Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Sol Goldstone and User:Mbz1

Hi all. I'm posting this here for more eyes on a somewhat long-term issue. Tonight, RussianLoveBoat (talk · contribs) made an edit here (now suppressed) which linked to an off-wiki image containing both the RL name of User:Mbz1 along with messages alleged to be obtained from her gmail account. This was reported to Oversight by another editor (ticket:2011022710001736, oversight queue) and I ran the case. On checking the clear SPA account, I discovered that the account was hiding behind a South-African proxy, now blocked. (Un-)fortunately, the proxy wasn't as anonymizing as was thought and the underlying IP was traced back to Sol Goldstone (talk · contribs). I'm calling that  Confirmed, per checkuser. I blocked this 'retired' account for a month but am now bringing it to the attention of the community for discussion and further action, if needed. It was pretty egregious abuse, and on a number of levels. Hiding behind a proxy and a throwaway account to post email allegedly taken from someone's email account is pretty messed up - Alison ^❤ 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Novel, someone gets blocked for outing? I thought wikipedia didn't care when attempted outing occurred anymore, or at least didn't care enough to issue any blocks over it... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, WIkipedia cared about abuse of multiple accounts. That work for you? - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, if this is indeed confirmed, this should be grounds for an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if someone has hacked an account, or are socking...then, by all means, block them. What I do NOT agree with, though, is blocking someone for "outing" the RL name of User:Mbz1...she "outs" it herself. Look at User:Mbz1, and the pictures she has uploaded to commons. Srsly, you cannot name your RL-name as an "author"...and then complain about "outing"!! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Huldra that it is not hard to find the RL info, there have been long threads on user talk pages about this issue. It is clearly way out of hand. "Last I checked, WIkipedia cared about abuse of multiple accounts. That work for you?" said it pretty well. In addition, the editors are in disputes in the I-P topic area (strict sanctions can be applied) and there was a complete lack of decorum. Some of the long discussions and possible manipulation related to this issue are shocking. I cannot see how an indef is not a great answer and do not see how there could be any defense of the behavior unless we are encouraging manipulation in an area currently seen at arbitration enforcement too often.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agrees with Cptnono about indeffing. It continues to amaze me how Wikipedia can tolerate bad behaviour of this kind. Editors get blocked a month or two and then they're back doing the same thing all over again. This is especially true for editors engaged with Israel-Palestine related articles. One strike-and-you're out is the way to go. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments above, I've changed the block of User:Sol Goldstone to an indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm broadly in agreement with what you're saying re. the RL name, Huldra; that cat left the bag some time ago. What I do take issue with, though, is the socking and proxy use to post private emails; that was just underhanded and sneaky in the extreme. WP:SOCK more than covers that - Alison ^❤ 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• For a slightly deeper peek at how duplicitous and troubling Sol Goldstone's behavior has been here, with the above as background, look at this recent revealing exchange between him and his target, and this discussion on Jimbo's talkpage. This incident has it all -- phishing; illegally posting as the internet provider to obtain a wikipedia editor's password; illegally breaking into, viewing, and distributing their private emails. I can't imagine how many rules have been violated. Let alone laws. This isn't just a normal wiki-issue; these are very severe infractions, that raise questions of serious violations of law.

I would urge one of the sysops here (Alison, perhaps?) to, as Jimbo suggested, "write to Danese Cooper, the CTO, with full details and evidence. [Jimbo would] appreciate seeing that as well, preferably by email, so that if there is any aspect of it that would allow the culprit to cover his or her tracks, we not tip our hand." BTW, do we have a super-duper-permanent block category? If so, I think I have someone I would like to nominate.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAN perhaps? N419BH 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support a ban. This behavior is outrageous, especially the flourishes identified by Epeefleche oops, I meant Cptnono. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alison, if policy allows it, please retain any available checkuser data for possible later use by IC3. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Community ban on Sol Goldstone?

Resolved

 – ban enacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting Epeefleche's comment about a "super-duper-permanent block" as support for a ban, I'll third his suggestion (Malik has already seconded it). The evidence he and Alison have brought forth is very damning, and so is this thread on PhilKnight's talk. While Mbz1 had already disclosed her real name by the time the RussianLoveBoat issue was raised, it's the thought that counts, and Sol was obviously intent on outing Mbz1. Even one such incident is unacceptable; keeping it up for two whole months is intolerable to the highest degree.

I understand if no admin would unblock Sol after this, and I do hope that's the case – so if there's no reason to go beyond a de facto ban, then so be it. Bear in mind, however, that this is an editor who, for an extended period of time, engaged in malicious harassment/stalking of Mbz1 by hacking her e-mails, falsifying an e-mail to her from ArbCom, making deliberate and egregious attempts to invade her privacy, and using lies and open proxies to cover up his own tracks. I wish Mbz1 the best in all this, and Alison has my utmost thanks for bringing this to ANI's attention.

We've banned for less than this. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll...fourth?...the call for an application of the banhammer on the basis of the evidence that's been presented here. And I'll add a Facepalm for the fact that some people have so little life they'll do things like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• And how! Some things are just beyond the pale, including any one of the actions identified. All combined? Definitely ban-worthy. --Danger (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone notified. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. A person who engages in activities like this should not be participating in a collaborative project.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Sol's harassment of Mbz1 and proxy-sneakery are ban-worthy, whether he was the original email hacker or (as he claimed) somebody who got sent the hacked emails. I have sometimes disagreed with Mbz1 but arguing about articles is one thing, what Sol did went way way beyond that. betsythedevine (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Dylan interpreted my comment correctly.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I also support and as there are clearly not objections I have added the template banned to the users page and added him to the Wikipedia:List of banned users#S - user S there Sol Goldstein banned . Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry Rob, but even though a ban is a foregone conclusion at this point, two hours just isn't enough time for substantial discussion. 48 hours is preferred instead. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 02:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I think in a case as blatantly egregious as this there's no need to wait for 48 hours to pass. What this person did is flat out illegal. N419BH 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I've reverted this closure by Dylan620. Whatever the merits of this proposal, we cannot ban someone in a three hour discussion. WP:BAN is crystal clear, this discussion should remain open at least 24 hours, with 48 being preferable. Also, the language of the policy requires an administrator to close the discussion. Courcelles 06:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. This type of activity simply cannot be tolerated. 28bytes (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. "Sol Goldstone"'s actions make it impossible to AGF if he/she ever returns asking for the right to edit. His/her actions have already caused enough damage and harm to WP, its editors, and its readers. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. We can't possibly trust someone who is morally capable of this kind of action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. There appears to be solid evidence of very serious, and potentially criminal, misconduct here so a ban is fully warranted. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Editor is unconstructive. TFD (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - though I try to find reasons to oppose draconian measures, this one seems, if anything, a tad prudent. Collect (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - Presuming Sol is guilty as charged of hacking, socking, & outing, a "super ban" seems appropriate. WP should not be a forum for personal vendettas. Frankly, the hacking alone is really the most outrageous offense. Any editor who hacks another's e-mail account b/c of content disputes on WP should immediately & permanently be banned. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous presumption, since the apparent victim of the hacking is "99.99% sure" that Sol Goldstone was not responsible for it. However, to quote Alison, since few here seem aware of the discussion on her talk page, "I'm reluctant to pin the specific act of hacking on the person behind the accounts now blocked. We don't know that at all. I can certainly stand over the charges of socking, proxy use and posting links to the emails which is certainly egregious enough behaviour." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous perhaps. I'm putting faith in other's assessments, which I acknowledge, could be wrong; however, it's probably worth noting that Sol hasn't come forward to profess his innocence (not that silence should be taken as guilt). If Sol denies the offense, I'll dig a little deeper into the evidence. Until then, I stick by my earlier statement. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is dangerous -- because the phisher here is subject to incarceration. Phishing itself (let alone the other offenses) attracts a 10-year prison sentence, for example, in the UK. At the same time, I see Nick's implicit point that "Sol" has done much to make clear to us that he is quite capable of lying. And he has demonstrated that he is capable of using his systems knowledge (such as it is) and absence of morality to further the same goals that it would appear the phisher had.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Epeefleche - Two quick points - 1) re "clear to us that he is quite capable of lying" - I think you may be reading a bit to much into my comments. 2) re " because the phisher here is subject to incarceration" - I realize WP:NLT may not exactly technically apply here, but I think its spirit does. Talking about "incarceration" is poor taste. If there is some legal issue here, it's between Mbz1 and the hacker. WP shouldn't be a forum for discussing it. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Nick--Apologies for reading too much into your comments. Still, while that is not what you intended to highlight, he did in fact demonstrate that he was quite able at lying. As to your second point, you are correct -- NLT has zero bearing. Furthermore, it is quite relevant to editors that those who resort to phishing are subject not only to wp "punishments", but to incarceration.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Epee - I see the cooperative & diplomatic mentality that resulted from your last tango with AE has worn off..... pity... back to battlegrounding I guess. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Other than (as Sol was wont) you seem to be trying to bait me. As the baiting is veering far off-topic, and does not IMHO warrant a response, I'll respectfully decline.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "bait" you Epee. Though thanks for WP:AFG. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think you're trying v. hard to be constructive. Regardless, my best to you, NickCT (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - no doubt. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC).
  
• See also Jimbo's comment on the proposed ban, in which he wrote: "Sounds like a no-brainer to me".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• What Alison said, the socking and proxying, moreover in a sanctioned topic area, was more than enough to stir this ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest by an admin

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

SchuminWeb has a long and checkered past with the Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray websites. He should not be involved in nominating nor arguing for their deletion. He posted and was posted about voluminously on both sites. Cundallini (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack. GiantSnowman 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moo? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacas escritoras? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's My Cow? HalfShadow 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Who are you people and where's my horse?". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No Wife, No Horse, No Moustache. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I've been seduced by the duck side of the farce. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What also floats in water? A duck! Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BIGDUCK LiteralKa (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How a user with a total of 2 edits would know about someone's "long and checkered past" is hard to say. Cundallini, meanwhile, had a short and checkmated present. Ironically, Cundallini is an old Italian word meaning "Boomerang". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-read Cundallini's post. He says SW had a long and chequered past on those websites. Many WP editors use their WP handles elsewhere (I do this myself) - so it's not unreasonable for a "noob" to know about it - esp if SW posted on them "Hey I'm getting your WP pages deleted!" Sure doesn't sound like SW, but I think your reaction a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm inclined to unblock here. This user is not a sock of anyone but rather another person who came from the Old Man Murray site as a part of the current AFD dramafest currently going on. I don't think we have AGF'd very well here; moreover, if the user is intent on being disruptive, then let him get blocked on that instead of on a spurious claim of socking. –MuZemike 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed my previous comment due to the new evidence provided below. This is good block. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by all this. The above user has apparently been ridiculed by 10 experienced users some of whom are administrators. I assumed they knew something the rest of us didn't (or at least I didn't) and didn't pay much attention when I first saw it. But if these latter posts are correct (I have no clue one way or other) then I'm appalled. Either way, could one of the admins who posted above give an explanation of this lack of AGF and whether it's justified. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is an external website whose members have had a years-long habit of harassing SchuminWeb in all sorts of venues. There have been postings like the above trying to incriminate Schumin here on ANI periodically for several weeks. Once you've seen the pattern it's quite obvious that this posting was part of the same campaign. Besides, Cundallini (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-confirmed to be a sock of some sorts; see latest messages on his user talk by CU Tiptoety. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - relieved to hear it. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Been reading through the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination) out of sheer nosiness, and I found it interesting that User:Kade miraculously rose from the dead after 4 years of inactivity after several blocks for PAs and harassment, only to be indeffed for PAs and harassment. I am dying to know whom this User:Kade is a sock of. What otherwise law-abiding Wikipedian has such an evil puppet? --64.85.220.182 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to have someone to compare it to before the CU's will go fishing for you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Talk:September 11 attacks

The main combatants, as you can see are user:Vexorg and user:Soxwon. Seeing the edit warring I warned them both about the discretionary sanctions involved and edit warring. [1][2]. Now they are both posting on my talk page defending their actions. As I wrote this Soxwon posted a comment indicating they may take a break from the subject, but input on whether Vexorg's comments should be allowed to stand or if they violate WP:FORUM is still sought. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I should probably mention HalfShadow (talk · contribs) as involved user as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Only in an extremely technical manner; I reverted it once. And the comment really didn't have any place there; it was just him complaining about the article: "Censorship!" this, "Political bias!" that, etcetera... HalfShadow 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the "piss off" was out of order and it won't happen again. However, I stand by my statement that his statement was clearly just a general Truther complaint about some massive conspiracy with no intention of helping. In that case, I felt WP:FORUM applied. I have gotten too wrapped up in that talkpage anyways, and I'll probably take a wikibreak (well, massively downgrade activity) this week. Soxwon (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For making yet another revert after blanking Beeblebrox's warning, I have blocked Vexorg for 72 hours, and placed him on revert restriction over the 9/11 topic for half a year. I have not sanctioned Soxwon, but someone else may choose to do so. Courcelles 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that he is lucky not be blocked as well after all those reverts and his own admission of already being well aware of the sanctions, I think an identical restriction is in order. 1RR for six months, I believe it was? Please understand Sox, edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. Even if a clear, overwhelming consensus emerges that this content did not belong on that talk page, it was still not acceptable to revert so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not my business what you may decide to do in the case of Soxwon, but in his defense, it's not like he was actually reverting a legitimate post, it was just some guy complaining, which isn't what talk pages are for. Isn't there some sort of loophole for that sort of thing? HalfShadow 04:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is 1RR for six months that I put Vexorg on. I didn't sanction Soxwon because he didn't continue this trainwreck after a formal notification of the sanctions was delivered, given the "despite being warned" clause of the Arb decision. I don't, and didn't mean to sound as if I did, endorse the way Soxwon handled this situation, if anyone wants to sanction him for his part in this mess, you won't get an objection from me. Courcelles 04:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

HalfShadow, no there is absolutely not a loophole that allows edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia except in cases of blatant vandalism, which nobody has even claimed this was. I would like to see some input from uninvolved users on the appropriateness of the remarks and if they were germane to the talk page on which they were posted, but it doesn't matter as regards the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, the remarks in question do not follow the guidance of WP:TALK, in my opinion.[3] They lack the prime values of "courtesy and consideration" of talk page communication. I judge them more likely to provoke or offend than to further a discussion leading to an improvement to the article. The same guideline goes on to say that it is appropriate to remove "harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Often such posts are best handled by reminding the editor of the relevant guidance from WP:TALK. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Courcelles, I think sanctions for Soxwon are in order, and should be discussed. This recent diff [4] in which he sort of apologizes for his bullying at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, illustrates his mindset. In my view he sees himself as a crusader against "Truthers", and it his mission to squelch them on Wikipedia. I'd like serious consideration be given to sanctions on 9-11 articles, given that his talk page features a user box that calls the "9-11 Truth Movenment" "bullshit". Such a person openly advertises they are not at all neutral on a given topic. I am unimpressed by his stated intent to "massively downgrade activity" for one week. (Full disclosure: Soxwon and I have a history from a couple years back, but with the exception of my comment earlier this month, I have stayed away from further confrontation. However, this ANI discussion is too "in my face" to ignore.) Jusdafax 06:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* And once again, Jusdafax accuses me of bias for being forthcoming with my opinions within my userspace. As previously stated, User:Jusdafax and I have a history. He/She also clearly failed to read the discussion at all, or he/she would have noticed I was arguing in favor of including truther content and I am not trying to "squelch them on Wikipedia." Again Jusdafax, just b/c I'm open and don't act as if I don't have an opinion one way or another doesn't mean I can't be neutral. Also, my downgrade in activity will be the result of real life, so you can rest assured that, save for tonight, I won't be on much this week. Soxwon (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh? So what if he thinks what the truthers say is bullshit? It is. Is there such a thing as being biased in favor of sanity? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I read this right? An editor repeatedly posts material on an article talk page which does not, on its face, have anything to say more than he does not like the article, and proffers nothing to improve the article? Seems to me that "misuse of an article talk page" is involved, and not "edit war." Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal seems applicable. As does Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. Frankly, too many talk pages are ruled by people who post long screeds saying "this topic does not exist" and the like - which does not actually further the project. Collect (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. We generally do not allow edit warring regardless of the underlying reasons for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted his comments, because they do not belong. I don't believe this fits within the above edit warring, but I wanted to comment about it here. The comments in question do not belong, do not help the article at all, and is simply soap-boxing. That is enough for me to consider it vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the remarks do belong, but labeling them as vandalism is just plain wrong. Vandalism is editing done with the clear and obvious intent to damage Wikipedia. Making off topic or useless comments on talk pages is not helpful but there is no clear intent to damage the project. If we have a consensus to remove the comments that's fine, but they were not vandalism by Wikipedia's long-accepted definition, and therefore not exempt from the edit warring policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break..the {{notaforum}} banner has been at the top of that talkpage for a long time...if "editors" are posting there just to promote conspiracy theories or to disrupt true efforts to make the article better, then such posts should be removed on sight as disruptive material...the reason that article has 50 plus archive pages is due to the "truthers" efforts to promote nonsense over facts...and little in those archives has done anything to make the article better....its mostly been the sane telling the truthers to get lost....I mean, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge afterall, not some place where conspiracy theorists can try to override the known evidence with fantasy and delusions.--MONGO 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a different take. If you aren't helping the project, you are either not participating(Which is not vandalism), or you are participating in a way that is not helping the project(Vandalism). His comments were inflammatory, did not cite one source, and did not present any benefit to the article. That's vandalism. --Tarage (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarage, I watched (at least part) of this drama unfold and tried to politely warn both Vexorg and Soxwon that they were breaking the 3RR and would likely get smacked for it. Both deleted the Talk page entries I added, which—while a bit dodgy—is their right and I wasn't going to say anything about it 'cause far smarter folks than I are handling the situation.

