you have a reason to believe will vote with you.

Your postings WOULD have been appropriate if you'd notified editors in both camps of the discussion in a neutral way ("X article is up for deletion, comment at the AFD"). Assuming this is the end of it, I think this can be marked Resolved. --King Öomie 14:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Perseus, Son of Zeus odd behavior?

• Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the space of a few minutes, the above user has added material to the encyclopedia, reverted said material, came here to request a revdel, removed the request once it was complete, requested deletion of their userpage with a G7, blanked their talk page that contained a question from me about the first part of this sequence, and now changed both their userpage and usertalk to wikibreak notices 'for exams'. Is anyone else suspicious that this is a compromised account? I don't have much exposure to this editor so I don't know if this is S.O.P for them, and didn't see any indication that they are under mentorship or anything. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's SOP, actually. Mentoring might not be a bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about getting a mentor a few days before, I looked for a list of "mentors". Couldn't finnd one. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do have exams. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters is one list you could pick from. Good luck with the exams. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm already adopted by Derild4921, I'm looking for a mentor, like a second view besides the adopter. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My account was just compromised, probably because I left the computer on and was still signed in. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally, compromised accounts are blocked indefinitely. TNXMan 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the rather trivial circumstances of the problem, perhaps this is a good time to reconsider that general approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please don't block me... --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DNBTT? 71.141.88.54 (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a block is necessary here, Persus has his account back, maybe just an evil glare is all that is needed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

<spam>User:Fetchcomms/Children and Wikipedia</spam>. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

See, that's the issue. We don't know if Perseus has his account back or if it's still compromised. I won't take action here if there's no consensus for a block, but I think there should be some conversation about it. TNXMan 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your right to say that its odd, I would wait to see if anything else happens (vandalism etc) under his name before taking action. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note this edit which indicates account is compromised: [79]. Also, should someone consider revdeleting the content? PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that, I have indefinitely blocked the account as compromised. Discussion is, of course, welcome. TNXMan 22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess we will have to see if he requests an unblock. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Arakunem^Talk 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Fetchcomms promotes an essay of his above, but doesn't mention that he himself would be considered a "child" by some people's yardsticks. Also the essay needs some copy-editing. I'll attend to that later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm back. In a new account, with permission. --Perseus8235 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrative eyes on Priscilla K. Coleman and its active editors

I'd like to ask for outside administrative input on Priscilla K. Coleman. This article is the scene of an active edit war, and the tone of discourse on the talk page is probably amply summarized in this thread. In particular, I would like other admins to review the recent actions of Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs). Aside from edit-warring, highlights include:

• When asked for policy-based arguments, responds: "You are just a hater of the un-born who will stop at nothing to decieve people on the truth about abortion."
• Repeatedly addresses other editors by calling them "radical feminists" ([80], [81], [82])
• Touts lifesitenews.org and other pro-life websites as reliable sources ([83]), while dismissing the American Psychological Association ([84]) and the New York Times ([85]) as unreliable.
• States that another editor is "a radical feminist who is trying to use the biased attack nature of this article to suppress the truth and have more women commit suicide."

This last diff goes beyond basic incivility. I'm not a stickler about personal attacks, but accusing another editor of intentionally trying to cause women to commit suicide is so far beyond the pale of reasonable discourse that, were I not involved in the discussion, I would block for it. How can you collaborate with someone who thinks you relish the prospect of driving women to suicide? These attacks are layered on top of partisan, tendentious editing, the promotion of low-quality sources, the removal of reliable sources which contradict an editor's agenda, and of course edit-warring.

There's been some talk recently about the need to deal more effectively with WP:ACTIVIST editing, so I'd like to bring this here as an example, and as a situation that's in need of outside administrative attention. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Amended: an admin has blocked Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for edit-warring, and I'm grateful for his quick attention to the matter. I'd still like to leave this thread open, because I think the problem here seems pretty deep-seated and potentially likely to recur after the block expires, but I appreciate the rapid administrative attention to the matter. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the admin who blocked User:Johnpacklambert. It was done quite independent of this ANI, which I had not seen beforehand. The user has appealed the block, so it would be good if another admin could deal with that ASAP because he's making a bit of a ruckus on his talk page about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • An admin has dealt with the appeal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 and Jewish sportspeople

discussion has already been underway at WP:BLPN for several days. Closing per WP:FORUMSHOP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As part of a running battle going on over the past several weeks, User:Bulldog123 has been editing articles to remove mentions of the fact that athletes are Jewish, removing links to List of Jews in sports and removing categories such as Category:Jewish American sportspeople, from several dozen articles in the past few days, such as this recent edit. In many cases, these reverts by Bulldog123 removed material that had been added by User:Epeefleche. User:Ironholds has pleaded with Bulldog123 to cease making such edits without a consensus supporting his actions (see here) and Ironholds reverted a sequence of Bulldog123's edits. At roughly the same time, I went through a series of about a dozen articles that Bulldog123 had blindly reverted and added appropriate sources documenting the identity of these individuals as Jewish athletes. In every one of the dozen or so articles that I had gone through in the order in which Bulldog123 had reverted mentions of the individuals being Jewish sportspeople, I had no issue finding numerous sources using a Google search consisting of the individual's name, their sport and the word "Jewish". I had thought that the addition of such sources would address Bulldog123's issues, only to have him revert another dozen articles, such as here and here. It appears that Bulldog123 has been unable to separate his personal opinions on the subject of Jewish sportspeople from consensus on the subject and documentation provided using the dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that cover Jews in sports (as discussed here). It would appear that a content ban restricting Bulldog123 would be the most appropriate means of dealing with this pattern of belligerent editing on his part and that further subsequent edit warring on this topic or other similar matters related to ethnicity should result in blocks of increasing length. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC) We try to avoid labelling BLP's, particularly with religious labels, unless it is specifically demonstratably significant to their notability; see WP:BLPCAT. I've not looked in depth, but on the surface those removals look fine; consensus is to remove BLP issues such as this until sourced in line wiht policy. --Errant (chat!) 21:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Ive left Epeefleche a note about BLPCAT. I'd recommend avoiding mass additions to the BLP articles till this is sorted out. --Errant (chat!) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC) - note - imo to better understand this report you will need to see also - there is discussion related at the BLPN - a report opened in the last day or two by Bulldog123. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Let's not WP:FORUMSHOP here. There's a discussion, which Alansohn has been participating in, already active at WP:BLPN. I see no reason to have two discussions on the same subject. There's nothing for admins to act on here, this is a content issue, and needs to be disucssed on the appropriate content noticeboard, where it is already happening. I think we need to hat this discussion and direct everyone to keep this all in one place. --Jayron32 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I agree, there is no admin action required here. I highly doubt there will be any support for a topic ban under these conditions. BLP's must be treated more sensitively than other articles, people may not want to be labeled as jews if it is not reported widely elsewhere in reliable sources (not blogs). Alansohn characterizes Bulldog as someone who is targetting articles on jews (as if he is an anti-semite or something), when in reality it should be Epeefleeche's edits that are put under more scrutiny, since it is Epee who apparently has decided that his/her sole purpose on WP is to tag every jewish BLP with a prominent notice to the reader that the person is jewish. Hat this discussion and continue at WP:BLPN. SnottyWong gossip 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I disagree, which is why I have raised the subject here. In the face of multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that this intersection is a definingly notable one and the addition of sources to articles supporting the claim, Bulldog123 has persistently continued a pattern of unjustified blind reverts in the face of consensus to the contrary. The snide characterization that this is an issue of Bulldog123's religious bias has no basis in reality, when the simple issue is one of persistently ignoring reliable and verifiable sources that contradict his claims. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Pro-life > Anti-abortion