However, as annoying as are incivility and hateful speech, mischaracterization and abuse of process for the sake of expedience is far worse. I believe your assertion that these two are "vandals" is unfair; the evidence does not support the accusation. The Wikipedia definition of vandalism states, very clearly:

Edit warring over content is not vandalism.

Were it up to me, I'd block edit-warring parties for several weeks but it would be for "lack of judgment" and "unwillingness to follow the rules", NOT "vandalism". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You missunderstand. I don't believe edit warring is vandalism. I am claiming that Vexorg's post was vandalism, and Soxwon was reverting vandalism. I was saying he should not be punished in any way, shape, or form. --Tarage (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely someone who can't even understand the correct definition of 'vandalism' is not a particularly valued editor. Of course my comments were distasteful to some. Especially the "warrior against truthers" who was edit warring with me. And it certainly wasn't violating WP:FORUM - Please actually read WP:FORUM Vexorg (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why user:Soxwon should be blocked or sanctioned at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What some of you folks are proposing is directly contradictory to several well established policies. Again, I am fine with the idea that the remarks ultimately were unhelpful and did not belong on the talk page, but it manifestly did not meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, and we block users who violate the edit warring policy. If you don't agree with those two policies then lobby to have them changed. Administrators are generally not permitted to make up new policies on the spot, that's the kind of thing that gets our tools yanked. So, I followed what the wider community, not just the warriors on 9/11 pages, have decided are our policies. If you don't like that take it up with them. The only issue I feel needed to be discussed here was if the remarks should ultimately be removed, and it seems we have a consensus that in the end they should be. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends if V's edits were "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - and it does seem a stretch. However we can assume Sox has understood "Don't edit-war even if you think you are right" so no sanctions are needed. Sanctions should be avoided whenever possible, they foster ill feeling, and complicate matters. Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I do not see any reason to sanction Soxwon. He was warned of edit-warring and stopped. TFD (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox...you seem to think that talkpages have another purpose than as a place where contributors can coordinate efforts to make an article better. I don't know how long you've been watching that particular talkpage, but I assure you, if we kept all the rants and ravings of the truthers or similar there, there would probably be 100 archives by now instead of just over 50....as it says near the top of the page and as arbcom has stated, the talkpage is not a forum....--MONGO 00:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:FORUM Vexorg (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mindbunny - disruptive editing on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I’ve been trying to reach agreement with User:Mindbunny on a content dispute in Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and have found Mindbunny to be confrontational, unwilling to discuss meaningfully, as well as issues of WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and generally disruptive editing, underpinned by a POV. In a sense, the content issue is not that significant, but I am concerned enough to bring it here because I believe this user has driven other editors away from this article in order to keep control of it e.g. please see this and especially this posted by another editor. Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring here here here here here here here and here. An opposing editor posted these on Mindbunny’s talk page, gave up and has not edited the article since. The Mindbunny account has only been in existence since 1 December 2010. There is a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of User:Noloop who supposedly retired last November – another editor has begun an SPI on that (see here, the result is not yet known. Noloop largely created the article as it now is and was under scrutiny for disruptive behaviour (see also this revert of Noloop's Talk page) – that’s covered in the diffs in the SPI report. (Incidently, 5 editors in total have expressed the opnion that Mindbunny is a sock - see SPI diff plus this

On the specific issue of my current content dispute with Mindbunny, the summary is as follows. I introduced this edit at the beginning of Feb., which Mindbunny reverted. I couldn’t get Mindbunny to discuss this meaningfully and regretfully I got into an edit war. I admit I was at fault on this as well but it was out of frustration in Mindbunny’s lack of proper response. I reported it to AN/3RR (here. This was how far I got on the Talk page with the user at the time I reported it. Mindbunny was blocked and then unblocked in part because I was not sanctioned (the reviewing admin thought I was at fault as well.) After this Mindbunny posted a proper response to my edit on Talk, I responded by radically changing my edit here (with Talk comment) on 8 February. Actually it was a completely different edit albeit with te same underlying point. The article was edited by about 10 editors over the next two weeks including one editor who made some minor changes to the text I added and Mindbunny herself who edited other text in the section it was in on 21st February. None (including Mindbunny) removed the text or commented adversely on it. To me (and maybe I’m wrong on this) this indicates consensus acceptance of the text. Then on 22 February (the day after the SPI on Mindbunny began, to which I posted a comment on the 21st) Mindbunny removed the text. After two reverts, and an exchange on the Talk page I proposed that we get a WP:Thirdopinion here, but there has been no response despite asking a second time. I believe that the reason for Mindbunny’s latest reverts is (a) because I supported the SPI (the timing indicates that) and (b) it is contrary to Mindbunny’s strong POV on this subject. The original edit and this edit are completely different texts but with a similar underlying point. This point is valid and would provide the article with some balancing NPOV – it would appear that Mindbunny objects to that. Mindbunny's edits (as with Noloop) are generally along the lines of being overtly hostile to the Saudi treatment of women. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no sympathy with the Saudi position, but there is a question of maintaining NPOV credibility. I've informed Mindbunny of this post. DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, on February 7, the user was not blocked (or, rather, the blocking admin quickly reversed their block), because at that point in time (February 7), they had not been given {{uw-3rr}} or some other warning making them aware of that policy. Since that time, Mindbunny's edits have contained very little other than edit warring and some fundamental misunderstandings of policy (eg "undo violation of BRD by Decausa" - what does that even mean?). I support something being done here. --B (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Mindbunny has adopted a similar approach on Lara Logan - see this. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Entertaining to see so much edit-warring by those complaining of edit warring. The link above is a threat by Eriklectic to start edit-warring, complete with a time and date: "I will be reverting the Lara Logan edits by 10am EST tomorrow". This, on a page that has been protected for much of the last week. B, who "supports something being done here" has chosen to do it by reverting my revert on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. His comments on the Talk page? Nonexistent. His edit summary? Nothing to do with content. That's a great way to diminish edit warring! As for Decausa, the actual sequence was that he plopped an enormous list down into the article, saying he had found it in Saudi Arabia and needed a place to stick it. [[5]]. I undid it with an edit summary, and he immediately reverted my revert, complained that my reasons weren't "proper," and accused me of edit-warring. Smart! Due to confusion caused by sloppy "recent change patrollers", I was blocked twice. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin on his own initiative. Decausa's description is erroneous in many other ways. This is wrong: " Mindbunny forced this into the article (fairly clearly lacking in NPOV), by edit-warring...." I didn't add that; I undid its removal. There is more nonsense in his account, but it's not worth belaboring. My only other comment is that I will edit war to keep out the details of someone's sexual assault in a BLP that she didn't authorize and that is sourced anonymously. There is no public right to know that Lara Logan was or was not raped that can be bequeathed by anyone by Lara Logan. To date, she hasn't chosen to make that information public and we should respect that.Mindbunny (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "I will edit war...", for any reason, is not the way to win friends and influence people. There are lots of things that lots of people would rather not have the public know that are reported and verifiable through reliable sources. Should they be removed from articles just because the person the article is about has neither confirmed or denied them despite the fact that reliable sources state them as fact? Also, a BLP that she didn't authorize - are you referring to the release of the information (which, if the source of the information is anonymous, how do we know they aren't speaking on her direct behalf?), or are you suggesting that the subjects of BLPs must give their consent to their Wikipedia articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about a recent sexual assault. So, yes, she must give her consent before the details of exactly how she was or wasn't sexually assaulted are declared "encyclopedic" by a bunch of assholes with Wikipedia accounts. Mindbunny (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, what makes you the enforcer? Why are you deciding for the community rather than letting the community decide for itself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one, am the enforcer on the issue, as the previous blocking admin (note: I'm not even sure what the whole edit war is about, so I can't be biased on the issue). And that statement was entirely inappropriate. Yeah, I kind of goofed up that block history; the first block was only not deserved because the user wasn't given a proper warning - although later talk on the user's page now gives the impression this may not be the user's only account. The second block was definitely deserved, but I was feeling lenient.

Mindbunny, please stop hitting the revert button and being rude, now, or you'll see yourself blocked again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why would I be blocked for "hitting the revert button", rather than, oh say, those who are hitting the edit button without consensus? As for civility....If you think you're entitled to know whether somebody was raped, you're an asshole. If you think that detail is encyclopedic when it is reported anonymously, you're truly uncivil. The idea that admins care more about the word "asshole" than compliance with something truly respectful, civil, and humane in the description of a sexual assault is offensive and disgusting. And, exactly why is all this crap being directed at me? Somebody just announced an intent to edit war beginning precisely at 10 AM tomorrow. A reader of this page just went over to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and reverted my revert--to prevent edit warring. So now you're threatening to block me for editing other pages because I said "asshole" on AN/I? That makes no sense. Mindbunny (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning, referring to other editors by that term is uncivil and borders on WP:NPA territory. It has nothing to do with the article or its content, it has to do with how you choose to present your case. (And on the subject of the article and its content, does it strike anybody else as odd that the, presumably positive, statement that the assault was NOT rape is what's being demanded to be removed?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that I had been sexually assaulted. Would you ask me "Well, were you raped"? If you heard from someone who heard from someone who probably knew the truth, would you run around announcing that I hadn't been raped, and put it on the Internet? I sure hope not, and if you did do those things, you would be an #*$%. Privacy is privacy. You don't ask such things, and you don't tell them. If they're not volunteered, you live without knowing. It's for the victim to specify, or not. And, the BLP guidelines pretty much say that. Mindbunny (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. There doesn't seem to be any getting through that he/she is not in charge and we have to work with others.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. Despite clear, eminently civil requests from the community, Mindbunny appears intent on being uncivil, and of the mind that that is the only way (s)he will be able to make her point. We don't need that. Even if the substance of MB's issue is one (s)he is correct on. Would also suggest a CU, as this appears a likely second problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Account is stale for CU purposes, but the behavioral evidence is very strong. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support blocking for disruptive behavior and incivility. I wasn't exactly sure what should happen when I made the original post above, but with the User's responses (which is, by the way, typical of the way the User always behaves and edits) it's difficult to see that he/she will ever learn to behave in a reasonable way. This is particularly so, given the disruptive track record of the user's previous probable account, User:Noloop, who "retired" with the words "I am just fed up with Wikipedia: the cultural bias, the abusive administrators, and a "dispute resolution" process that ultimately has no method other than the popularity contest". DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey -- Noloop may have a legitimate basis for some of his complaints. Or not. But whether or not MB is the same editor, MB's performance here in this string is sufficient for a block. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block User has shown complete inability to assume good faith and thus assumes everyone else is wrong. Incivility and tendentious editing issues as well, on top of violating WP:CLEANSTART. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A block would solve everything. Do it! The best way to teach editors to assume good faith is to block them. The best way to teach them not to edit war is to revert their reverts. Do I assume everybody else is wrong? It seems to me I've spent hours giving reasons and researching Wikipedia policies. I must be hallucinating. Block me! Hallucinating editors can't help but be disruptive. A block would solve that. Do it. Mindbunny (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. In this case, it would help adjust clue level. The way you have been editing is not agreeable with the community. That's why this post is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the last post, I'm beginning to doubt if this user is ever going to get it, whatever the sanction. (Btw, Noloop was blocked four times before retiring, twice for edit-warring and twice for disruptive editing. At the last block in July 2010 the blocking admin.'s log summary was "apparently didn't get the message last time".) DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The community is disorganized and careless. In a case like this, one can hardly blame it: this is a petty personal dispute. I think there has been a single comment from an editor not previously involved (Epeefleche). What is presented here to the community is a tip of an iceberg, a tip slanted and defined by the complainer. Your antagonistic entry into the discussion I started at the Village Pump [6] was a good example. I tried to turn a negative into a positive. You didn't do your research, assumed I was an asshole, and talked to me accordingly (to your credit, you corrected your mistake later, after I did your research for you). Magog blocked me twice--and undid his own blocks both times--because he didn't pay attention to detail. The recent change patrollers reverted me 3 times without even bothering to look at the Talk page--again, a failure to really care about the facts. I've tried to research some of the issues I've seen on this board that caught my attention. I always give up because it is hard and not that important. It takes a long time to sort out the history of a dispute. Nobody cares that much, nobody will bother. What is written here is not written by "the community." It is written by a few complainers with a prior history of conflict with me, and with a track record of distorting the facts. Mindbunny (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pay attention to detail" and "really care about the facts": it wasn't me that entered your Village Pump discussion. Don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. The "you" in my comment refers to Bearean. Mindbunny (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you had previous conflicts with Bushranger and B? You've had a conflict with B since s/he left the post above but was there one prior? How was my response at the Pump antagonistic? I cited WP:BOOMERANG because you were guilty of calling Tide Rolls polite warning "vandalism" when you were there to accuse others of misusing the term. I didn't assume you were an asshole...I couldn't make up my mind whether you were a klutzy, complaining noob or someone's sockpuppet. I asked for diffs of what you said because I overlooked them (a mistake but not for lack of looking). I helped you by linking to the diffs once you pointed them out.

Ever since that time, I have been watching you. You really edit in just 2 articles primarily...and unfortunately the edit-warring and disruptive patterns are in both. You've proven above that you are willing to edit war regardless of policies or consensus and I'll add that I've seen you wikilawyering (that is most of what you do) to the point of being disruptive. Those two articles have ping-ponged back & forth in my watchlist with you arguing way too hard for you to have been anything other than someone's sock. Newbs don't jump into BLP arguments and initiate ANI threads or ask for automated tools to be created which penalize RC patrollers and vandal-fighters. I have yet to see you really compromise anywhere or admit that maybe the problem is yours. Sit back and look at the number of folks telling you to consider your actions...stop accusing everyone of being assholes and that everything is broken because things don't go your way. We're trying to clue you in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I argue and wikilawyer, and also refuse to respond and edit without discussion. Both are true. It makes perfect sense. I edit war against consensus, although there is no consensus and I'm not trying to change any article. That makes perfect sense too. I edit war regardless of polices, except for when I cite policies such as BLP and BRD, at which point I am being disruptive. That's fair. Thank you for teaching me. Mindbunny (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: don't you ever wonder why different editors from different articles all have the same reaction to you? Don't you think there might be a clue in so many saying pretty much the same thing about you but from different incidents? Or do you just think everyone else has got it wrong? DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't. The only editor here who has actually edited with me is you. You could go round up some other editors from Lara Logan, while ignoring those who agree with me. Given your prior interactions with me, I believe that's exactly what you'd do. You are dishonest. You say I tried to add things I didn't try to add, that I didn't explain my objections when I did, that I'm promoting an anti-Saudi POV when I'm not. You cherry-pick links and diffs to present a slanted view, and that slanted view affects the first impressions of others. Also affecting first impressions is my Talk page. It is plastered with erroneous warnings from recent change patrollers--not once, or twice, but three times. All invalid, but nonetheless giving a certain impression to visitors. (Amazingly, the patrollers all claim it's not their responsibility to take 60 seconds to look at the Talk page to see if what they're reverting really is vandalism. Like I said, the community is disorganized and careless.) My Talk page is plastered with block notices that never would have happened if not for the false positives by recent change patrollers. Both blocks were undone by the blocking admin, but nonetheless it give visitors a certain impression. Erikeltic showed up and bared his fangs and outright threatened to edit war with me at 10 AM sharp the following day. Typically, you linked to this as evidence of my disruptiveness. You are dishonest. I'm not going to comment here again. Mindbunny (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I'm the mastermind behind a conspiracy against you. I can see you've decided to improve first impressions of yourself on your Talk page.DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny is reverting cited material from the London Times declaring it "has no consensus". This is making good on the promise of edit-warring. Please block...enough is enough.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support block From checking this and looking at this editors manner of responses it's time to issue the block. The reverting is continuing at the page which is not good. The uncivil manner of talking along with being totally disruptive I think the time has come to allow the block so that real work can be done at the articles. I also think that this editor should be made to put their other account name on this account since cleanstart has been breached. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned NPA Restriction

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

Archived, pending closure, see #Uninvolved closure sought. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Uninvolved closure:

The raw count of positions here is 19 in favor, one weakly in favor, 16 opposed, 1 weakly opposed, and 4 others. A number of the opposes could shift into the weakly opposed category depending on interpretation, but I am leaving them as simple opposed.

We have a 20 out of 41 raw count for "support", and that's 20 out of 37 for those giving a clear support/oppose. That is either slightly below or slightly above 50%, which fails to meet our usual standard for consensus.

In terms of arguments presented, however, there is a strong trend. A majority of the opposes indicated that they were opposing on grounds of futility rather than truly opposing the sanction. That is significant and should be noted and considered in closing.

I do not feel that closing with a "community sanction enacted" with less than clear majority support is appropriate. I am not enacting the sanction with this closure.

However, a plurality of those commenting felt that Giano is doing something wrong. I am noting here and will note on Giano's talk page that there is a community consensus that his behavior has not met the standards the community expects. This is not a "green light" for stricter enforcement in any way, but should be taken as indicative of slow exhaustion of community patience on this issue. It is generally wise to step away from behavior which is moving towards exhausting community patience.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Errant's final comments

Well, it has been about 24 hours since I proposed this. And despite a lengthy thread there has for the most part been minimal drama, excluding a few editors on "both sides" who pushed the boundaries a little far. That is encouraging. The arguments are starting to come full circle so I closed this off for the purposes of sanity :) To summarise my conclusion of this: There seems to me to be clear consensus, with a little opposition, that the actions of Giano were inappropriate and inexcusable even given the provocation These also seems to be support for the idea that Giano's idea of civility is not in line with community expectations But, as proposer, I don't feel I have firm support to impose this specific sanction More to the point Giano has told me both here and via email he will accept no sanction, so imposing it or not is simply beuracracy that serves no real end Rd232 makes a sensible point that the next step in this is to approach the civility policies and work on ways to impose sanctions that are in line with community support and that work. I will go ahead and work on this at some point in the near future (where it won't be mis-construed as carrying on this issue) Giano also has a point, too, about the actions and behaviours of others. Not that this excuses his behaviour, in my mind it makes it worse. In particular, although no blame needs to be attached to others, it is perhaps a good reminder that an impersonal "policy based" approach to editing (particularly deletions) might also be uncivil, or at least insensitive. At this stage there seems no useful purpose in lengthening the thread. No one is going to be blocked, sanctions would not have the effect I desired etc. Thanks for contributing --Errant (chat!)

I realise this may be akin to "political suicide" :) but I would like to propose a community restriction on GiacomoReturned based on WP:NPA. Yesterday Soundvisions1 opened a WQA thread about Giano's actions in this file deletion discussion. The file appears to have been nominated as part of a separate dispute over the {{keeplocal}} (the TFD discussion has the history).

To summarise the specific concerns raised at WQA; Giano took offence at the image nomination (note: I don't necessarily blame him) and viciously abused the nominator and one other person who voted delete. His language included calling them idiots, morons and one specifically nasty sentence: an ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about. (see WQA thread for diffs and other abusive language).

Soundvisions1 left a template message with a personal customisation to remind Giano of our civility policy. Perhaps the wrong approach per WP:DTR but I believe that his actions in both places was in good faith.

Soundvisions1 immediately started receiving advice on his talk page to approach the matter differently; these were civil comments but it looked like the start of a potential flood. In light of that, and the drama that such WQA threads (about Giano) usually create I closed the discussion and tried to engage with Giano on his talk page. This was an attempt to avoid community level mess by giving Giano the opportunity to once again address his behaviour.

Giano has rejected this attempt; he initially tried to justify his actions on the basis that the image was being attacked. However it does not seem reasonable to call people morons based on that, and indeed our WP:NPA policy expressly says it is unacceptable to do so. He then advised me to leave him alone and to look at civility issues within "corps d'administrateurs", suggesting that until everyone else is civil he does not feel a need to be. He continued further justification of his actions; "I see nothing wrong in telling someone behaving like an idiot that they are doing so". Whilst on some level I approve of the idea of calling a spade a spade I feel it is still unacceptable to do so with abusive language.

It appears to me that Giano holds little respect for the editing community in general and admins in specific, and those he does respect have not been able to impress a standard of civility on him. Giano appears to believe that our policy on civility does not apply to him and, more concerningly, he appears to believe that it is appropriate, and indeed his right, to act as he did.

During the discussion he treated me with disdain and portrayed an arrogant attitude. Had he said "Sorry, I snapped and it was inappropriate" then that would personally have been satisfactory to me. But he seems to believe that the attacks were justified and had no respect for my attempt to help.

Because I was unable to have a mature conversation with him over this issue I feel I have to bring this back to the community for discussion, along with a proposal to sanction Giano. Note that at this stage I am not asking for, and specifically oppose, any form of a block. However I would like to propose a sanction to impress on Giano that guidelines of WP:NPA still apply, especially given his past long history of incivility and battleground mentality. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from Soundvisions1: I just want to, again, clarify something. The message I left was based on a template but it was not a simple "Just hit the warn button and walk away" post. I believe there are two sentences from {{uw-npa1}} in use. I find it rather silly that there is *any* focus on that at all when the context of the issue, which I personally "authored" in a warning, is that nobody should be calling *any* editor, admin or not, "idiot", "ignorant morons", "ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about", "idiotic little twits" and/or a "mental retard." I was not a participant in the deletion discussion at all, nor in any template discussion which is being pointed out now. I have never, to my knowledge, encountered GiacomoReturned before or had any interaction with them. Likewise, to my knowledge, I have never had interaction with the two editors who posted on my talk page, one of which who threatened me with a block unless I backed off. I have since learned that GiacomoReturned has a rather long tack record of being a rather controversial figure at Wikipedia and has supporters who do not feel behavior such as this is out of line. I received a minor taste of that yesterday and suspect my posting here may result in more, however I want to state, again, that there was no secret motive behind my initial warning other than what I explicitly said, in non-templateed form (ie. - I said it on my own), on the users talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