There may have used to have been a chance that this might have been a productive discussion. It is now producing much more heat than light. Nothing for admins to do, use dispute resolution, article talk pages, yada yada yada.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request guidance as to whether the move discussion, opened about 3 hours ago and already contentious, should have a bold admin find an appropriate harmonious solution (I suggested speedy close). The proposer and first commenter (12 minutes in) have responded to every oppose comment to date. No direct abuse (yet), only a very confrontational situation very ripe for abuse to arise. JJB 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I think those types of discussions (I can see where that one is going) are better served by the arbcom format where each person can comment only in their own section, no threaded discussion allowed. If some admin wants to be bold (I can't think of prior examples of this happening), I'd support protecting the talk page long enough to refactor the discussion into such sections (just moving stuff around so there's one section per user, not deleting anything), then asking for threaded replies to stop. I'd oppose a speedy close since I see there are thoughtful comments being posted from both sides, and there is not a clear consensus either way. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Canvassing Moved this section up here to keep debates on the same topic together. Fences&Windows 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC) This user is WP:CANVASSING another user to change their vote from a Comment to an Oppose on a discussion. Although the user refused to do so, it seems inappropriate and I believe some form of censure is called for. [86] WikiManOne 03:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Concur The argument has gotten very heated, and there appears to be some WP:FORUMSHOPPING going on as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Hope you can clarify this, and hope you're not referring to me, because per my comment below I think my selecting this forum has now been vindicated. JJB 04:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, I was referring to a WP:AIV report submitted by one of the IP editors involved, which has been looked at by another admin and directed here. Maybe I'm looking a bit shallow, but my impression is that the IP editor didn't get satisfaction on the Discussion page and escalated the issue to AIV...improperly, I might add, since while there was editing going on without consensus, it would be a serious stretch to call it vandalism, and doubly so since the IP accused the other party of abusing privileges they don't even possess. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC) It's not a canvassing violation, though. It's one editor asking another to clarify their bolded not-a-vote vote. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) No, that is not canvassing. That is simply talking to someone who has left a comment. Please take the heat out of this by not badgering everyone who opposes this RM. Fences&Windows 03:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Concur with the above. Attempting to catch editors out on some procedural violation that is supposed to diminish their opinion will not subtract heat from the discussion. Also, you have not notified either of the editors you allege to be engaged in a "violation" that they are being discussed here. Please do inform them of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) It was a comment, not a vote as she clearly stated in response. I should have added it here, I wasn't aware that an incidence report had been filed, and I have notified the user in question. Thanks for the reminder. WikiManOne 03:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks Fences: Did I call this one or what? Yes, I agree that reopening a charged discussion against a consensus of 6 months ago, arguing with nearly everyone who disagrees, having a first commenter who shows up within 12 minutes to agree and perform similar argumentation, and reporting a commenter to ANI for a nonissue without notification is a concerning set of markers. In my WP experience, it circumstantially is identical to the behavior of someone who is already guilty of separate canvassing personally, i.e., it suggests the complainant is projecting his own behavior on others. Monitoring .... JJB 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Continuing to speak only circumstantially, the nominator's low edit count has now been raised as an issue, and the IPs are chiming in on one side only with empty argumentation, SPA, and out-of-order comment. I've seen it before but never so fast. Monitoring .... JJB 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC) In my own defense, let me say that from the way the "Comment" was written it looked like an "Oppose" vote to me. I honestly thought she put Comment when she meant Oppose, so I went and asked her. My thanks to all who used common sense here. --Kenatipo speak! 04:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC) If you look on my talk page, you will see clearly where the first commenter came from. Also, if you are accusing me of canvassing, would you be so kind as to point out the instance(s) you are referring to? This accusation that I have anything to do with IP addresses is laughable. WikiManOne 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Also, this statement "All commenters should read #Rename, move back to pro-life above (referring to an out-of-process move), as R's comment suggests. JJB 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Also, unless it's a fringe theory, nominator's link to AbortionIsProLife dotcom should be mentioned as one POV on any page called "pro-life", and that actually argues against nominator. JJB 04:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)" was added directly below nomination by an oppose, above the vote of another user. I wouldn't think this kind of "cutting line" for back of a better word is appropriate. WikiManOne 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) See WP:THREAD. And now the evidence collector is attacked, closing the circuit. Anyone? JJB 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, I called that one too. WikiManOne has pointed to his own canvassing, performed prior to anyone voting, which passes 2 or 3 of the 4 WP:CANVASS tests: partisan audience, secret, and probably nonneutral message. Monitoring .... JJB 04:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh look, WikiManOne has also admitted canvassing other editors on this issue. That's the 4th test, increasing breadth of audience. WikiManOne denies partisanship for the audience, seeming to believe that "not knowing" how they would respond gets him off the charge (Oops!, implies WikiManOne, one of those editors "did end up on my side"). However, unconscious selection is often at work unless you use a neutral list of recent commenters or project members or the like. And "I don't consider this Canvassing" is a nonneutral message. JJB 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The first one I understood, the second I do not see how it was a reply to the original comment, seems to be an excuse to put your comment on top. WikiManOne 04:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC) It's an expansion of his original comment; that is allowed. In general, given the number of places that you have commented in the discussion, these repeated attempts to interfere with other editors' comments do not come off particularly well for you. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Also, that is hardly canvassing, if you would take the time to read the history in the various places, I had no reason to know he would support it, I was simply extending him the courtesy of notifying him that I had taken him up on his suggestion, that's hardly canvassing. The full conversation is below:— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) conversation "I've reverted its creation as its a WP:POVFORK, please make a move request on Pro Life if you wish to move it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I took your suggestion and made the suggestion on the pro-life page, maybe you can weigh in? WikiManOne 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I think I need to think about it. This one is tricky, you are right that pro-life is POV, but pro-life is much more commonly used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Actually your case looks pretty persuasive :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't say much more commonly used, it's about the same I think when you look at neutral sources, and most of the uses of "pro-life" are referring to what the organizations claim themselves to be. "Pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news [87], "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 [88] which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. If