Extended content

I propose the following sanction: GiacomoReturned is sanctioned to abide by the community standards of civility, as set out in WP:NPA, in all areas of Wikipedia. Continued attacks on other editors and a use of abusive language will be met with escalating blocks starting at 24 hours. This sanction is to last one year from the date of application and can be re-addressed and overturned by community consensus during that time. Attacks on other editors may be construed at an admins discretion, but a reasonable level of personal attack must be satisfied in line with the advice at WP:NPA. Giano demonstrated to me that he feels NPA is non-applicable to his actions, and I feel the above specific sanction will help impress on hiom the standard of maturity requested by the community. And please can we keep discussion here civil :) --Errant (chat!) 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) What actually are you aiming to achieve, Errant, by sanctioning Giacomo this way, and in what ways is this going to improve the project? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Giano appears unable to interact in a civil manner in certain scenarios. My hope is that this will impress on him the need for civility. Benefit to the project; it will remove some vitriol and improve the overall collegiality of the project. I don't think his actions are defensible in this case, but my main concern is that he appears to believe his actions were appropriate and I wish to stop future occurrences. (I'm going to be super busy today, so I won't likely be able to respond any more, this was originally put in front of the community and I removed it to address the issue, was unable to do so and so without prejudice I have placed it back before you :)) --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I think what Epipelagic is getting at is that we've been through this a million times before and there's no reason to expect anything to be different from yet another round. For better or worse, we've made a tacit decision to live with the situation, so opening a thread like this is unnecessary drama and a waste of energy. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'm happy (and even encouraging) if someone wants to make the same call as me yesterday and close this down to avoid drama. But a number of editors have questioned my actions yesterday as pre-emptive. *shrug* Not much I can do; my involvement in this is simply in trying to come up with a way that might potentially work without descending into a drama-fest. If that is likely to happen just close it :) --Errant (chat!) 10:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) close it as a perennial proposal. nothing good will come of this. Gold Hat (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC) support sanction We'd block other users for the same thing. I know parts of the history here, but only parts. But in any case, we shouldn't have a tiered membership of some sort. And incivility is likely one of the problems that drives away new editors. Endorsing such incivility as a perennial issue is really pretty scary. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Not quite true. You'd block other regular editors for the same thing, or in fact less, but not administrators, which is the root of much that's wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Impractical: What counts as blockworthy incivility is almost always contentious among administrators, and, it seems, especially when it's from Giano. (People may complain about "special rules" for him, but like it or not, it's the way our community works). Other editors could probably also fit this category. All this is going to do is lead to more heated disputes over blocks, so I'm afraid I can't support this proposal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Meh - Giano provides cover for the rest of us curmudgeons, i.e. "well if you can't block Giano for that, you're not gonna block me for saying this". But really, unless it is for either blatant "go fuck yourself" comments or true project-wide disruption, civility blocks are weaksauce. Stop poking the bears and move on. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC) So how is calling people "ignorant morons" and "some mental retard" any different than a "go fuck yourself"? --Conti|✉ 15:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support sanction. Saying that "it's the way our community works" is acceptance that we have editors that are permitted to engage in personal attacks just because some clique have identified them as "special" and are prepared endlessly to kick up a fuss whenever there is any criticism of their behaviour. It is also very dangerous for the community to give out the idea that if you want your friends to be above the rules, then the way to do it is to create as much drama as possible whenever anyone tries to remind them of the rules. It may not be a problem in one case, but what happens when every little clique or POV-faction on Wikipedia catches on to this and starts trying to implement a similar status for themselves, by means of disruption? Errant's comment about how those people Giano does respect have not been to persuade him of the merits of avoiding personal attacks, is telling; rather than suggesting he cool it, their normal response is to encourage him by repeating or justifying his comments about others. (And in this case, apparently, to threaten a good-faith editor unfamiliar with the situation, with a block for raising the issue - that's wildly unacceptable.) While I'm sure it would be lovely if everyone who ever nominated a page or file for deletion engaged in a discussion process before doing so, that's simply not practical, and inability to respond to the situation in a level-headed manner betrays a lack of maturity that really is incompatible with working on a collaborative project. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I do want to say that my comments about those he does respect was not intended to imply they encourage him, I have no evidence of that. But I have seen some gentle "c'mon dude" comments which are then ignored. --Errant (chat!) 15:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose primarily due to concerns of (to borrow Tarc's phrase) bear poking.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately I can't in good faith agree with such thinking; giving Giano carte blanche to viciously abuse editors makes me hideously uncomfortable :( --Errant (chat!) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) If I posted under every comment that I in good faith couldn't agree with I'd have litle time for anything else.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I support holding Giano (and everyone else) to behavioral standards, which per policy includes prohibitions against personal attacks (and note that the proposal here is basically already encoded in that policy "If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours.") But I'm unsure that a discussion here is going to result in any resolution of this strange dispute. I rather wonder if an WP:RfC/U would be helpful or if this is a matter for arbitration. The block/unblock history alone suggests that standard community discussion may not be effective. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. The offensive comments are in response to what could be considered provocation (deletion of a file that Giano says he spent some time on for what seems to be an optional deletion). I would give latitude to the content contributor in this case to vent his frustration. I would also add this a textbook situation where I think admins with weak content contribution backgrounds are out-of-touch with content contributors and why otherwise good looking admin candidates should be opposed at RfAs. Lambanog (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I don't know. I have a pretty above average content contribution background & I don't see how it is acceptable to react to provocation like that. A real world comparison might be verbally abusing someone who said they didn't like your painting very much. Not very socially acceptable :) unless it was intended as a jibe, I don't overly see the relevance of the comment there, civility and content contribution aren't really related to admin action --Errant (chat!) 15:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) You're being euphemistic. A closer analogy would be verbal abuse in reaction to someone who deposited the hypothetical painting into the garbage can. Lambanog (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Ummmmmm. Does WP:COOL ring a bell? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Counter-proposal: Why doesn't everyone just not post to his talk page unless it relates to mainspace work? And, ya know, save your fingers from cramping? Listsshown (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Note: The above user has been blocked indefinitely. --Conti|✉ 16:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I don't need Carnac the magnificent to see what is in the envelope here This is a total waste of time. Protonk (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Comment/Question: Has there ever been an RfC on Giano? It might be a good next step. --Conti|✉ 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think there has been an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano / Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giacomo / Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GiacomoReturned are all redlinks. Rd232 talk 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support And high time. WP:NPA applies to everyone. It even applies to editors who have friends that condone personal attacks because someone made the attacker mad by trying to delete something he worked hard on. The policy also applies even if someone feels it gives him cover to make similar personal attacks. The "latitude" to "vent his frustration" drives other contributors away from the project. Edison (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Why bother? Valued content contributors - based on past clusterf...discussions on this topic - have special dispensations regarding WP:NPA. Not that this is right, but it seems to be canon. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support, not that I actually expect anything to come of it. It is (insert civility violation here) to say that accomplished content contributors should get a free pass on conduct. It is (insert civility violation here) to say that long-time contributors should get a free pass on conduct. It is (insert civility violation here) to say that a user should get a free pass on conduct simply because that's what we have done in the past. It is (insert civility violation here) to say that long-time contributors are more valuable to the future of the project than are newcomers. Wikipedia is not a club, and no user cannot be replaced. (I feel better, getting that off my chest.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Poking a sleeping dragon with templates is almost always a bad idea. I personally think you brought this on yourselves. (In my opinion Giano's comments were not that bad compared to how people talk in real life.) --Guerillero | My Talk 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC) support though I'd reword it a little. Calling somebody the names used is a straight-out personal attack, not a question of interpretation. No work environment in RL would tolerate such language in public. There may be other times where it might be acceptable, but the discussion pages of one of the most prominent websites in the world is not one of them. . Civility is one of the 5 pillars. Nobody is exempt. What Wikipedia needs is content contributors, but not at any cost. Not a the cost of creating an unsatisfactory environment for other content contributors. If there are repeats I shall warn and if necessary block Giano, following WP:NPA's wording "If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours." If anyone wants to remove NPA from policy, they can try to do so. If my colleagues disagree and revert my block, I will not wheel war, but I will probably take it further. It's time somebody acted. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose Maybe there is a way to get Giano to not fly off the handle when silly tings happen, this is definitely not it. Someone would immediately trundle over to Giano's talk page and bait him into getting blocked. Had others acted a little more sensibly (discussing before nomming a FFD, not suggesting G is using Wikipedia as a personal homepage, not using a template on him) this would never have arisen. Franamax (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC) If he is foolish enough to take the bait and respond, he deserves to be blocked. Realize that the same rules apply to him as they apply to us. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Poke. Maybe we should split the English-language Wikipedia into a US one and a UK/rest-of-the-world one, after all. Not so much for language reasons but to test what is better in the long run and what leads to a toxic environment: US-style extreme verbal hygiene, or a relaxed attitude. Hans Adler 19:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I've long thought that to be an idea worth pursuing. And I strobgly suspect that even many American editors might choose to join the rest-of-the-world enclave. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Do you know, here’s an amazing thing: someone, ages ago, fixed up this thing in my preferences that makes all Admins names appear blue. So a few moments ago I checked the recent contributions of all the Admins in this “debate” - there is not one of you supporting this sanction has written anything educated today, or as far as I can see recently. You pass comment here, you pass comment there and occasionally in a fit of exertion one of you fixes a typo or fiddles with a category. Not one of you has purchased a book (yes, purchase ie spend money—not look for a here-today-gone tomorrow internet site) or even got a book out of the library, sat down and read it and then written a page—or even a referenced paragraph. Yet, you feel you somehow have the privilege of commenting on those that are writing this encyclopaedia and keeping you where you are. I find that rather sad. If I upload an image, it is because I need it. If I draw an image it is because I need it. I do not expect to have to argue with someone who does not write as to why and when I need it. The deletion debate should have been cancelled the very second I made that clear—the very second! In fact, the deletion debate should not have occurred, I should have been asked first. Now, you people gathered her can waste as much of your time chattering as you like—nothing will sway my opinion because I am correct—and deep down you know I am. If people behave like idiots, they must not be surprised to be told so.  Giacomo  19:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I was once blocked five days for calling other editors idiots. Apparently that's no longer a blockable offense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Administrators get away with calling other editors "wankers", and "less important than the dog shit on the sole of my shoe", so I really can't see the problem here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC) If I see an admin calling someone a wanker etc. they will be seeing the same treatment from me. Same applies to any comments directed at Giano's mental health (indeed, if I see any of that will be blockable NPA offence in my book). Giano is beign held to the same standard of behaviour I hold everyone to :) Giano; what you have written here is basically in support of what I believe about you. You appear to confess to believing yourself superior to us. Bottom line, yes I buy books and referenced material. I also do a lot of clean up and fixing an neatness and.... it's all useful work. So, you wrote some articles. That's brilliant, but I do not feel it allows you to be arrogant and rude to other editors. That is the root of the problem --Errant (chat!) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, quite true and as certain people gathered here clearly want a "drama fest" let's explore why the Arb, Coren, was allowed to call me mad/paranoid or whatever it was (find me the diff someone - he was trying to have it deleted) at the same time Arb Risker was emailing me claiming I was trying to "hijack" her account. Let's have the "drama fest" if that's what people want; I had rather hoped this was going to pass over and had igored it for hours. It seems not Giacomo  19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The hypocrisy on display here is eye-watering, and can only be explained by that fact that administrators define thier own truth. Thus if one calls you a "toxic personality", or "chronically uncivil" then they are merely stating a fact, as they have "the trust of the communbity". Whereas if you call one one of them an idiot you are stating an unwelcome opinion that needs to be stepped on. It stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Funny; all I saw there was "I'm more important than you! Nya nya nya!" HalfShadow 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not an administrator. I have bought books for the express purpose of sourcing content I wrote. I've uploaded images, and even defended a few in deletion discussions. And I said what I said, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Wow, I wish I was a "valued content contributor" so I could say what I really want to here without getting blocked. (Use your imagination.) I'd point out the work that I've done, which has involved libaries, purchased books, etc., but Giano will just conveniently ignore it. (Yes, I've been quiet for a while; this is called "real life" intruding. My apologies for not living at my computer.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC) God I know right? What I would do for that exclusive Giano privilege. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Giano, all the rules on Wikipedia also apply to those that write articles. Nothing you say or do will change that. --Conti|✉ 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) LOL A sanction sticking against Giano. That's funny! Resolute 20:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) What's the problem with that? HeyMid (contribs) 21:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant to support or oppose any proposed sanction. There will always be at least one admin who will unbock him after a future violation, so community standards will never apply to him. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support - this kind of blatant violation of WP:NPA should've resulted in a block in any event, this sanction is the least that should happen. Exxolon (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support per "there is not one of you supporting this sanction has written anything educated today, or as far as I can see recently". If you can't avoid personal attacks in a discussion about sanctioning you for personal attacks, there's little hope they will be avoided elsewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) But this is the nub of what is really going on here. Giano was referring to the administrators who want to sanction him. The question is whether his statement is true or not. If it is true, then it is highly relevant fact, not an abusive judgement that should be construed as a "personal attack". This happens over and over on Wikipedia–administrators declaring a content editor has make a "personal attack" because they point out something the administrator doesn't want to hear. If Giano's statement is true, then he is pointing to a situation that results in gross abuses towards competent content editors. Certain editors on Wikipedia, whose contributions and abilities in terms of producing real content are minimal, are given one-sided powers to attack and block the editors who do make the real contributions. There is nothing wrong with editors who are not competent in this way being given administrative privileges to help them with the janitor work that need to be done. But the ability to block competent and productive content editors should be confined to administrators who are themselves competent in content areas and have the confidence of able content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC) You'll note that when I told Giano something he didn't want to hear I didn't verbally abuse him to do so. I hope that people can see a difference in that. I dislike this characterisation of content contribution as the "real" editing. It's just one part of the whole thing, and we should be working together to stamp out nastiness and make sure everyone can do their editing in peace. That includes eradicating policy-wonk and minor disputes (the FFD thread) such as the piece that started this whole thing off --Errant (chat!) 22:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC) What? What are you supporting? " Attacks on other editors may be construed at an admins discretion, but a reasonable level of personal attack must be satisfied in line with the advice at WP:NPA." What exactly does that mean? Moriori (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) IMHO, it means don't block for a single "stop making idiotic edits". 10 "idiots", or 1 "c***s****r", might be a "reasonable level of PA" to call for a block, on the other hand. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, the intention was to carefully exclude blocks for minor incivility. Colour me crazy but I have no issue with occasional light snapping or jokey but firm "you're being a bit of an idiot" etc. We all get ratty, it happens. The intention is to refer to the level of attack such as the one inspiring this thread. --Errant (chat!) 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I understood that to mean the following: "In the event of any physical or verbal attacks or otherwise hostile or adversarial actions targeted towards other editors, admins, users or accounts which may or may not be construed, depending on one or more admin's/admins' discretion, irregardless of any reasonable levels, personal attacks must (!) be pleased, satisfied or contented in precisely the same way that is described at WP:NPA, notwithstanding any and all unclarities that may or may not arise consequential of this sanction's infelicitious verbalification." But I am no longer sure this was the intended meaning. If it is not, I obviously withdraw my !vote above. Hans Adler 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC) As above, What?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support I see the intent in the proposal and Support it, but it needs to be clarified and its awkward. Sarek makes a point of the absurdity of the situation The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. I don't like to see editors call each other idiots. But in this context I can't support a sanction, and I mean no disrespect to the editors the words were directed at. There have been discussions on the Foundation mailing list recently about how to retain editors and attract new ones, and one of the issues raised is the insane way we apply our rules. Of all the rules craziness we find on WP, the image processes really are the worst. I wish we'd do something about it as a community, instead of allowing a small number of editors to drive everyone else up the wall, then criticizing people who react badly to it. I'm currently being told I can't use a photograph of a London tourist plaque in a featured article—a photograph kindly taken and released by a Wikipedian—because of something called freedom of panorama. I won't link to the discussion because the person who raised the issue means well. And this is the problem. Most of us mean well, but by relying on increasingly byzantine rules, or laws we don't understand, we've forgotten how to use common sense, and the result is a website guaranteed to be a high source of frustration to most human beings. I wish we'd focus more on how to tackle that, because it's going to be the thing that kills us. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC) My guess is that our rules about images are insane because the copyright laws regarding images are insane(ly complicated). You're bound to get frustrated when you try to comply with all the laws out there. Regardless, even a silly or stupid or unfair or inconsiderate process does not legitimate you to call other editors morons, idiots or retards. Even if you are right, even if they are blatantly wrong, you just don't get to call others such things around here. Period. --Conti|✉ 20:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, this "Fredoom of Panorma", as one English-challenged editor once called it, is indeed the law in the USA. A guy can create a work of art, put it out in public, and you can photograph it for your private photo collection, but you can't publish it in the USA unless the guy's been dead and gone for generations, or some such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC) This is an issue of NPA, not media file policy. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC) He should have gone with "Batshit crazy". That one's fine on arb pages.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Is this a recent issue that I can deal with? --Errant (chat!) 21:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Go knock yourself out blocking a sitting arb.[7] (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)--Cube lurker (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And who exactly was that alleged personal attack directed at? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC) You're making my point. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC) All evidence to the contrary. Giano directs his attacks at specific individuals. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'm having trouble with the idea that NPA doesn't apply to discussions about files. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's not worth a block. It is more generally directed frustration and I would be inclined to send some Wikilove (which I see was done) and a friendly reminder that keeping cool is a good idea :) I thought that you had implied someone had called another editor batshit crazy, that is warning level NPA IMO and if delivered with the same vitriol as, say, Giano's attack that started tis thread I would have blocked. You will not find me shy to block Arbs if they do break rules... --Errant (chat!) 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Like I said. I'm not holding my breath.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Really? here's me called batshit crazy [*here's me called batshit crazy me and supposedly requiring a health profesional you won't find the exact diff, because being an arb he had it deleted - check the history. you lot are a joke. Sorry, is there a reason you are not blocking?  Giacomo  21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Meh. you probably do. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I probably do, If I stay here.  Giacomo  21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Well, what you waitn' for? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Quit it. This is exactly the thing that is not helping. --Errant (chat!) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ouch, that is indefensible. I understand how you feel, BTW, seeing stuff like that let go is a problem and needs to be addressed. If it happens again (not sure what I can exactly do several months after the fact) resist responding to it and I will be happy to deal with it for you. That's a serious promise. Fastily, that's not a helpful comment --Errant (chat!) 21:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yes sir. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid you it watched happen; I particularly like th ebit when having told me I am batshit crazy, he sudenly ...er ..remembers. Just leave me alone, you lot are pathetic in your hypocrisy!  Giacomo  21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC) There is no hypocrisy here but your own. Grow up. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC) No, Giano. I never saw it. Next time come get me. If you do I will sort it. --Errant (chat!) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) That again! I really must write more silly essays, if they are such fertile ground for diffs to be stored up for months upon end and constantly resurrected. The first significant difference that springs to mind, is that the comments were very quickly retracted. By contrast, you (Giano) seemingly never retract comments, because you believe you're superior to the rest of us and therefore you can do and say whatever you like. That's the problem this is intended to address. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC) "The first significant difference that springs to mind, is that the comments were very quickly retracted" Diff for Coren's retraction please? Getting a dodgy deletion against concesus is not a retraction.  Giacomo  22:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC) This is what I had in mind, and fits my definition of a retraction well enough. Incidentally, does that mean that the copy of the page that you're pointing everyone to in your WP:NOTTHEM exercise, is actually a copy where the text of Coren's comment is only there because you restored it to the page even before you copied the page in toto? Interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC) FGS, the whoe arbcom saw it!!!!!!! and had it deleted against concensus. Wise up about what this place is really like and stop attacking the wrong people.  Giacomo  21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC) ErrantX, It's true that that edit is too stale to block, but there's nothing stopping you from proposing an editing restriction on Coren. Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support This relly needs to stop; Giano is not subject to a free-ticket for blatant personal attacks and incivility. HeyMid (contribs) 21:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) No, let it carry on, I like to see their true colours behind all their smug behavious. I have a 100 more diffs up my sleeve yet about incivilit - we have not yet had the "toxic personality herself" - show up yet.  Giacomo  21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) You do realize that your main argument seems to be that your unacceptable behaviour should be ignored because others have behaved unacceptably in the past as well, right? --Conti|✉ 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) No, I just wonder why it only bothers you when it's me saying it?  Giacomo  22:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Having read the exchange on the RFD page, I can fully sympathize with Giaco going ballistic over such busybodyism towards a free image that he drew himself. The image nannies (and there are plenty of them) should stick with images whose sources are unknown and whose copyrights are questionable (and I'm sure there are plenty of those also). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oi! Don't hate :/ -FASTILY (TALK) 21:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC) SchuminWeb is the guy who ought to be sanctioned, for his gratuitous and pointless nomination of that illustration for deletion. He is the author of this particular incident. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support - This has been going on for far too long. Users have been blocked for far less than what Giano dishes out. It's time his carte blanche is taken away. (X! · talk)  · @940  ·  21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support. A comfortable work environment for all editors is more important than any one editors contributions. Noone gets a free pass to poisoning the well for everybody else with consistent uncivil behavior.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The leader of Herman's Hermits gets a free pass? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support. WP:CIVILITY is a policy. This user has frequently violated it without response, which may foster the belief that it doesn't apply to everyone. I do not buy the argument that the problem is with other editors purposely annoying him. If any such behavior is seen it should be addressed directly rather than by allowing this user to flout WP policies.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support Editors, even if they provide great content, should not get a free pass because of that, and tolerance of such has been going on for far too long. It shouldn't be assumed that such content-based expertise cannot be provided by other, less confrontational editors. There is no overriding necessity for the encyclopedia to be finished, either today, or tomorrow, per WP:DEADLINE. My personal preference is that these editors, and there is a small but disruptive claque of them, should either adapt or go, and that goes for their fanclubs too. Rodhullandemu 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Can you please clarify that Rodhullandemu? Are you saying that all the editors here who oppose sanctioning Giano should leave Wikipedia? I oppose sancrtioning Giano. Are you saying that unless I change my thinking to align with yours, that I should should leave Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And does it go for "confrontational editors", and their fanclubs, closer to home, too, Rodhullandemu? Bishonen | talk 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC). I don't regard myself as having a "fanclub". Such (two) blocks as I have accumulated have been reduced solely on their (lack of) merit, rather than one of my "fans" intervening unilaterally. I am prepared to stand or fall upon my own merits, and throw myself upon the collective wisdom of the community. These editors in particular, do not appear to me to have that luxury. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Crap, not again. Giano is a choleric guy. He gets steamed up. But of course he gets all soothed down again <sarcasm> if only somebody says the magic words "Calm down per Wikipedia policy". <Sarcasm>. I mean, you and I would, wouldn't we? It always works really well if somebody attacks our work in a petty way and then somebody else tells us to calm down, doesn't it? <sarcasm>. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC). P.S., is Jehochman somewhere in this long thread? I can't locate him, but he made some extremely thoughtful comments on Soundvision1's talkpage, please take a look: [8][9] 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC). What is this "attacks our work in a petty way" ? Yes having things deleted (or even proposed for deletion) is annoying. Yes it's acceptable to react in an exasperated way, at least briefly. That doesn't mean one somehow has an excuse to condemn everyone else's views as beneath one. What is it with this acceptance of people who consider themselves too important to abide by the same rules everyone else has to? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) How do you calm Giano down, then? You're right, poking an angry person with a stick sure isn't going to help much, but letting an angry person run around to scream at whomever gets into his way cannot be the solution either, right? --Conti|✉ 22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I consider the more egregious incivility to be from the person nominating the image which kicked off this whole thing. Granted, they perhaps did not use particular choice words that some users seem to have issue with, but it does more to undermine the purpose of the encyclopedia by engaging in such petty mindless bureaucracy. If there was a reasonable civility policy that encompasses things which don't include naughty words, and which is applied to admins, sanctions such as the one proposed should hopefully not be necessary. Quantpole (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose, because the proposal is unfair. The proposer made only one statement supporting his proposal -- "Giano demonstrated to me that he feels NPA is non-applicable to his actions" . No diffs. No quotes. Nothing to support that claim. Maybe most/many people discussing this have seen Giano somewhere around the project or have interacted with him and the proposer thought such familiarity obviated his obligation to spell it out. That might be ok for regulars, but not editors who don't know Giano. That makes it unfair because a properly accredited rationale was not given to support the proposal, for all to see. I am for civility, but not unfairness, and think the proposal should be junked. Moriori (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Eh, I think uninvolved commenting on WP dispute resolution isn't that great a thing for those who haven't been around it for long enough to have gained some understanding of how it actually works, and anyone who has been around it for any length of time has seen plenty of Giano-related drama already. However, to supply some context to the situation for newcomers, here are some links:[10][11][12][13] etc. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC) You have very clearly made my point for me. To justify the rationale for the proposal, someone (you) needed to belatedly produce some diffs. The proposer didn't do so when initiating the proposal. It is unfair to consider a sanctioning anyone without a very good case being made in a proposal to do so. It wasn't. Moriori (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC) User:Fastily reverted my archiving of this thread. I'm reverting that, since there is no justification for spending any more time discussing something that cannot meaningfully be enforced without changing policy first. Rd232 talk 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Wow, and I never got a chance to get out the popcorn before this discussion got closed. Sanctions against Giano are never performed, because, for some reason I have never understood, he is sacrosanct. Corvus cornixtalk 23:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC) If we had an agreed civility restriction approach that actually worked, Giano would be an early candidate for employing that. The difficulty is always that blocks are supposed to be preventative, which generally interpreted as only preventing immediate problems, making the use of punitive blocks (which would prevent or deter longer term problems) impossible. But without the ability to apply punitive blocks, you can't have the necessary discussion about whether incivility has crossed a line or not, so it forces individual admins to make rapid calls (whilst the block can reasonably be said to be preventing problems now), which tends to be disastrous. The way to square that circle is to accept punitive blocks when they are endorsed by the community as part of enforcing a previously imposed civility restriction. That's what this proposal was about. Rd232 talk 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC) I'm surprised that there hasn't been an RFCU concerning this user. That would seem like the logical step to take in the dispute resolution process.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Giano II as has already been linked above. Having four or five or however many accounts, should not be a method of avoiding scrutiny. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) If you guys don't stop archiving/unarchiving, you'll be blocked per 3RR..! If somebody wants it unarchived, it should be left unarchived. That's the principle here. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC). I find the closure if this discussion highly inappropriate, given that there actually was a majority in support of the proposed restrictions (surprisingly enough). --Conti|✉ 23:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC) As opener I am not overly worried. The thread now has potential to turn into a drama spat, and I had hoped to avoid that. If the choice is DRAMA vs. closure I support closure. --Errant (chat!) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Told ya so--do you understand now? ;-). I thought of attempting to close the thread as soon as you said it was ok to do so earlier, but I figured it wouldn't stick even then. Maybe I should have tried anyway as it might have had a chance at that time, but oh well. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC) What is the basis for archiving a discussion that seems to have more support than opposition? Yeah, Giano does a lot of good work, but Giano needs to learn to do a lot of good work less rudely. --B (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) It is obvious that in the highly unlikely event of the proposed sanction being accepted as having consensus, it will be useless except for the purpose of causing further drama. Without providing a more solid footing for civility restrictions, the situation of which this is merely one example will not change. The proposal has only slightly more support than opposition, and the support for this proposal is more of the "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done" type, whereas opposition rests on the weary knowledge that it won't bloody work. The only thing imposing this sanction might achieve is a temporary pretence that it would work, thereby putting off the day when somethign actually workable might be created. Rd232 talk 00:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think Giano is quite the special case that he is sometimes made out to be; I think our approach to other prolific content contributors who also have civility problems is often quite similar. I've long advocated largely ignoring incivility rather than sanctioning it, but meh, that's just my opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Neither do I; but he does tend to perpetuate that status by his attitude, or twattitude, if you prefer. But it happens right now that he is the focus of attention on this regard, and the evidence against him has been largely rehearsed, time and time again. I think that the time for ignoring has long gone, and that he should either exhibit some collegiality, or go. If he will not do so, it's up to the community to say so, and that is the purpose of this thread. If he doesn't get the message, it's up to us to express it. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Please, "twattitude" isn't a clever word play, it's a childish way to call someone a twat, which is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to discourage here. --Conti|✉ 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, twattitude is definitely a personal attack.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Rodhullandemu, apart from your desire for Giano to leave Wikipedeia, you indicated above that all editors who oppose sanctioning Giano should also leave Wikipedia. That seems a highly personal attack directed simultaneously at a number of editors. In my reading, Giano, when he is treated in a respectful way, is invariably collegial. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC) That's true. So long as we genuflect properly none of us should have any problems. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) That's also true of some twitchy administrators. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I don't have an answer for you. Wait. Look over there! All those other people don't have answers either. Surely you will just have to accept my point because those other people can't justify it. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Stifle explained over 3 years ago,[14] "The key issue regarding Giano is not what remedies are applied to him, but how they are enforced." Unless someone has a convincing theory that the outcome of a sanction like the one proposed will not be more of the same, all we're doing here is digging ourselves deeper into the same hole. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) We need to end the toxic atmosphere, and one that would chase away well-intentioned editors from most backgrounds. This is not a RPG, or a political blog, where name-calling is part of the fun. This a a project with a purpose, a project that needs to continually recruit new people to survive. What will they think when some of the most respected editors here say, you new people have to behave, but properly, but a few people are exempt and are going to remain exempt? The principle here is that everyone stands here on an equal footing. If anything, the more experience one has the more polite one should be. In the outside world, people who fly into insult learn not to, or find they are decreasingly tolerated. There are all sorts of anger management methods. I get angry too, and in my life have had some bouts of temper--I eventually learned after some rather unpleasant experiences. Others can learn also. Tolerating them gives them every reason not to learn, not to improve. And every time an experienced person here acts outrageously and gets away with it--especially when the other people here say he ought to be permitted to get away with it, ordinarily civilized quiet people see, and decide not to join the project. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) It's not that simple DGG. I would think at least as many potential content editors, including ordinarily civilized quiet people, would be chased away by seeing how some of the most competent editors on Wikipedia are resented and harassed by a certain faction. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC) What about nominating an image uploaded by a long-standing contributor without the courtesy to discuss it first? Does that not create a toxic atmosphere for editors old and new? Giano only explodes when incomprehemsible (to him) things happen or when he thinks he sees abuse of power. Shouldn't we fix that stuff? New editors will come across those same issues and decide if they want to stay long-term. I've only ever seen Giano be helpful to new editors asking him questions too, though I agree that all experienced editors should be setting an example to those newer and trying to learn the ropes. Franamax (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) "or when he thinks he sees abuse of power" - that seems to be almost all the time, though. Shouldn't we fix what stuff? A good-faith editor failing to investigate the longstanding-ness of the uploader of an image, rather than basing their actions on the situation regarding the image itself? Does that need a lot of fixing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC) SchuminWeb had no business nominating that image for deletion. He's the cause of this current brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I'd side with Giano in this dispute but I would also not blame SchuminWeb for the nomination unless there was a history between them. What needs to be recognized and appreciated, and I'm not sure how many admins do, is that there is an aggressive aspect to nominating things for deletion and anyone who does so should be prepared and willing to brush off a little asperity especially since the effort to delete is likely to be much less than that exerted to create. Lambanog (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Lurking -- llywrch (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Why bother? Blocks don't stick to Giano, so any sanction that involves them is pointless. --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Support. The disturbing aspect about this latest episode (as if the general fatalism wasn't disturbing enough) is that the filers are completely uninvolved as far as I can see, they didn't put his image up for deletion, and their assessment of what's cleary wrong both in that debate and afterwards, is pretty spot on. Bearing in mind the time elapsed since the intitial FFD, Giano's explanations/defences all pretty much fall under WP:NOTTHEM as far as the specifics go, or are otherwise just plain irrelevant rants. MickMacNee (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Giacomo reacted rudely after being provoked. Apart from when he is provoked, Giacomo is not habitually rude as certain commentators misrepresent him to be. He is more of an asset to this project than a liability. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Does it matter? Civility applies at all times, not just when unprovoked. Giano needs to learn how to calm down when he feels people are against him. Unfortunately, people have been giving him dozens of free rides, and that's where the drama comes from.(X! · talk)  · @354  ·  07:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Support NPA and CIVIL are policies for a reason. Giano must abide by the same rules everyone else has to. Basket of Puppies 03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Comment This is all a monumental waste of time, and ironically it's just feeding the disruption. I appreciate the general sentiment of Errant's well meaning proposal and of all those who are supporting it, but seriously this is a waste of time. From what I've seen so far Giano's incivility is nothing compared to the disruption caused by the drama that follows it. The way to make that go away is to minimize the reaction to his outbursts not to maximize it. This all seems a whole lot like a bunch of junkies who can't help themselves saying, "please take the drugs away because I can't handle them. When Giano says mean things I just can't stop myself from bitching about it at AN/I." It's not that Giano's outbursts cause all that much damage it's that a bunch of people don't have the self control needed to ignore them. What does it matter that Giano shoots his mouth off now and then? Because it isn't fair? Because if you shot your mouth off you'd get sanctioned? Does everyone have an aching desire to be uncivil to other people? I don't. I feel bad for Giano that he doesn't have the self control to prevent the outbursts. But then again the guy is also 10 times the editor I'll ever be when it comes to actually producing quality work, which is really what we all ought to be doing instead of this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Yes, well said. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) It matters because it affects other people. I myself would not be the least upset at anything giano might say to me, and I am personally perfectly willing to forgive his outbursts. Not that there aren't things that can be said to me that would bother me, but his sort of language is not among them. I am not willing to ignore his effect on other users here. I am am even less willing to accept the effect it will have on prospective users. The encyclopedia is at risk if we do anything that that would alienate new contributors, and insult is certainly among them. Some things can not be prevented, such as the disappointment at not having an initial article accepted, but some things can, and personal attacks are among them Something that has a public effect should not have a personal exemption; that he should be permitted, but not other people, is what everyone with the same behavior will say. I can understand that we may not want to prolong this discussion now, and the reason is that it makes us uncomfortably knowing that the majority of us will only enforce the rules on the weak. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Everyone commenting here is culpable in the "public effect". Has Giano ever scared off new users? I doubt it, because new users don't have the wherewithal to engage Giano in the ways that piss him off (see this incident for a good example of the type of thing that seems to ignite his fury). If Giano was actually driving new users off the project constantly he'd have been banned long ago (and I would certainly support sanctions now if that were the case). No he's getting under the skin of experienced users who can't for whatever reason, take the high road on this. I'm sorry to say it but it seems pretty clear to me. Now don't mistake my commentary for self-righteousness. There are plenty of editors who get under my skin and plenty low roads I've traveled already. I'm not happy about my reactions to those editors, but like all the people who let Giano's antics ruin their day, and like Giano himself, I'm a mere human being. In the end we need to ask some pragmatic questions. 1) Is it worth driving Giano from the project? No is my answer. 2) Is it worth engaging in this drama fest? No is my answer to that as well. Out.Griswaldo (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC) What you're saying has merit. However the problem isn't about driving specific new editors away (that's a straw man), even established editors can be driven off. What happened to kick this off was sucky and a misplaced nomination. But that happens to people here all the time, Giano is not unique in that. We also whine and bitch about it. I've got no problem with that, done it myself. The issue is the level to which the anger manifests itself in Giano's actions. It is an unacceptable level of incivility that has potential for widespread fall out, whether or not it comes to AN/I or drives off new editors. The content issue is non-persuasive. Someone Those incapable of interacting pleasantly in difficult situations should not be doing article work if it leads to disruption. it is simply fortunate that Giano works in a relatively non-contentious area. FWIW I agree this thread is teetering on the edge of being a non-productive drama, but it seems to have mostly survived. Ignoring a problem is not always a sensible option. --Errant (chat!) 08:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Support, though I expect this to be unfortunately toothless in the absence of some restriction on reversal of enforcement actions. T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose While Giano should not breach CIVIL, other editors should use more collaborative methods to propose deletion of images created by major content creators. Was there a discussion with Giano along the lines of "I know you have created a lot of excellent content, but I'm wondering if you might have forgotten about this image; if you no longer need it, perhaps it should be deleted"? Please refloat this proposal if Giano breaches CIVIL when he has not been poked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Weak support. As Tarc points out, it provides uncivil editors cover if we do not act here. People should be able to make their points without crossing the threshold into incivility; any editor not capable of that does not deserve to be in this community. Incivility undermines the project -- even if the cause of upset if real.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I object to Errant's closure of his own proposal, and requested him to set it aside so that an uninvolved person can re-close it, to give the actual consensus view. Further info on his talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved closure sought

Pursuant to Errant's final comments [15], I've set aside his closure so that an uninvolved person can review and close the above proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Outing comment

I came across this“outing” comment made by User:IntrigueBlue. IntrugueBlue claims he based his outing comment on this post purported to be placed by the person who has been outed. Given the extensive vandalism that has been going on at the Sunshine Village article (much of it directed at the person who is the subject of this outing), I think it would be wise to follow the procedure explained at WP:OUTING, to make a request for Oversight to delete both of these edits from Wikipedia permanently – but I do not know how to do that. Fages (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have RevDeleted the supposed "self incrimination" and WP:Outing issue. I shall leave IntrigueBlue a gentle reminder not to believe unreferenced content on WP and a strong hint not to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The following edits concerning the WP:Outing issue may have been missed for the RevDeleted process:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21] (good faith removal which actually serves to archive the outing)

Fages (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it necessary to RevDel my edit, which redacted the discussion? I thought that deleting the edit immediately before mine would prevent the material I removed from being visible in the diff. January (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'm not sure I understand how this was a contravention of WP:OUTING. From the linked description (emphasis mine):

Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.

The IP user in question posted their own name in relation to an edit, which I then repeated elsewhere. Unless I am mistaken, the individual did not redact this self-disclosed information, so the last sentence in the quote above does not apply. It wasn't my intention to incite harassment, merely to make other editors aware that someone with a strong WP:COI was repeatedly editing the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, an ip posted under a name which they said was theirs - we have no evidence that it was; it may have been a Joe job. As such, saying an ip is who they claim they are can be considered trying to disclose an identity without knowing that the individual has released that information. I know that it is a tricky concept, so that is why I only advised you and strongly urged you to be more careful - privacy expectations is such that the usual response to a disclosure attempt is an official warning or even sanction. To sum up, we do not know for sure that the subject has edited Wikipedia and that noting they have by referring to an ip comment claiming to be that person is considered WP:Outing - and it should not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What? The IP claimed to be the person. While that may be a lie, it is absolutely not [[WP:OUTING]|outing]] to repeat that claim. It may be wrong, but it has repeatedly been held that as soon as a person outs xyrself, it's no longer outing to repeat that claim. If I state here that I am John Travolta Madonna Joe McJoeyson , it doesn't matter whether or not that's true--any other editor is safely able to repeat that information ps, none of those are true. There is no violation of policy here. Furthermore, that RevDel was not appropriate: editors are allowed to self-identify. Now, if they did so without realizing the consequences, and later asked for the info to be retracted, it could be allowed, but I see people self-identify all the time and I've never once seen that self-identification removed (outside of minors giving too much info, but that's not the case here). I believe both LessHeard vanU and Fages need to explain more clearly why they've contravened policy here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and ErrantX, since xe's the one who actually did the revdel. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply followed up on action already taken (i.e. one revision was removed and someone added that there was more), you'd have to ask LessHeard vanU. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from WP:OUTING;"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." On the basis that you, nor me, cannot confirm that the ip is the person they say they are (as you note, you can call yourself anyone) it can be taken that they are attempting to connect a real person with an ip address - and by confirming it, without knowing it is true, you are involved in outing that individual. I would really appreciate it if you would AGF that what I am saying, although quite arcane, is correct, and that I have been exampling as much good faith as I would want you to extend that I am explaining and providing a rationale for my comments. You made a mistake; we all do, and it is hoped that we recognise and understand the situation and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I AGF that you think I (well, actually Intrigueblue) made a mistake, but I actually think that you made the mistake. This was an editor posting personal information about himself. It may be a lie, but it was not posting personal information about another person. By your logic, I could never repeat anytime anyone self-identifies. For example, on your user page, you claim to be "Mark James Slater." By your logic, I "cannot confirm that you are the person you say you are" because "you can call yourself anyone." Thus, by repeating what you yourself have written, I am violating WP:OUTING. A lot of IPs sign with a name, because they don't know how or don't care to bother creating a Wikipedia identity. By both the implied logic and the explicit wording of WP:OUTING, I may refer to that person by that name (of course, accounting for the possibility of dynamic IPs). So, if you're confident in your interpretation, I would like to you to clarify under which circumstances referring to a person by a name that they have themselves revealed is acceptable, and when it is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

“Confirmation” presupposes additional knowledge. If I had somehow gathered the named individual's IP address from elsewhere and stated that indeed the statement was correct (or that it were incorrect), I would be providing confirmation and giving “feedback on the accuracy of the material”. I never made any such attempt to confirm or deny, only made the good-faith assumption that the anon user's statement was correct and repeated it elsewhere, as explicitly permitted in WP:OUTING (see bold text in blockquote above). As for your comments, AGF does not mean “assume that I am correct”; I don't attribute any malice to your perspective, merely a faulty interpretation of events and/or of policy. I hate to be stubborn, but your subsequent attempts to explain your reasoning seem to require a leap of logic that I'm not following.

Regardless, I would like to hear you justify using RevDel unbidden on a user. Can you redact John Travolta's comments above because you think he made a mistake in posting his “name”? Can you redact this post because I just “confirmed” that Qwyrxian is John Travolta? What if I stated on Talk:John Travolta (which I won't) that Travolta was editing the article under the name Qwryxian? Where does the distinction lie? —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just use common sense and reasonable judgment, taking into account the nature of the claims, and the type of person named (in terms of their likelihood to inspire imposters). It's not helpful to concoct weird edge cases and wikilawyer over them. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then in this case the RevDel was even more inappropriate, because, due to the edits the IP made and the deleted statements made on the talk page, it seems highly likely (i.e., common sense) that the person is who they claimed to be. Again, this is common practice for IPs, to "sign" in plain text. Again, by LessHeard's logic, if an IP writes something on a talk page, and signs it "Bob Bobber," and then in the reply I write, "Bob Bobber, I think you're wrong," then I am guilty of outing. If an IP or user self-identifies, then that automatically means WP:OUTING no longer applies, and the policy makes this explicitly clear. If a second party says "That IP is actually Bob Bobber," then that second party is outing, and if I repeat the second party, then I am also guilty of furthering the outing. It really seems very simple to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Man Murray (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – That'll do admin; that'll do. HalfShadow 19:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps this circus has gone on long enough. If someone would do the honors? HalfShadow 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I am disturbed by the nominator's COI. That's what the circus was all about. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say DRV in 4...3...2..., but Masem has beaten everybody to that. –MuZemike 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And news of the deletion has hit Slashdot - see here. Tabercil (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailguy

Resolved

 – Blocked, and thank heavens for it. Kids need to get off WP and focus on school. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone any clue what User:Highspeedrailguy is up to at his user page? I know he's caused trouble before - is any action needed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by NuclearWarfare. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the WP:GOTHACKED explanation the first time around, but this is just getting tiresome. This is the 8th (!) account or IP he has edited under due to clean starts, renames, compromised accounts, etc., and despite the efforts of a number of editors to guide him in the right direction, he just can't seem to avoid the drama. I think a short-term ban is in order. 28bytes (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I find it hard to believe the "hacked" story, especially as he seems to claim he was online at the same time as the hack - there are only so many times we should fall for "The sky is falling". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Left a final warning. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Tim's warning and thought process behind it. Killiondude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Editor has rebutted the presumption of good faith, and is no longer entitled to AgF.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Further warning requested

Enough is enough. This user started as User:Perseus, Son of Zeus, then User:Perseus8235, then User:Highspeedrailguy. Now editing as User:173.49.140.141. Only the Highspeedrailguy account is blocked. This user has repeatedly requested deletes of talk pages and user pages, and is a highly disruptive user. Further examples include SPI accusations, cleanstart attempts, odd village pump requests, revealing personal information inappropriately, bad CSD tagging, Wikipedia account being hacked at least twice...the list goes on. I ran CU and found an additional linked account, User:Sheep Say Baa, which I blocked, and which he later claimed was "his brother".