you look at each use, it is clear that the ones using "pro-life" are generally not quite as neutral as the "anti-abortion" uses. WikiManOne 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)" (ec) You mean the second sentence in my reply, where I commented on one of the websites in your nom. OK. Oh look, WikiManOne has also been called out by an IP on this board for vandalism (which I moved immediately below). I'll comment there too. All, the applicability here seems to be that the motivating force for WikiManOne's move proposal is that PP is in the news again. JJB 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) And another circumstantial mark of this type of editor is talk-page chaos, which I have fixed with this edit. And wikilawyering. Another one is that the type takes general and circumstantial analysis personally, so maybe I should stop now. Monitoring .... JJB 05:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Not sure how these are the same debates but if you say so. Now if I were using your logic, the appearance of an IP to accuse me would be suspicious but I'm going to assume good faith and refrain from doing so. Your claims that I canvassed and accusations against Eraserhead as well, who I had never previously interacted with up to this point, are bogus. WikiManOne 05:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I make no accusation against Eraserhead1, whom ordinarily I'd advise you to notify, but I already did the notification a few minutes before you mentioned the name "Eraserhead1" for the first time. The other markers in your current comment I will leave for others to analyze. JJB 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Speaking of canvassing 1, 2, 3, 4 is there any reasons that the previous isn't canvassing? - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Nonrandom break I believe I have now amassed enough evidence above of canvassing and perhaps other ANI-appropriate behavior to politely repeat my request for admin guidance. JJB 05:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Ugh, its nearly impossible to respond to your numerous accusations spread out and added to posts that I have already replied to. Your accusation that I canvassed Situsi is ridiculous on more than one level, I clearly stated in my post that I didn't know which way he would state, he is simply someone's opinion who I hold high regard for and wanted to hear what he had to say when the move became controversial. Furthermore, he did not take a position in that discussion, confirming that I did not contact him expecting a "yes" vote. For those interested in the full conversation rather than those which JJB seems to conveniently show, it is here. As for Eraserhead1, after I undid someone (Haymaker, I believe, correctly) reverting the current Anti-abortion article back to a redirect to the Pro-life article, he pointed me towards the moving discussion process which is why I notified him when I took him up on his suggestion. Again, I did not know whether he would support it or not, he did turn out to support, but since I had no way of knowing, this was clearly not a case of canvassing. That said, I have no plans of further comment until an uninvolved admin takes this over. WikiManOne 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I certainly don't feel canvassed, given I suggested making a move request it would almost have been rude not to contact me. I have have no previous interaction with WikiManOne. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I too was surprised to see a polite request on my talk page being the source of this ANI thread. If there is going to be "admin guidance" I hope it is in the direction of why to avoid embittering a topic debate with accusations against the opposing debaters. Repeating my !vote, I think self-description is a better source for article names than deciding by fiat which tiny soundbite, "pro-life" or "anti-abortion", better describes the opinion of other people. I myself am "pro-choice" (or perhaps "baby-killer-enabling" if my opponents were choosing the name to describe my own beliefs.) betsythedevine (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Blatant Vandalism At Planned Parenthood Page W/Administrative Abuse Moved this section up here to keep debates on the same topic together. JJB 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted vandalism in removing the Controversies/Criticism section to replace it with a clearly apologetic piece with no mention of controversies, bashing the pro-life movement and mentioning anti-pro-choice violence without mention of anti-pro-life violence, even though the section is supposedly about controversies surrounding Planned Parenthood, not the pro-life movement. Removal of section Vandalism revert Explained in depth on the Talk:Planned_Parenthood page why this was vandalism and objectionable, and provided an alternative edit for shortening the section. Another user strongly objected to the proposed edit as well. WikiManOne then had admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) page protect after having his edit made, to effectively remove all mention of controversies from the page. He also made his original edit to the page just minutes after I cited the Wikipedia Controversies and Criticism section on a Huffington Post article, making this appear a ploy by a member there to eliminate mention on the page of the recent scandal until public scrutiny blows over, and buy the page some time without mention of any controversies on it, and only information favorable to Planned Parenthood there. NOTES: This was previously reported in the Vandalism section but has been moved here per request.--67.176.248.164 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Whatever admin evaluates this incident, kindly read the talk page on Planned Parenthood. It is clear that this IP user was not speaking in good faith. Also, 3RR was not violated. WikiManOne 04:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Also, you might want to notify NuclearWarfare as well. I haven't communicated with him and won't be. WikiManOne 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Alright, I have notified NuclearWarfare as well. I did attempt to speak in good faith, but the edit and subsequent page protection left no doubt as to the nature of the vandalism and intent of the edit in my mind, so I stated what was happening, while still seeking to remain civil, as will appear evident from a reading of the discussion. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Whatever the appropriateness of the removal of the controversy section, NuclearWarfare's action was clearly within the bounds of admin discretion and an appropriate measure within an edit war. If you disagree with protection for this edit dispute, you should approach him directly. --B (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I've been talking with IP user 67.176.*.* at their Talk page and provided some info on WP:ROLLBACK and WP:RPP. I think part of the issue here was a lack of understanding as to WikiManOne's Rollback rights and what they entailed. I'm hoping that will help de-escalate the matter somewhat. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I don't think I have communicated with WikiManOne before, certainly never with regards to this situation. I was directed to the article not from anyone alerting me to it, but by a post that I happened to see on MastCell's talk page. The protection policy explains why I fully protected the page. NW (Talk) 05:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I fail to see how the protection policy supports protecting a page AFTER removal of a long-term section on controversies without prior discussion and while consensus to such effect is being achieved on the talk page. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I don't remember any interactions with you either NW, its unfortunate that the IP continues to spin such wild conspiracy theories as he did on the article talk page. WikiManOne 05:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) My first take is just that NuclearWarfare just entered the (I presume) edit war at the wrong moment for the IP. In this case WikiManOne appears to be on the side deleting sourced material, and while it is controversial it is certainly undue weight to delete old material not related to the current news story. It might have been better if worked into another section of the article, but the deletion side appears to be the more unduly weighted. In general, especially if it's only 24 hours, the IP is best counseled to collaborate on a draft as well as possible and wait out the block. However, this activity is interesting when grouped with the other two sections of this page immediately previous. JJB 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I had noticed with interest the mention of other abortion-related API incidents occurring at this time, when writing this up here. Whether correlation could be at work I have no idea. As seen from the Planned Parenthood talk page, I was making a good faith effort to aid those who criticized the current controversies section for being too lengthy in providing a shorter, more concise version, and in trying to reach consensus on tone to achieve NPOV and suitable sourcing. My proposed edits on the talk page would have shortened older material considerably, which is why it was astonishing that an admin would take the extraordinary measure of eliminating all inclusion of controversial material for a recent edit, and preserving the edit with page protection at a time when controversy surrounding said institution is prominent in the news, and attempts at reaching consensus for a revised section acceptable to all were ongoing. The administrative intervention was clearly inappropriate, as were the repeated edit attempts, and thus why this API is required. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I would like to repeat that I have asked numerous times to collaborate in working on a new NPOV version of the controversies section, it seems IP is making noticeboard reports after it was clear that he would be unable to achieve is desired edits through consensus as consensus was that if these "stings" were to be included at all, they should be included very briefly along with criticism of them. I reiterate my willingness to discuss this issue on the article talk page and work towards an amicable solution that attains consensus. This is what I have been asking for all along on this article. With that said, I plan to make no further comment unless I am asked to. WikiManOne 05:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC) After it was clear I wouldn't? The page protection occurred less than a day after my proposed edits - no one had yet provided feedback of ANY kind on my proposed edits. Why in the world would I have thought the edits wouldn't be included, apart from the step of an administrator stepping in to remove all mention of controversies from the page? I would point out that there was discussion occurring on the page about the edits, and that it was you who then quietly removed the whole section again after a day of discussion, and less than an hour later, NuclearWar protected the page to preserve from change your removal of all mention of controversies. Planned Parenthood page history --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC) @IP: Around here there is an old rule that admins need not endorse the version they freeze, which IMHO is a weakness of the system, but it's the standard practice, and I should add that NuclearWarfare is generally evenhanded. If you can show talk-page consensus to NuclearWarfare, there is the possibility of the freeze lifting early. I now see that WikiManOne started the conversation by removing the whole section as if to hash it out on talk, but later edit-warred in favor of his version for that section instead of leaving it blank. I'll bring that up to NuclearWarfare as well myself. Incidentally, note spelling of ANI. JJB 06:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Alright... I didn't really object to the time period of the page block itself, as one day is a short period to wait, but given the horrible nature of the edit in question, the intervention of an admin to protect it was clearly abuse of power, which was what led me to bring this up here before it got out of hand. I.e., I was concerned what the intervention was foreshadowing, in terms of an admin stepping in to protect removal of controversies from the page contrary to any opposition from the Talk Discussion's members. Otherwise, I could have seen him stepping in to protect the page longer or reverting attempts afterward to renew the section after it had been removed in the claims of stopping an edit war, when it was WikiManOne who started the edit war by removing a section despite opposition on the talk page. I have no problem with letting the discussion on the talk page bear itself out, I mainly just was concerned that the administrative abuse would get out of hand. Also, have taken note of my typos, and will correct that in the future, thanks. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC) My response: Here is my account of what took place as I remember it right now, I might have missed some thing and some thing might be out of order,this is a rough outline. I noticed that a discussion had begun on the talk page, and I stated that I would WP:BEBOLD and work on an edit that day. I began a section asking for collaboration and created a bare-bones version of the Controversy section that would not provide undue weight, I then participated in discussions but due to real life had to take a break. When I returned, substantial edits have been made which certainly constituted undue weight. This "controversy" section consisted of roughly 2/5ths of the article and included references to supposed "racism" of the founder and others. Many of the "stings" mentioned were also, imo, undue-weight, many small issues by fringe anti-abortion groups were given their whole paragraph. From my reading of the talk page, it was clear that consensus was not on the side of including large paragraphs on each instance of an attack on planned parenthood and that the all the stings should be mentioned in a sentence or two. NuclearWarfare issued protection to the page without any involvement on my part. It was merely coincidental. Again, I do believe that more coverage of the "stings" may be appropriate, but this needs to be discussed on the talk page, as consensus clearly is not on the side of readding the paragraphs in mass. If the admin who addresses this issue would like any more comment from me on this issue, please ping me on my talk page, this page is not in my watch list. WikiManOne 06:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Well, thanks for your response here and at Talk:Planned Parenthood. That might be enough to keep you out of trouble another day. As you collaborate, keep in mind that your barebones version just might not be neutral. OTOH, replying to one user in many places is just part of multithreaded life to get used to. When it gets hot, it's better to not micromanage all conversations. JJB 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I also want to add, as I stated on the article talk page, I did not intend for my bare-bones version to be immediately added to the article, I meant it to be added to in the talk page and once consensus had been achieved to be added to the article. Unfortunately, some editors seemed to be of the view that this was not the case and readded the old controversy section that was riddled with problems. I then added my bare bones version which I thought would be preferable and which had more consensus behind it than the old version to the article. There were a number of reversions and at some point, Nuclear Warfare came in and protected the article. I might add more later but I have to write a 5 page essay for school, which is what brought this article to my attention yesterday anyway. WikiManOne 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC) First, let me say that I'll drop the case for now, with the understanding that consensus on a suitable section on controversies should be achieved via discussion on the talk page, rather than instituted by a single user and then page protected by an admin afterward. I wanted this brought up before it got out of hand, primarily, so the purpose has been achieved so long as talk page discussion will now be allowed to continue once more, my primary objective. Secondly, in response to WikiManOne, let me say that from point of view, I cited the Controversies & Criticisms section on a news article's comments, and then a few hours later, it disappeared from the Wikipedia page. Then on the Talk:Planned_Parenthood page, I see no prior discussion over the past month about recent changes, and suddenly a recent section is posted there by WikiManOne. I revert the recent change as vandalism, shocked that the whole section would be removed without prior attempts at consensus, and writing it off as vandalism given what is inherently a clearly inappropriate and objectionable edit. Just by looking at the page history for the Planned Parenthood page I could see the current controversies section had existed in its apparent current state for at least the past year, and thus wrote the change off as vandalism by a member with an agenda, and boldly reverted. I can't imagine what WikiManOne means when saying "When I returned, substantial edits have been made which certainly constituted undue weight" given that the section appeared to have existed for over a year, so his absence must have been long indeed. What I saw was a unilateral decision to remove all mention of the controversies from the page, coincidentally at the same time the first major news controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood had come up for some time. The timing was not coincidental, and one shouldn't just remove a long-time controversies section without discussion. I therefore expressed my displeasure on the talk page, perhaps with more annoyance than I should have - though I sought to remain as civil as I could without giving the edit more credit than it should get (I STILL think it very inappropriate and blatantly biased) - and sought to achieve consensus in changing the section to make the longtime controversies section conform to new demands on its length and sourcing. I even went to great lengths to write an in-depth proposed edit which drastically reduced the section's size, and rather than boldly editing, offered it up on the discussion page first. Nobody had responded yet when admin NuclearWar stepped in right after WikiManOne began an edit war with other users, as seen from the page history, that I didn't even know about at the time or participate in, and have just been noticing recently, to protect the page with its recent deletion of the longtime controversies section (the huge bulk of which had been on the page for over a year, maybe many years - I haven't checked how long exactly). The edit was inappropriate, the administrative intervention was inappropriate, and I won't apologize for bringing this up like I did, as I'm probably letting off the hook here those who will participate in future such incidents. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The bottom line is that A) a section containing information on controversies existed on the page for over a year, intact, without change. B) That section was removed without prior discussion. C) When that change was made, 2 members - myself included - complained on the talk page discussion, and I reverted. D) I proposed edits seeking to attain consensus to make the longtime section meet new requests for updating. E) The whole section was reverted to remove all mention of controversies again by WikiManOne a day later, who then had an edit war with another member (not myself) as seen on the page history. F) An admin stepped in to protect the removal of all mention of controversies. G) All of this occurs as Planned Parenthood undergoes a recent controversy in the news. All of this was gone to to prevent discussion on the talk page from reaching a consensus. It removed a section on controversies that had been intact over a year at the same time it's undergoing public notoriety. A user did not attempt to create a section with discussion agreement, simply used edit warring to protect a removal of all content related to controversies, and then an admin promptly protected their content-removing edit with a page block to prevent new changes. Now, interpret this however you will, but it doesn't look good. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) As a occasional editor of that article I think NuclearWarfare's protection of the page, while possessing unfortunate timing, was standard procedure for a flare up like that. No consensus has emerged on the talk page for the removal of that material and I'm sure as soon as the page protection wares off it will be re-added. If wikimanone continues to remove it it will be pretty clear cut vandalism. - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The protection policy is clear about this sort of this sort of thing: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus...When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons...Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute." I have no position in this content dispute. It is clear that there is no consensus either way whether or not to include this material or not. If there is consensus to include a particular wording of the section, please submit a request at WP:RFPP to unprotect the article. If you need assistance in attaining consensus, WP:3O and WP:RFC are useful first-choice options. Immediate reversions after the protection wears off without attaining consensus will be met by blocks. NW (Talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC) WP:POINTy move discussion at Talk:Pro-choice WikiManOne has now opened a move discussion at Talk:Pro-choice which he explicitly says that he does not even support. There's a common factor to all this disruption, and it needs to stop. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) That was in response to this: Oppose Unless you are going to propose to change "pro-choice" to something similar so that our "international" audience can understand it better. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Comment I think that should also be renamed (as this should be renamed), though to what is less obvious. abortion-access is a possibility. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)" But with that, I'm going to go work on my paper that I've been needing to work on... WikiManOne 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) It's pretty obvious that the user is on a crusade to bend those articles in the direction he wants. Crusaders are typically dealt with eventually. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think the proper admin action is sufficiently in focus now, and should be so for more than 31 hours. In addition, though, the admin should consider Talk:Planned Parenthood#Potentially gamed freeze, which concurs with the above, for whether the section should be blanked or the article unlocked. It also appears that I neglected a significant aspect: what I called the IP's preferred version appears to me now to be the longtime stable version, while what I called WikiManOne's preferred version appears to be a newly thrown-together apologetic, suggesting that the IP's version was much more neutral than I thought. Neutral admin, please don't let the news cycle permit system-gamed nonneutrality to continue much longer. JJB 08:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I back JJB's view of the planned parenthood quagmire. - Haymaker (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I would advice Wikiman to peruse WP:ACTIVISM, for a good analysis on why this kind of behavior is unacceptable.--  Novus  Orator  08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh, so now I'm the one introducing bias to the article? Please note that clear consensus existed that this material should not be in the article in its previous form. This appears to be a hoard of anti-choice crusaders who are aghast that someone with (horrors!) a pro-choice bias would be so bold as to question the undue weight they placed on criticism of PP. Please look at the information I removed and be so kind as to specify how this is this discussion on racism and eugenics with dubious sources is appropriate? [89] Now if you will excuse me, I have a paper to work on tomorrow and some sleep to get in the meantime. While you're at it, please specify exactly which wikipedia policy or guideline I violated in my edits? When a unbiased administrator chooses to look at the facts of the case, I will be happy to answer any questions he might have. WikiManOne 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I looked at the section in question and the "sting operations" section probably dwells more than as needed on the details of each incident, but the removal of that and the removal of the well-sourced and not overly-wordy "legal troubles" section seems excessive. A possible solution if you perceive a problem of the controversy section being too large relative to the size of the article is, instead of removing good content, to add more content. Instead of having a separate controversy section, you could write about the history of Planned Parenthood and work the various incidents in at their appropriate spot in the narrative. --B (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) WP:BATTLEGROUND "Wikipedia is not a place to ... carry on ideological battles." There will always be such battles here, but do we really have to waste everyone's time with the unbearably obvious ones? Get it together people.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Whack! On that note, can we close this discussion? There's no admin action required here. --B (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Indeed old Pro-Life/Pro-death and Pro-Choice/Pro-totalitarianism-Pro-Theocracy discussion is Drama inducing WP:POINT violations The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Disagree with B per my last just above, this calls for something with a few more troutpower than just one. JJB 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) You tell me exactly what it is that you want an administrator to do. The Planned Parenthood page will unprotect itself in a few hours, taking care of that problem. If an uninvolved admin wants to close the pro-choice thing, they can, but the reality of it is that the page obviously is not going to be renamed. No legitimate encyclopedia would even have this debate - it's patently silly. But plenty of the debates on Wikipedia are patently silly, so that's nothing new. --B (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Could ClueBot, have a glitch?