This user seems to believe that only editing from one account at a time is within policy, and does not seem to get that disruption is a blockable - and bannable - offense. I would warn him myself but that would be poor form, as I've tried to engage, and have expressed some frustration myself. Having run a CU (and blocking an account as a result) definitely makes me involved. Would someone take a look and put him on a very short leash? I am thinking of something along the lines of one account, period, and further disruption will result in a ban, not a block.  Frank  |  talk  22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User is aware of this renewed discussion.  Frank  |  talk  22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a one-account restriction. The question is, which account? I believe both User:Perseus, Son of Zeus and User:Highspeedrailguy are permanently blocked as compromised, and him editing under an IP or IPs is not ideal given the obvious need to keep an eye on his edits. Does he get a new account, or should he resume editing as User:Perseus8235? Whatever account he chooses, I think we definitely need to proceed with the understanding that it's the last account he gets: if it gets either compromised or "compromised", that's it. 28bytes (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No. He's had, what, eight chances? He needs to, as he said, focus on grades, and not let hackers distract him from RL. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? A 3-month block? Indef? 28bytes (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd think a reasonably lengthy ban would be in his own interest as well as that of the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this was marked as resolved, however the Perseus8235 account is not blocked... --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what got resolved exactly... the IP he's been using is unblocked, as is the Perseus8235 account. We also need to decide what his main account will be, for the purposes of the inevitable unblock request. My suggestion would be to consider Perseus8235 to be the main account, block both it and the IP for 3 months for disruption, and make clear that (1) Perseus8235 is to be the only account used, and (2) further disruption either from that account when it is unblocked in 3 months, or from any socks during or after the block, will extend the block to indef, and will likely lead to a ban discussion. The other accounts are indef-blocked at the moment, and should stay that way. I think a permanent ban is premature, but a 3-month block/ban of any editing would be appropriate. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving the Perseus8235 account unblocked, if he chooses to come back, he should not make any new accounts. I don't think restrictions are necessary; if something happens again, block indef. Eight chances is too many. He's already stated he will not return, though, so hopefully this is not needed. In reality, this is just an editor who needs to focus on life now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny story...

User:Secrets floating in the sea is a  Confirmed sock of Perseus. TNXMan 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Perseus8235; user is either displaying absolutely no control of any accounts or is playing games with us. –MuZemike 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. So much for not returning. This is just sad. I think "come back in three months and don't sock in the meantime" would have been the best thing for both him and the project, but I can't really argue with an indef either given the obvious not-getting-it. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he came to my talk page asking to be adopted, other than to waste my time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Suicide threat reported to WMF already. I think it's time to let them handle this now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just taking the piss - has been all along. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly. But regardless, passing it up to WMF was the right thing to do. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TheLostHero2012

This user edits against consensus. He/She also has never even tried to explain their actions. This user has never edited a talk page or even leaves an edit summary, He/She doesn't understand that Wikipedia is a community. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sure TheLostHero2012 won't care, and won't respond here, thereby maintaining a record of not having a single talk page edit in the contribution history. For the most part, edits don't seem to be disruptive, and there isn't much I see that demands discussion. Failure to give edit summaries is a problem (because it increases workload for others who have to check the edits), but isn't really a blockable offense. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He edits against consensus. Like on Generator Rex. He keeps on adding characters that other editors have found not necessary. I feel he needs to be blocked, thereby forcing him to learn how Wikipedia works. JDDJS (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to communicate, full stop. I've told him that and said he'll be blocked if he won't communicate and work with others. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller. I 100% agree with what you said above and left on his talk page. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My Kenken link repeatedly deleted

Copy & Paste from Myles325a

For some time I have been trying to insert a LEGITIMATE link to a site which simply lists other Kenken sites and variants. There are, at the moment, two bullies who keep repeatedly deleting that link as against WP:EL rules, and have yet to tell me WHY, even though I have asked them many times. That link is: http://find-kenken-and-minuplu-puzzles.com/ (lists sites for kenken and its close variants. As you can see, there is nothing there out of the ordinary, or which is offensive, ideological, exploitational, vandalistic or illegal. Quite simply, it provides a useful list of sites which fans of the game would appreciate. Of course, the Kenken WP article is a good start, but it would be impossible to dwell on the finer aspects of the game, or broach the different variants extant. I just CANNOT understand why the link keeps being deleted. I am taking this up with the Administrators as well. Here are the comments I have left with superbly named Bongomatic and Dreamguy. ___________________________________________________________ You have removed my link on the Ken Ken page to a site which presents Ken Ken puzzles which are larger and more difficult than the ones found at the official site. I have read the characteristically verbose site WT:EL page. I cannot see ANYTHING there which would preclude the inclusion of this link. There is nothing in the “20 links normally to be avoided” which says that you can’t link to a site which contains advertising, as you maintained. In fact, the poster is advised that it is quite permissible to link to Youtube, which is a site solely maintained by advertising, at massively larger rates than the small site run by ONE person, Patrick Min. Why would it be OK to link to Youtube but not any other site which has some commercial input? To rigorously maintain such a position would be to cut Wikipedia off from most of the internet. OTOH, my link conforms to all the criteria laid out in the WT:EL article for inclusion. It is a site that is assessable to the user, and which deals directly with subject at hand, i.e. Kenken. There is nothing malicious or controversial about it, and it does not violate copyright. Commonsense should be used in this case. I would expect that less than 1% of the data stored by Wikipedia is in the form of articles. The rest is talk pages, user pages, and history. Of the 1% that is presented, a great deal is concerned with matters such as somebody’s side street in High Wycombe and is of no use to anyone. Ken Ken is a very popular game, and newspapers only present the simplest problems. The official Ken Ken site itself also presents only simple problems. I believe that simple commonsense would show that quite a few readers of this article, who had played the game in local media and were now finding those too easy, would be gratified to see that there is a site which provides them further challenges in this field. What possible harm can there be in that? Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things, and the best way of teaching them about some procedure is let them have a go at doing it! It is completely in keeping with the scope of the article. I present this explanation for why I included this site, and hope for a reply. If you decide that you do not want it there, I would like some mediation on this matter, from higher sources. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Why don't you seek consensus on the article's talk page? Bongomatic 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC) OP myles325a back live. In the first instance, you alleged that the link I made from the Kenken article to a site which has other Kenken material was "commercial", and thus against WP:EL rules. I examined those rules, I found that having some commercial element did NOT mean there could be no valid link between a WP article and that site, and that there were hundreds of sites with some commercial element, most visibly on Youtube, which have many such links to WP. When I pointed this out, you simply "forgot" your original complaint, and now asked that I take it up on Kenken's talk page. Even after I replaced the link in question with another one, you keep deleting it, and like your compatriot, Dreamboy, have never afforded me an explanation as to how EXACTLY that link contravenes WP:EL rules. The points I have made below pertain to his latest comments on that link, and I am reprinting them here as BOTH of you continue to exercise high-handed and bullying behaviour with me on this harmless and worthwhile link. Myles325a (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The following comments are the ones I posted just now to Dreamguy, your compatriot who keeps deleting the link in turns with you. And like you, he offers no explanation as to why. Dreamguy had written, FINALLY: Between the behavior above and the fact that another person has agreed the link should be removed the rules you have broken are WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, beyond just the putting up a link that violates WP:EL rules for being encyclopedic in tone. I also suspect you may have a WP:COI about this site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) And I replied: OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points: 1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules. 2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me. 3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business. 4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject. I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill. Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic? I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Could you assist me in this matter. I have notified both Dreamguy and Bongomatic that I am making a complaint. I have posted most of this material on their talkpages, and also the talk page of the Kenken article. Sorry if the way I have approached this is not the proper and official way, but it is the best I can do for the moment. I feel that I am being bullied by these editors, and I also believe that the link is entirely within the scope of what Wikipedia aims to do. Myles325a (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unambiguously inconsistent with WP:EL. Don't know what all the fuss is. ^Bongo_matic 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes should go to the talk page and or WP:ELN, but that one looks like link spam to me. If the further links eminating from there are useful, maybe they could be submitted to dmoz and the Wikipedia article could then link to dmoz. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping. I wrote in my edit summary to use the talk page of the article plus I gave you the reasons why you were reverted and why the link was no good. I answered on the talk page but you ignored and headed here instead. So this is the 4th place you've decided to post all of this. Is English your second language? I ask this because of your post "You write like a moron" which has this wonderful followup. This user has civility problems which I picked up on from DreamGuy's talk page as well as Bongomatic's talk page. If anything is to be done here, it's Boomerang.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified DreamGuy of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a is also at this point subject to blocking under WP:3RR.[22][23][24] Myles, you absolutely have to stop edit warring like that. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note:Checkuser has confirmed this was a sockpuppet but on AGF, he has been allowed to edit....Noose knot. Time to let the trap door fall.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The master account, Karmaisking, does not normally edit articles that Myles325a commonly edits. Kik is also pretty sophisticated with his knowledge of WP policies, and would have been unlikely to push a site that so obviously fails WP:EL. I wouldn't use the sock connection to add any weight against Myles325a. I think his own actions are more than enough though. Ravensfire (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this tl;dr prose, but what does "back live" mean? Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Emmanuelm and 1RR on Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

Emmanuelm (talk · contribs) -- The article in question is subject to ARBPIA. I note two reverts in less than 24 hours: [25] (edit summary includes "reintroduced") and [26] ("complete re-write"). The editor was blocked for 1RR on this article just over a month ago; in addition, there was an ANI discussion a couple of days ago on the same issue [27], resulting in a warning (because of "misinterpretation" of the 1RR policy). It would be difficult to conclude that the message is getting through. There is some pretty heavy POV-pushing going on, which needs to be dealt with in its own terms -- but the first step imo would be to insist on putting a stop to the 1RR violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not pay attention. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that it isn't clear enough how both of these edits are reverts. This one restores the following text (for a second time after I had removed it twice):

His job description, or U.N. mandate, deliberately excludes Palestinian human-rights abuses. As Dugard said on October 19, "I have a limited mandate, which is to investigate human rights violations by Israelis, not by Palestinians." The pre-determined outcome, however, has never been a problem for this lawyer. Far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe this way: "Today I deliver my annual criticism of Israel’s human rights record."

The source is an op-ed entitled "The U.N.'s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers" -- so among other problems this editor is putting statements like "far from being embarrassed, he launched into this year’s diatribe" in the voice of Wikipedia, not of the writer.

The second one changes an assertion that the Israelis bombed two schools in Gaza to an assertion that they bombed only one. "Sorry I didn't pay attention" might be adequate the first time -- but again we are now on the third instance of a 1RR problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

TurkYusuf1 (talk · contribs)

There has been, for quite some time, a slow edit-war over the population-figure of Turkey. The above user keeps changing the number back without ever having used the article's talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) started a section on the talk page to no avail; I have contacted the user on their talk page, where s/he did reply, but keeps going as before. This is becoming silly and tedious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on this one, in terms of which source should be used. I would like to note however that this has been a very slowmoving edit war on a FA, and TurkYusuf1 has as stated not posted his position on the talk page. I think there should be some warning about further reverting without discussion, they may have a point, but unless they use the talkpage we don't know what it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:维基帝

(I will admit this in shame: I couldn't make heads or tails out of the directions on reopening WP:RFCU cases, and that's why I'm coming here...)

I suspect (based on username — edit pattern does not per se have the usual signature) that 维基帝 (talk · contribs) (which means "Wiki Emperor") is possibly a sockpuppet of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs). Anybody can help walk me through the process of reopening the RFCU case to request a CheckUser? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's WP:SPI you want, which is pretty simple, but let me know if you have a problem. Glad to see other editors involved in helping with this extremely persistent puppet master. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but RFCU and SPI are the same page... And it's the reopening directions that I don't understand. --Nlu (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So they are. I'll take a look, I don't recall that everytime a sock's been reported the directions have been followed, I seem to recall new cases being opened as from scratch. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a hidden direction (titled "Requesting checkuser work for an existing case") that you need to press "show" on, that indicated that you should follow the directions if there had been an existing case. The trouble is that I simply can't understand exactly what it's directing me to do. --Nlu (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: - Based on technical comparisons to recently-blocked socks of Yongle, 维基帝 (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely to be the same user.  Frank  |  talk  13:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 Clerk note: No, this isn't Yongle; my guess is it's Phaseyour2. I've added a CU request to the SPI case for them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) on Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 4

Whilst reading this article, I found that there was false information provided in this article. I have seen episodes of this series and found inconsistencies with the article and the episodes. I checked the edit history of the article and found out that 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs) has been making these edits and the previous changes were correct (due to another user undoing 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs)'s actions. In addition, this user has been warned for editing articles such as Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 2 and Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 3.

I'm not sure if I have addressed this correctly because I'm kind of reporting this user as well as content issues. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.  Notified 67.85.84.168 (talk · contribs). -- DQ (t) (e) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some problem editor who specializes in adding hoaxes to articles on this series? I don't recall the name, but I know I've seen this editorial syndrome before. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User pratullobo

pratullobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of wide ranging bad behavior including canvassing, copyvio, coi, vandalism and my little brother defense. Brianhe (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Add possible sockpuppetry -- editing CoI article as 114.143.166.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm arguing above about what constitutes OUTING, but Brianhe posted a link to an external website in this diff connecting Pratullobo with a real world identity. Admins may want to consider if that should be oversighted. Also, if you look at the various claims Brianhe is making on the talk page, they may look a little odd to you, like reporting the user for vandalism done over 2 years ago. I don't know what's going on here, but it worries me a little. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Qwyrxian opinion. Neither am I sure what Brianhe is upto. --Pratul (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible nationalistic content dispute

This was originally brought up at WP:AIV, but this is going to be the better venue. IP user 195.28.75.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported by Nmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for changing cited information on several articles, including this and this. I glanced at the diffs, as well as a couple of other edits the IP user made, and it looks to me to be a nationalistic content dispute, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to tell what's what. The issue that worries me is that although the IP editor has cited sources, he/she has deleted cited sources in the process of making their edits, and I'm not convinced their new sources are considered reliable as a secondary source for use in a Wikipedia article. Can someone who's familiar with the topic look things over? I'm all for bold editing,, but this may cross the line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right (Nmate also). This could have a nationalistic connotation. The primary state of the article (pre-IP) is definitely the correct one. This could be one of those edits 1 - I reverted it. Adrian (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not vandalism and you should not refer to it as such, but a content dispute. The only way to handle this is by using dispute resolution, bringing in additional editors. If the IP edit-wars, then you can apply to have them blocked for edit-warring. If the editor uses multiple IPs in order to evade a block, then you can apply for page protection. TFD (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that...the other two editors might not be. My concern was the issue of replacing one set of citations with another, and whether the new set was reliable. Again, I don't know enough about the subject matter to make a reasoned, informed decision, which is why I brought the matter here. The odds were much better that there's an admin floating around with more knowledge who could make that determination. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think they can though. It is a content dispute and while the edits may seem extremely tendentious, that is not a call an administrator could make. TFD (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

System gaming harassment of User: SchuminWeb incoming.

See here. HalfShadow 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 1995 called, they want their top-down bbs thread back. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to block the new account NotSchuminWeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 16:37, March 3, 2011) preemptively? — Scientizzle 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This all seems very WP:POINTy to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some people out there who really need some new hobbies. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

New hobby? HalfShadow would disagree: [28], [29] & [30]. That troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.48.221 (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oscar776

Not sure what to think of Oscar776 (talk · contribs). I see up to a level 4 warning for disruptive edits, a very large number of creations that got AFDed or speedied. Nothing is terribly wrong with their edits, but I do have to question their competence:

• Here, they completely fail at adding an image.
• Here, they somehow manage to add categories from a band's article to one of their albums' articles, somehow adding a {{good article}} tag in the process.
• Changing an image's name to the name of a nonexistant image, then changing it back a minute later
• Trying to push Black Tide through GA, showing a complete lack of understanding of WP:WIAGA
• Constant addition of good faith but unsourced material
• Egregious typos
• Creation of very short stubs about songs, with little more content than an infobox
• Complete ignorance of talk page — user has never posted to another's talk page, nor have they responded on their own.

Again, nothing too major at this point, but several small issues put together can become big. This user seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio, and I was wondering if anything should be done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thread got archived in less than a day. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, could someone have a look at this conversation. To me it looks like the meaning of the userboxes are being changed, but perhaps the change of the earlier template makes it the same. I am not good at templates plus I don't care much for userboxes. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the changes made to the template, and there doesn't appear to be any real back-compatibility, so what used to be the right option number no longer is in many cases. I commented on Buaidh's Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically user User:Hamrolly who "lives in Canada" also "lived in Canada" before the change. :) Thank you for checking it out. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More like someone who "is interested in Canada" now shows as "resident of Canada", or similar awkward and unmonitored changes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're serious? That's what I thought. So the change does alter the userpages significantly! Garion96 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:149.4.115.3

This ip address is removing content from Ohio State University, that is against a consensus at the University Wkiproject to have consistency across all article. How do I maintain the integrity of that consistency and consensus, without violating WP:3RR, because a ransom ip doesn't care about wikipedia policy and will revert all day long.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You could request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubt I'll get it if its only one ip doing it. If the ip is not discussing, and is editing against a consensus, that would be disruptive. Yet I don't want to make too many reverts personally because I don't want to be perceived as edit warring, and I believe in the WP:3RR policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a short semi to get the IP to either look elsewhere or try and gain consensus? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if the ip is from Queens College and has a history of vandalism and disruption. Here is the previous discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Archive 7#Article consistency--Jojhutton (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton and the IP are both edit warring, with Jojhutton labelling an edit that looks reasonable on its face[31] as vandalism. The address itself is a shared school address that has templates piled up forever. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to discuss the actual edit on either 149.4.115.3's talk page or the article talk page. I'll leave a note. Anyway, semi-protection is inappropriate if there's only one non-autoconfirmed user involved. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Jojhutton also got a bit over-excited in the earlier discussion about the article lede that's now being revert-warred.[32] Let's try to be a bit calmer; this isn't an emergency. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. Twinkle and Huggle both have tools that address removing content without explanation.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Jojhutton does not know what vandalism is. He repeatedly labels innocent edits as "vandalism", if they run counter to his POV. Regarding this case in particular, he keeps repeating that there's removal of content. Where? Enigma^msg 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I'm being attacked, please link where I Continuously label innocent edits as vandalism. As far as the removal of content goes. The ip was removing words fromthe schools official name.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the old dispute about "Ohio State University" (the common name) vs. "The Ohio State University" (the way the school likes to style itself). Whatever the current concensus is, should be honored. The IP's attempt to change it qualifies perhaps as edit warring, but not as vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There were several huge debates on the article talk page regarding the lead. The edit you reverted multiple times was not vandalism and was not removal of content. The school's official name is still there. Enigma^msg 22:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I will accept that the edit is not being considered vandalism, although its a fine line, when an ip removes or changes content without any explanation. Remember that Twinkle and Huggle have warning templates that cover removing content without explanation. I do not however accept the unexplained attack on my character by Enigmann. I would hope that he/she would decide to retract that statement.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it a fine line? This is clear as day. A content dispute is not vandalism, and it certainly can not be called removal of content when no content was removed. Also, my name is not "Enigmann". Enigma^msg 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That Huggle and Twinkle have those buttons and that people keep misusing them is a perennial source of annoyance at ANI. I do see there is a lot of actual vandalism at that page (example), maybe enough for semi-protection to be ok, but that's not what I'm seeing here. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The page definitely gets its fair share of vandalism, as any big name school does. Looking at the history, though, it's not occurring frequently enough to typically merit semi-protection. Enigma^msg 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

usually as a rule, if an anon ip, with a history of vandalism and 4 previous blocks, shows up on a page that the ip hasn't edited before and removes or changes content without explanation, that edit will get reverted as vandalism, with a warningJojhutton (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to judge the edit, not just the editor. Changing the school's name from their self-styled name to its common name IS IN NO WAY VANDALISM. It may be contentious editing, it may be edit warring, but it is not vandalism. Vandalism would be nonsensical blanking, or comments like "Hi, Mom!" Arguing over the school's name is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That you call IP edits vandalism regardless of what the edits actually are? Enigma^msg 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If a given editor has been specifically and repeatedly warned not to defy consensus, then we're starting to get into something akin to vandalism, although it's really more to do with contentious editing and disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Jojhutton, please see the big template at the top of User talk:149.4.115.3. There is no reason to think that all the edits from that address are coming from the same person, if they are reasonably separated from each other temporally. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said that it was the same person, only that the ip had a history of vandalism. That was pretty clear from the user page. Also, for you vandalism fighters out there, its not uncommon to have multiple people from a school ip vandalizing for years and years and years. I have accepted that the vast majority here have stated that the removal was not vandalism, and I concede on that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ongoing WP:HUSH incident / User:Baseball_Bugs

Discussion closed. If further escalation a block will be required.

I have requested, on 8 separate occasions, User:Baseball_Bugs not post in my Userspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments). On the most recent occasion I could not have been more clear, stating unambiguously If you do not like the contents of my Discussion page you should empower yourself not to read it. Any reply to this comment, regardless of content, will be construed as an eighth WP:HUSH violation. In most instances Bugs has stated his continued posting is necessary for "pointing things out" to me. While I appreciate his aggressive policy of proactive user guidance I feel his, almost fanatical, insistence on continuing to proffer suggestions on the best use of Wikipedia - even in the face of repeated notices (initially polite, then firmer) that I prefer not to receive ongoing counseling from him has crossed the line to harassment. I believe that, after 8 requests to desist, if Bugs still feels I am editing or participating in Wikipedia in a reckless way that is endangering the entire site, he should feel empowered to file a Noticeboard complaint rather than engage in vigilantism. While I AGF as to his suggestions I expect a corresponding AGF reciprocity in my desire not to have him flooding my userspace. I do not own my Discussion page but it is, per WP:User pages, "associated with me" and WP:HUSH establishes "trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a ... form of harassment." After 8 friendly notices it should be clear to a reasonable person operating under reasonable circumstances that the continued posting on my Discussion page of "guidance" is material I find annoying. I have stated my annoyance eight times so there can be no ambiguity to this point. I welcome anyone to post on my Discussion page, however, have a specific and very reasonable reason I have requested Bugs not to interact with me ("Maybe someone should report you somewhere" is a threat and as such is inappropriate. Crossing this out would be a good idea especially if you did not mean to make a threat as may reasonable people including myself would take it as such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Felixhonecker&redirect=no#Comments), however, ultimately I believe any user is entitled to have their reasonable wishes respected with regards to their Discussion page if there is not a compelling reason to post content to it by another user. Bugs has yet to demonstrate a compelling reason to make unsolicited comments on it that are of such critical nature they override my 8 requests he stop attempting to interact with me. I appreciate and am honored with Bugs' intense interest in me, however, am starting to get a little creeped out, quite frankly. I am not asking Bugs be blocked or penalized, only strongly cautioned against WP:HUSH as my own pleas have proved futile and he has stated he will continue posting in my userspace at his leisure unless cautioned by an admin. Thank you.Felixhonecker (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Do you still believe that his comment that he'd report you was meant in the context of "to police" rather than "to Wikipedia administrators", and that it constituted a legal threat of some sort? If Bugs is bothering you, then he should stop, but it's not clear to me that you understand Wikipedia enough to safely participate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC) On the basis of his whole statement, that the reason I should be "reported" was because "Qadaffi is an enemy of the United States", yes, as I think it's unusual to report people for subversion or whatever was his intent in "reporting" to Wikipedia admins. However, I have chosen not to file a Legal Threats report against Bugs, despite the fact Doc James and other admins say they took his statement as a threat, because I AGF. Because of the potential for ill will and WP:DRAMA, however, I have made the simple request he choose not to interact with me. I made this request 8 times. He continues to imply his ongoing counseling is mandatory and I must accept it. Again, I am honored by his intense interest in me but would simply like to be left alone so as to prevent the possibility of WP:DRAMA owing to his past history of interaction with me (whether jocular or not). This seems like a reasonable attempt at mitigation of future unrest to me. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per this diff[33], there's a certain amount of pot calling kettle here in respect of unnecessary input on others' user pages. My own opinion is that Bugs has gone beyond what was sensible in continually posting on this user talk page. However Felix would not have made many friends during the exchanges at Talk:Libya and has shown little effort at collegiality here and is to some extent reaping what he has sown. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have never posted to anyone's discussion page after being requested not to do so, let alone after receiving eight successive requests. My hope is that everyone here can be judged fairly and equally without regard to how many friends they may or may not have. I am - as I have often stated - aware that the position I present in the Libya discussion page is not a popular one and is, in fact, decidedly unpopular given current events. I hope, in a spirit of intellectual honesty, that is a non-factor in any request I make for judicial and fair treatment. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure that diffs such as this or this strike me as particularly intellectual or fostering a spirit of open minded, source-based editing. Unfortunately your complaints against others will be judged in the context of your own behaviour here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC) That was not article editing, it was discussion taking place in Libya. I hope people can feel free to be frank and open in the discussion page of an entry to foster greater forward movement on edit consensus. My actual editing of the Libya page has been fairly incidental. IIRC, I don't believe I've made more than 6 edits in my Wikihistory to that entry and 4 of those were reverts that were supported by community consensus. I have intentionally - recognizing I have a minority viewpoint on the subject - restrained my participation to the discussion page. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs made some reasonable attempts to help with DR on Felixhonecker's talk page, combined with making an ill-advised wisecrack that Felixhonecker then ran with. Felixhonecker is being quite tendentious but I don't think Bugs' continued participation on the usertalk page is helping much at this point. Felixhonecker: really, don't worry about the first-class/second-class editor thing, it doesn't make any difference. Good editor/bad editor is the only thing that matters. Just do your best to be a good editor and everything will be fine. The advice you got from Maunus, Doc James, Fut Perf, and (mostly) even from Bugs was all worth listening to. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have tried to give him good advice (for example, that his user page demand for an apology for an SPI is out of bounds), and he won't listen. I've made it clear that I made no legal threat (after he distorted the wording to make a false claim), and he won't listen. Admins have advised him that he does not own his talk page, and he won't listen. I detect a trend. At the advice of an admin, I will refrain from posting on his talk page unless absolutely necessary (for example, if I mention his name at ANI). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks, 71.141.88.54. I appreciate your support. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs - you and he crossed swords and the issue is unresolved. The last person anyone wants good advice from is someone with whom they have unresolved issues. Just leave it. Plenty of other editors watching the situation on the Libya pages. Fainites barleyscribs 23:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC) He's not taking anyone's good advice. I expect his wikipedia lifetime to be short. But maybe he'll surprise us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) But you do seem to have a knack of inflaming things (mainly on this noticeboard), so please take heed and try to avoid antagonising other editors you've been in an editing dispute with. Fences&Windows 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC) What I have a knack for is getting to the truth of the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs - multiple admins have disagreed with your position that you did not post a Legal Threat. The reason I don't listen to you is because your worlview is out of step with admins on some of these basic issues such as that one. Ergo, I feel it may not be the best advise for me to follow. I would appreciate you terminating your active involvement on my userspace. I'm confident that, if something truly aggregious occurs, there are others with whom I do not have a history who can handle the matter. You could even draw it to their attention if you feel very passionate about it. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Felixhonecker - Bugs did not post a legal threat. You are misreading the other admins' responses to you. Please stop making this acusation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Your first sentence is a distortion of the truth. Otherwise, I've already told you I'll stay off your userpage unless the rules require it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I believe User:Doc_James is being honest when he said "may reasonable people including myself would take it as such" in reference to your Legal Threat. I hope you can choose to AGF and respect the honesty of admins moving forward. Thank you for agreeing to respect my userspace. I regret it was necessary for me to file this ANI to get that to happen. Best Regards - Felixhonecker (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I have given this user the same advice as Bugs. Felix needs to drop the stick and become a constructive editor. I closed the previous issues and unblocked Felix with the understanding that this issue would remain closed. That it continues to be opened here makes me doubt the wisdom of my actions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I hope it would have remained closed as well. However, within 24 hours after our understanding, Bugs began editing my userspace again. I also wish all parties had honored the agreement of respect and mutuality. It would have been very easy to avoid this ANI had the user in question simply not edited my userspace. There was no mechanism of compulsion that forced Bugs to edit my userspace and he was free to refrain from that by the exercise of willpower and restraint. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) You completely (and I suspect purposely) distorted my original statement. At no point did I ever threaten to take any kind of action against you. The reason I posted today had to do, not with that, but solely with your continual insistence on violating WP:POINT by demanding that an admin "apologize" for filing an SPI about you. You need to remove that nonsense from your user page, as it betrays your ignorance (willful or otherwise) about how these things work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Felix, you have had your answer - Bugs is now off your talk page. Leave it there. Bugs, for goodness sake do you really think Felix is ever going to be persuaded by your arguments? Do you think it's just possible he is enjoying yanking your chain? So why continue giving him the satisfaction? I suggest to both of you that you let someone else have the last word, per WP:STICK. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Bugs, a single and polite request posted to a userspace is not "insistence" and "demanding" and is specifically allowed by WP:CIVIL. I outlined this in my own userspace. I hope we can continue this discussion at ANI when you are able to interact with me in a more tempered and civil manner. However, I do not believe there is much point in continuing this interaction as you seem intent upon creating WP:DRAMA here. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The OP here has indeed removed that item from his user page,[34] so I think we're done here. (The self-awarded "Martyr Barnstar" is rather silly, but harmless.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Hm...combative user, relatively "new", ANI drama, hostility at political articles, picking a fight with Bugs? I hear a drawer creaking open. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) I don't think he's a sock. The OP picked the fight not with me as such, but by posting a userbox threatening to report other editors that he considers to be anti-Gadaffi. The admins were willing to let that go, as he pretty much recanted that threat and has not re-posted that userbox. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC) The OP's statement here[35] is a bit of a distortion or an oversimplification. There are situations where the rules require notification. Let's hope that need does not come up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, I Need Help

I am not filing an ANI against any specific user. I am just earnestly requesting some kind of help. I have just been informed I will be subject to a second sock investigation in four days and this one will take place in private once a "trusted admin" can be identified to conduct it, I will not be "tipped off" it is occurring and it will take place offline.

Last week, after a six month unblemished edit history on Wikipedia, I made a Legal Threat. I deleted it within four minutes - without being asked - before the person at whom it was directed saw it, and apologized. I was blocked for several days. I have repeatedly acknowledged and apologized for this lapse in judgment and taken full responsibility for it.

However, I am now being subject to repeated lobbying of admins by one user for various punishments and new investigations of me. I have offered this user that I will quit Wikipedia at the end of this week but that hasn't seemed to call off the dogs. I know that, eventually, if enough complaints are thrown against the wall one will stick because at some point I'll slip-up and won't devote enough time to defending myself from everything that's being thrown at me, though that is almost my exclusive focus on Wikipedia now. Every minute of time here I have to spend defending myself against complaints being made by one user.

I just need some help in getting the dogs called off for a few days. I promised this user I'd delete my WP account once I finished Drakkar Noir entry and I will. I'm at a complete loss and at my wits end. I know this is not appropriate use of ANI but I don't know what else to do at this point. Detailed background is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Felix_again.

In an attempt to defuse Drama I asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my Talk page so we would not have to interact. He refused and I requested (see above) an Admin admonish him to stop, which they did. I specifically said I didn't want him blocked or punished, I just wanted him to stop posting on my Talk page because it was likely to inflame things. That backfired and it has inflamed things even more and he's now coming at me with both barrels.