The ClueBot just bit a newcomer by reverting this edit by a new user and placed a warning on the user's talk page. Perhaps not the best edit in the world, but clearly not in the realm of vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment: Can I point you in the direction of User:ClueBot/FalsePositives? The coders of ClueBot will take the revision and code the bot better. In fact, I don't think there's anything the admins can do. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. Just trying to give everyone a heads up. I've never seen the bot do that before.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's set to make a low level of false positives so it can be as effective as possible in reverting vandalism. I think it's currently configured to make 1 mistake every 4000 reverts, or something like that. If you see any, do report them to help make it even better :) [stwalkerster|talk] 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to drop a warning

George1918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits to Talk:Homeopathy are starting to become a significant nuisance. In particular, he keeps trying to push the same point against consensus, see objections raised to his poll and his latest comment "Do you want to ban me because I concur with user Jimbo wales (...) stop all the tricks to try to ban editors you disagree with from the discussion. In other words request for some dignity and honesty. (...)". It's starting to be disruptive.

Please, could an uninvolved admin go to User_talk:George1918 and drop him a link to Homeopathy's discretionary sanctions? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ankara

Edit wars going on in Ankara. Including sockpuppets. Thanks.MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I need a second opinion on my actions concerning a block since its been a while since I've done one. The user blocked is Nickcreevy (talk · contribs), and while my specific concern here is whether I screwed up on the duration of the block I would feel better about this block if someone could check and make sure that duration and the notification were all done according to policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. You did write "CIO" instead of "COI" a couple times. Grandmasterka 09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! :) But seriously, thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of converting some of your points to wikilinks. I think the first block was a little quick on the trigger (not yours), and may have contributed to a negative reaction by the editor. While I do see a lot of problems, he is brand-new, and is not like to realize what WP:BIO means, and without a wikilink, might not know where to look.--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Marta11

Marta11 (talk · contribs) is persistently reposting material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. I suggest a permanent ban. --bender235 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient disruptive activity, unless you're accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet of one of the earlier ones. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemike indefinite block of User:Smuconlaw

The account has been unblocked, so there isn't much else to do here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All right. Smuconlaw (talk · contribs) was an account apparently used by a professor of law at Singapore Management University under which he gave his students assignments on Wikipedia and worked with them to improve and create some much needed high-quality Singapore-related articles. About an hour ago, Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), without any prior discussion here or with the user, made the sudden decision to block the account as a group account and deleted the user's userpage as advertising. Having previously reviewed Smuconlaw's submissions at DYK I think this is a total over-reaction without finding out any hard facts and we are potentially losing a very, very useful contributor here. I am astounded by this and call for a further review. Not being an admin I can't see the userpage so I can't tell if it was truly G11-able, so I'll defer on that, but the indefinite block is harsh imo. Orangemike is aware of this ANI thread. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The userpage was being used as a syllabus for a class, and as a way for the class to interact on Wikipedia. Even if it's permittable under a strict reading of G11, it was a pretty inappropriate use of a userpage. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Since I was discussing this with Orangemike on his talkpage, I'll chime in here and say that I too am opposed to the block. I think that the problem is a mismatch between the terminology used on the userpage, which makes Orangemike think this is a role account as opposed to an alternate account used for an educational project. The contents of the userpage were in my opinion within the bounds of what I'd expect on the page for an educational project, and I'm certainly no softie on advertising pages. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I've restored the userpage, as it clearly wasn't promotion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC) And Smuconlaw is listed on Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#School of Law.2C Singapore Management University: Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project .28ongoing.3B started January 2010.29, so its not like the account was trying to hide under the radar. Syrthiss (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Right. If it's been there for over a year and nobody's objected before now, I don't think there's an issue -- it's certainly a lot easier to point students at User:Smuconlaw than Wikipedia:School and university projects/SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. If I see an unblock request for the professor, I'll unblock at that time, unless OrangeMike undoes it first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) If it's a bad block he shouldn't be made to beg for an unblock, he should be unblocked with an apology.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I don't want to make him beg, I just want to find out what he wants to do before doing it. He might decide that reorganizing the project is better.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) AGF much? Or maybe we should just block all editors until they can prove they should be unblocked. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC) How would a continued block be preventing disruption of the pedia? Couldn't that discussion take place post unblock?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC) We should be commending this user's efforts to bring Wikipedia into the classroom, not blocking him for it. <spam>WP:Ambassador</spam> /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Unblock immediately. Absolutely ridiculous block. -Atmoz (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Yet another ridiculous block. It's about time the block button was removed from most administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Concur, ridiculous. Unblock, apologise, and suggest an introduction to Wikipedia:Ambassadors, some editors who actually like having academics on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC) So: I was to ignore the existence of what was clearly and openly declared to be a role account? I don't pretend to be infallible, but I am a trifle disturbed at the hostility I'm getting for (from everybody but Syrthiss) doing what I perceived to be the right thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Hey, I'm not being hostile. I just don't see what you saw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) This is an unfortunate example of WP:CREEP in action, and the prime opportunity to have applied IAR. This looks to be an active and well managed syllabus contributing correct content to the Wiki. At least the first step would be discussion to clarify the account usage! --Errant (chat!) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC) If percieved hostility makes you upset, just imagine how you'd feel if you'd been indef blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, the reaction here seems to be oddly divergent from what I thought was established policy. m:Role account seems to make it pretty clear that the only role accounts authorized are for WMF functions and that others are to be blocked, regardless of how useful they are. If the account is being used exclusively by that one professor, then he needs to make that clear and not leave it up to the imagination. --B (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC) No. Unless there is strong evidence that the account is shared, we should assume that the account corresponds to policy. I don't state that my account is used exclusively by one person (hey, there are plenty of Stephan Schulz out there). And in fact, your account suggests that its shared by all people whose name starts with "B" (Blair, Bush, Bugatti, Becquerel...;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) A role account is defined as an account shared by multiple people. I see no evidence that anyone but the professor has access to the account. Sorry, but this is a hasty and mistaken block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC) According to the page itself, it belongs to " the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I don't see "belongs" there, I see a welcome message. On the other hand, I do see that the account is "managed by Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee", which to me clearly seems to be an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Schulz (talk • contribs) Probably because, in case you didn't realise, the userpage is being used as the main project page for the assignments (the link Syrthiss provided above redirects to the userpage). It doesn't mean that the user is the entire project's participants. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Where does it say this? Perhaps since you can't read you should step down as an administrator. -Atmoz (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Oh come on. What's with the recent push for everyone to yell for resignation for any admin that gets mentioned here? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Because there is nothing on that page that indicates that more than one person uses it. Because OrangeMike suggested otherwise, I doubt his cognitive abilities to use the administrative tools. -Atmoz (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) And based on your performance here, I'm doubting your cognitive abilities to read WP:NPA. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Ermmm... The first sentence of the userpage in question? (I'll ignore the gratuitous insult.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) No. If you think that, you're too dumb to even try to edit an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Mike, there was no evidence of bad faith and ample evidence of good contributions, yet you chose the "block first, talk later" approach. Why? DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) "Welcome to the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project, managed by Assistant Professor Jack Tsen-Ta Lee of the School of Law, Singapore Management University." That's the first sentence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) - note - the account has been unblocked by user Orangemike - Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) I have informed the editor of the unblock, as no-one else could be bothered to. DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC) (ec)Mike, "not blocking" is not the same as "ignoring". I know many admins feel the only response ever available to them for anything is to block, but I would like to inform you that you can actually try talking to editors with whom you perceive a problem. It would certainly have been much more appropriate than blocking in this case. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC) As per HelloAnnyong's comment, the administrators here do a good job and its not easy and we are all human and unless there is a pattern of abuse of the tools, which this clearly isn't then rather than being upset because of a single unsupported action, we should be thanking the contributor for the other thousand uncontested actions. Orangemike has unblocked and there is nothing left to see here. 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) (edit conflict) Concur that some gentle discussion should have happened before considering a block. Plus, a hard block for a possible group account? Also not the greatest idea. But everyone's unblocked and maybe someone can have that gentle discussion now if it really seems necessary (which I don't think it does). Recommend wrapping this up. Wknight94 talk 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Agree that it's time to close and move on. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Not time to close. Mike was way out of line, and if he had bothered to ask he would have been shewn this previous discussion. Very poor behaviour by him. DuncanHill (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Hello. I'm coming late to this discussion and it's already moot, but I should just point out that I'm surprised that this issue has come up again. It first arose when I ran the project for the first time in 2010, and at that time I confirmed that I am the only person using this account: see "User talk:Smuconlaw/2010 archive#Group username" (as DuncanHill has pointed out). Also, note that the project instructions at "User:Smuconlaw" specifically require all students to register their own usernames. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Prof. Lee, at the time of the initial discussion, User:DriftyDoor suggested "maybe you could add a note to your userpage indicating the fact that this account is run by a single person, to avoid being perceived as a group account?" and you said you had done so. The language which tripped my alarms, and led to the block, was the first sentence, which clearly states that this page is the Project's page, and that you were merely managing it. I regret the entire misunderstanding, but would earnestly plead that you change the first sentence's wording to something much less ambiguous, so that no such unfortunate incidents could take place in the future. Please be aware that we deal on a daily basis with a number of "projects", "teams" and the like whose purpose in Wikipedia is to publicize their institution, company or agenda; and that as a result we administrators can become somewhat jaundiced towards anything that looks like a possible violation of the role account prohibitions. I hope we can put this all behind us now, leaving me properly scolded, and go on about our mutual project of improving Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590#User:Smuconlaw, where this was discussed in October. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC) @Smuconlaw, Yes, I'd say this was just a poor decision on multiple levels. Please accept our apologies and pretend this didn't happen. Consider OrangeMike slapped. As you were... Wknight94 talk 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Well, its easy done to action something in good faith that has without your knowledge been previously discussed, the user self reverted asap, which is very clearly strongly in his favor - anyways, in preference to - this is less heat than light I think closure of this thread will archive is beneficial. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Recommend Close Thread : Too much drama. Per HelloAnnyong & Off2riorob's comments mistakes occasionally happen. No need for torches and pitchforks. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarrely heated external link discussion in need of cooler heads

Can a few folks please look into this discussion at the External Links noticeboard and the parties involved? It seems to be the latest in a running battle between a few different editors and it's really getting out of hand if you look into the different interactions they're having there and elsewhere. This particular interaction seem notable to me but it would be good to have others look into this and help cool things down, perhaps with some wise words, warnings, or more drastic action. ElKevbo (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

twinkle back

Admin sarekofvulcan said i could have my twinkle back after a week and a half. Its been 2 weeks now and so i would like it back. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The diff you gave says no such thing. --B (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the diff you gave said that a week and a half isn't long enough. Kansan (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone65, your eagerness leads me to believe that not having Twinkle access for another, oh, four months, might not be a bad thing for you and the project. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood then. She did not give a time limit on my talk page besides a while, and later give that time scale. Someone65 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved bystander here, but this reminds me of back when I was a kid on Christmas morning, trying to wake my parents so we can open presents. Dad would sleepily say "Later...," and I would wait all of about thirty seconds before I tried to wake them again, saying "It's later!" I think what's being said here is that the amount of time served isn't the issue, but the amount of improvement of your editing. -- RoninBK _{T C} 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need Admin Opinions

Colleenwolfe (talk · contribs) has been adding 2010 population stats from a "Weldon Cooper Center" (found at http://www.coopercenter.org coopercenter.org]) to several Virginia town and city articles. I have never heard of this "Weldon Cooper Center" and generally population stats come directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, which will release their stats between now and April (depending on the size of the town). Should the stats going to the "Weldon Cooper Center" be reverted per AGF as an unreliable source or what? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)