I believe I have contributed to WP - not as much as some - through my edits to Wikileaks, Paul Akers, Samsung Galaxy Tab, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc. and should not be treated like yesterday's trash. I don't know why this is happening to me, all for a four-minute lapse in judgment last week. I've been told I have no choice and he is entitled to file as many charges against me as he likes, even if they're not being upheld, but I'm not sure that seems right. Anything that anyone can do, even just words of encouragement, would be appreciated. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're subject to a sock investigation, just be cooperative and truthful and everything will be fine. Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. He's not going to report you to the police or the government; he made a joke and has already apologized for it. Just forget all of this and focus on constructive article contributions. The more time you spend improving articles and the less time you spend on this noticeboard, the happier your stay here will be, I guarantee it. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on Viriditas' talk page, there are some odd timing coincidences, but I am not yet persuaded that Felix and Berber are socks of each other. That burden-of-proof ball is in Viriditas' court at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from editing Drakkar Noir right now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Underage users

...are these User:Ninjaman11221/Ethan_Wold_Cook allowed? Also, it seems this user is only here to promote himself and his web works. Phearson (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole page is a copy of an article that was deleted at Ethan Wold Cook already, and it is a terrible idea regardless of whether it is technically speedily deletable. Note that the image itself is on Commons, so deletion would have to happen there. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the article slightly out of process. If anyone believes it should go through XfD, feel free to undelete and nominate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your deletion. FWIW, let me report myself here for a possibly out-of-process perma-blocking of User:Munich357 who was an obvious sock trying to recreate the same material. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That user is also the commons uploader, so I agree that they were the same person as the above account. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Kim to be acting appropriately in regards to the sock. We don't need to be overly bureaucratic when blocking obvious socks. Phearson (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Man Murray

Resolved

 – Page contents were restored by RockMFR (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk) - 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin restore the talk page contents at Talk:Old Man Murray? (might need to restore some losts posts after un-deleting, as it was deleted a couple times). I had a request on my talk page requesting this - but I'm not currently using my admin account as I don't have a secure connection at the moment. --- Barek (talk) - 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

incident / user:SchuminWeb - abuse of admin privileges

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Administrator SchuminWeb needs to be reviewed for displaying COI, as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Man_Murray_(2nd_nomination)#Old_Man_Murray. This kind of behavior compromises the integrity of Wikipedia policy. Examples of admin privilege abuse was nomination of deletion of articles where had subjects in articles have interacted with him in the past, resulting in a personal vendetta: Portal of Evil and Old Man Murray. Old Man Murray was restored due to COI and personal abuse of admin privileges. A gaming news/blogging article also gives coverage of the incident: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/02/old-man-murray-deleted-from-wikipedia/ --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Administrators should bear in mind that the Portal of Evil guys who are currently chasing SchuminWeb around the Internet have managed to get their beef posted to Slashdot (thread), so there are likely to be many more posts like this. I'm not commenting specifically on SchuminWeb himself, just pointing out that a sudden large volume of IP posts on this topic doesn't mean very much, since it's externally solicited. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Yeah, they're cute when they're upset. Of course, eventually they get too big and you have to flush them and the kids start crying and you have to promise to buy them another pet, also ice cream... HalfShadow 00:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I'd be AWESOME if we could go through this discussion without tossing around invective. It gets hard to defend what happens here to outsiders when you act like this. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Why? How are you now? HalfShadow 02:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Fuck it. Just keep doing whatever you want. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC) 'kay. ...will you still be awesome? HalfShadow 02:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Just to throw this question out there (not taking sides here at the moment): is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator (i.e. as opposed to a non-administrator), considered abuse of administrative privileges? I ask because I thought admins were also editors and, while I understand admins are held to higher standards than regular editors, that doesn't prohibit them from engaging in regular activities non-admins do. Basically what I am getting at is, if the user in question (who has not actually deleted anything here but, instead, went through the normal deletion process like everyone else) was not an admin, would we still be having this discussion, or is it because of the status itself? –MuZemike 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I agree that it seems to be problematical when editors who are also administrators do almost anything. Any editor should be able to nominate an article for deletion, but only admins can perform the deletion. When it comes to WP:CSD, I have deleted articles that are complete no-hopers, but on the borderline, I have nominated rather than take the decision myself. That's seeking to rely upon independent input. A PROD can be disputed and is open to any editor, and to do so to give a chance for the article to be fixed is assuming good faith, unless it is an obvious libel or copyright violation. That's what admins are meant to do, but if they are in doubt, there are other avenues. Humility predicates that doubt should be deferred to the community. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) is proposing deletion of an article, as an administrator ... considered abuse of administrative privileges? No. Tonywalton Talk 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) SchuminWeb is connected to the article in a personal matter with the subjects discussed in the article. The conflict of interest involved is a serious matter. The admin deciding to pick on these particular articles is no coincidence. Also, let it be known that User:HalfShadow has a negative bias towards Portal of Evil (and as seen in his comments in this section of the article): [36], [37] & [38]. I am indifferent with these articles and the parties involved. This kind of behavior can, sadly, happen to other articles, but I am personally a fan of video game history that had this issue brought to my attention the Rock Paper Shotgun article regarding the deletion of Old Man Murray. My agenda is to participate in pointing out the abuse that is occurring in the processes that are typically mundane. In this case, it is the nomination for deletion of articles. Even as small of an effect I may have (and how terrible my writing is), I am hopeful that I will some kind of effect that will raise awareness of this kind of behavior. Thanks! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Comment When I saw the /. article I figured there would be a great deal of fecal turbulence (hey, I'm trying to keep it at least PG-13 here!) regarding the AfD. Looking through the histories of the AfDs and the DRV discussion, I don't think anyone's going to be able to convince most people that there wasn't a WP:COI involved. But this editor, for one, is going to have serious issues with jerking the mop away when the mop wasn't used in getting the article deleted. Adminship is no big deal, I keep hearing. But given the hoops RfA candidates go through right now to GET the mop, taking it away from someone SHOULD be a big deal, especially when it wasn't the mop that got the editor into the spotlight. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Exactly. If I had speedied an article or otherwise deleted something out of process, then everyone crowing about what a horrible person I am might have a case. But I followed process by taking it through AFD, despite how painful that turned out to be (the whole thing lasted more than a month - the original nomination was on January 29). SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I honestly think this would have gone better for you if you had WP:MERGE'd the OMM article's important bits into another article. I for one have never understood in all these years, why it seems like so many people prefer to delete instead of merge and clarify. In the case of what happened here, I would suggest it be considered that WP have a policy prohibiting anyone from nominating an article for deletion more than once. The fact that SchuminWeb nominated the article *twice* is what makes it seem like an attack and why the greater nerdcore decided to raise arms against him. So it is known, I am generally against destruction of information, which is what I see deletion as being in cases like this. --Omnitographer (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC) comment Everyone is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. The COI policy doesn't apply to that issue because AfD's are decided by consensus and no one person's COI can affect the outcome - it is the community that makes the decision to delete. If the closing admin had a COI and the afd was a closerun it would be a different case. There is also no basis for even discussing desysopping here since no sysop privileges have been abused (or even used) in this case. I would suggest closing as frivolous baseless. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC) frivolous is much too strong a word. It's a complaint from a relatively inexperienced editor about what they see as overbearing behavior by an admin. It may be a unjustified, it may not be the right place for it, but I wouldn't call it frivolous. It's not unreasonable for editors to think (incorrectly) that we admins have great power in general; it's certainly not unreasonable for them to think that experienced editors have greater power than the newcomers. Though COI may nor may not apply--I can not say I am familiar with the situation--if someone associated with one enterprise nominates competitor's articles for deletion, I would call that at best ill-advised. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC) comment I concur that there has been no actual abuse of admin privileges. That said, as enforcers of WP rules, admins are generally expected to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than the average editor - that means assuming good faith, no namecalling, scrupulously steering clear of COI situations, etc. It would have been best to make the initial nomination to AfD and then not post anything further on the subject, positive or negative. Stan (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC) I don't agree. If I take an interest in an issue someone shouldn't be able disarm me by calling me names and then claiming that extended participation on my part is a COI. That entirely the wrong incentives. We also don't want to encourage the Wikipedians to instead participate by proxy by asking other community members to comment on their behalf. Rather, we should hold all editors to a standard of professionalism such that even when a COI is alleged that their arguments are clear, reasoned, and unemotional enough that even people who disagree should accept that they are well reasoned and not the pure product of a vendetta. I think Schumin has held himself to just that high of standard here (though I haven't read he wrote beyond his comments on the wiki). I also think the Wikipedia community needs to do more to protect its contributors from mobs which inevitable turn these events into personal attacks when there really is nothing personal about it. No WP admin can make a lasting deletion on their own, even if they're completely 'rogue', and yet these mobs are _always_ lobbing personal attacks either due to dishonesty or simple confusion about the Wikipedia process. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) The treatment that SchuminWeb has been getting for this was uncalled for. The whole world is not going to come to an end because we don't have an Old Man Murray article. That being said, from strictly a common sense point of view, he was probably the wrong editor to nominate that article (and Portal of Evil) for deletion if for any reason then to avoid even the appearance of a COI and not to give that mob extra ammunition. If those 2 articles really needed to be deleted, then some other "evil deletionist nazi scum" would have eventually gotten around to it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC) "The appearance of a COI", huh? http://twitter.com/SchuminWeb/status/43143325208948736 Gmaxwell, though, is pretty sure that Schumin is 'the kind of person who is immune to this kind of stupidity and not the sort of person who would really bother with grudges'. I can understand that you want to be willfully blind on this; the alternative is that one of your own is an embarrassment, and surely that can't be the case. I see you put the nazi accusation in quotes; do you want to WP:CITE that, or is it just how you guys circle the wagons around here? --meatpuppet 184.164.3.165 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Should he have mentioned the COI in the nomination? Yes; the appearance of proper behavior is almost as important as proper behavior. Is this a big deal in this case? Not particularly. Did he ever abuse his admin tools? No. No admin tool has been used by him in any way associated with this matter. Can we now move on please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

extra eyes

I would like some extra admin eyes on this case Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyrights_and_translation as I am uncertain of the copyright related issue regarding translated copyvio material. It is a possible largescale copyvio issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper posting to my talk page

I have repeatedly requested that User:Ronz not post to my talk page. She/he has ignored my request. Is there a way to block her/him from posting to my talk page? History: On Feb. 25th, after s/he templated my talk page [39] and that of two other editors with whom she is involved in a dispute, s/he edited my talk page to restore an unpleasant message from her/him that I had deleted: [40]. I responded that the template was inappropriate: [41]. On February 28th, after many more unpleasant postings to my talk page, I asked him/her not to post on my talk page any more in this edit summary. S/he then immediately posted again, so I explicitly asked, on my talk page, that she stop posting to my talk page: [42]. Since then, she/he as continued posting to my talk page: [43], [44], [45]. Please note that in a 3rr warning on Ronz's talk page yesterday, admin. Beeblebrox concludes: "You are way beyond 3RR already. Discussion is what we do instead of edit warring, it is not a free pass to continue warring behavior". In declining Ronz's request for page protection at Musical theatre, Beeblebrox wrote: "So talk on the talk page and stop edit warring. This could easily have boomeranged on you, I would be completely justified in blocking you right now, so cut it out or you will leave no choice." You may also find the recent discussions at Talk:Musical theatre of interest. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that your reply to Ronz's apology was less than graceful. I've blocked Ssilvers for edit warring on Musical theatre. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there any particular reason you blocked one participant but not the other? Shell ^babelfish 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Prompt block review requested

I'd like this block reviewed, please. The diff cited is three days ago, and blaming Ssilvers for this edit-war (no one else was blocked or even warned) seems bizarre. I also note that Ssilvers has been editing for five years, has 70,000 edits, has (had) no block record, and appears not even to have received a warning, which is certainly in order before blocking a good-faith user of this tenure. (Disclosure: I have met Ssilvers at meetups and at the Gilbert & Sullivan Society and cannot claim to be entirely disinterested.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People are routinely blocked these days, while those who should be don't; it's no surprise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good-faith editors should rarely, if ever, be blocked without being warned first that their behavior is problematic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I support an immediate unblock. There doesn't seem to be any warnings and there was little harm being done to the encyclopedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock Seriously? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I should be clearer. I'm not saying he should be unblocked, I'm saying I did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - Lulz. If Giano had said something as milquetoast as that, we'd be giving him barnstars for his improved tone and congeniality. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been unblocked, thanks to everyone! May I delete all that block stuff from my talk page? And, can it be cleared from my log? Also, in view of this, I'd like to broaden this ANI inquiry to request that someone review of the edits at Musical theatre since February 23 to see who has actually been edit warring there, and what the consensus actually is (as opposed to what involved editors say it is). For example, see these reverts, all within a 24 hour period that violated the 3rr rule: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Thanks for help and/or advice. BTW, I agree with the blocking admin that I handled my responses to Ronz poorly and hope to do better in the future. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It can't be "cleared" from your block log as in memory hole cleared, but my unblock rationale tried to make clear that I wasn't just unblocking to be nice, but that people actually thought it should not have been made to begin with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User Toddst1's blocking in general

As I was looking into this block by User Toddst1, I noticed another section about blocking for 3RR for a separate user on a separate issue, which you can find here. Going to the talk page of the user that was blocked, I found this section. I then proceeded to the article in question where the reverting took place, namely Thiruvananthapuram. I then looked at the history of the article, found here, and became instantly perplexed. User DileepKS69 had not violated 3RR as far as I can see. In fact, going back to the 22 at least, s/he hadn't reverted more than once within a 24 hour period. What the 3RR seems to be based on is the series of 4 edits made on February 25, which were, it seems, all reverts, but there were no intervening edits by other users. As far as I know, doesn't that mean that it qualifies as a single revert? A series of edits without any intervening edits by other users, I thought, counts as one edit or revert in terms of breaking policy. Silverseren^C 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't count and isn't 3RR, but who cares if the worst that ever happens to you is a cute little trout on your talk page? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is really not helpful. :/ Silverseren^C 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Un-sarcastic? What is this section for? You know that nothing is going to happen; the only thing people get desysopped for is when they go to someone's house and stick an iron rod up their ass. We can give a "warning" or a slap on the fictional wrist, so go ahead. Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both blocks appear to be inappropriate. Are there further similar instances? N419BH 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't checked. I'll take a look and report back. Silverseren^C 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just from his talk page for the past month, I don't see any other outstanding incidents, but I am relying on the blocked people to comment on his talk page, which isn't really all-encompassing. Silverseren^C 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be better suited for a) a nice discussion with the admin or b) an RfC/U. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to bring this to people's attention. I am not opposed to either course of action. I was actually hoping that Toddst1 would respond here himself. Silverseren^C 05:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My next question is actually exactly that, has this been brought to the admin's attention previously. If it has, then we're likely looking at a RFC/U. If it hasn't, then we're likely looking at a discussion with the admin. N419BH 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean has he been informed of this section or has he been reported previously for similar actions? Silverseren^C 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I informed him of this section. What I'm wondering is roughly how many incidents of questionable blocks we are dealing with, and has his general blocking behavior been the subject of previous discussions. If we're only dealing with a couple recent iffy blocks we don't really have that much of a problem; everyone screws up from time to time, including admins. If we're dealing with a longer-term problem then we have issues to discuss. If it's been discussed previously then we likely have a RFC/U on our hands. If it hasn't the first step in dispute resolution is to discuss the problem with the individual. So my question is really to determine the extent of the problem and where we are in the dispute resolution process. N419BH 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're being a little to quick to light the torches and wield the pitchforks here. Two possibly bad calls on blocks does not a bad admin make. A quick perusal thru ANI archives for topics on him show one that apparently went nowhere and one that WP:BOOMERANGed on the reporter. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I have always found Toddst to be an excellent admin, often in trying circumstances. We all make mistakes and I have more than one misjudged block on my own record, as I'm sure do the majority of admins who use the tools on a regualr basis. Let's back up a little bit and examine this in the context of his thousands of highly effective actions (including over 8,000 blocks). Maybe part of the reason good admins are so hard to find is that folks at ANI are so quick to turn things into a lynch mob? If there are genuine concerns about a particular admins' actions, the correct venue is their talk page and then a noticeboard iff and only if it can't be resolved amicably. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to users getting the impression that there are witch-hunts. Give the guy a bit of good faith and chance to respond; it seems quite obvious that he went offline after blocking (possibly to sleep or work or whatever other engagements he has in real life). People can make big mistakes, even under great pressure, but can graciously address them, and in such instances, there's no need to jump at all. It would be a different story if there was already knowledge of several previous instances which show for poor judgement where the post-handling of those instances was also concerning. Given that there is no knowledge, and this isn't even at a point where we can determine if this particular incident is resolved or not, this subthread does seem to be unhelpful altogether. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: It's going to be rather difficult to determine that, considering that Toddst1 is an admin who is involved in a lot of blocks. As other people have put it before, he is the admin that is complained about the most on ANI. However, most, of these reports are entirely unfounded and the original poster gets reblocked or warned. If there are other cases of questionable blocks, one would have to wade through all these other discussions.

@Tarc: I'm not calling for him to be de-sysopped here or anything like that. I'm just wanting him to be more careful in his blocks and, especially, to be nicer to said people. I'm also noticing a significant amount of incivility on his part toward the people he blocks, whether they deserve the block or not. Silverseren^C 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So really what we're dealing with is a couple iffy recent blocks; nothing more. People screw up from time to time. Let's see what his response is in the morning and go from there. N419BH 05:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Silverseren^C 06:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you never do anything, you never make a mistake. Agreeing with Tarc in this thread. An active admin who makes many appropriate blocks will make a few in error, and regrettable as that is, the real test is if he is responsive when questioned on the mistakes. He has done a lot of good work as an administrator. Does he correct his errors and strive to improve performance? Civility is appropriate even when dealing with those needing a block. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Edison. I admire Toddst1's work on Wikipedia. I have not looked into the details of this report, but have seen a lot to like in the past. Jusdafax 09:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From Toddst1

Hey folks. I’ve been out for a while. Just checked back in. I’m not going to try to defend my apparently ill-advised blocks today. Apparently I F-ed up. Apologies to all involved and no malice intended. Consider a trout (or maybe a salmon - they're bigger) - applied.

I will say that I had a RL incident earlier in the day that I’d rather not get into that probably contributed to a lapse of judgment.

If folks want to conduct a broader review of my many blocks, please do so. I've been a particularly active admin and there's a lot to review and probably a lot to improve upon. I will say I've always tried to act at least in good faith and to defend the principles of the project. I'm sure there are many opportunities for improvement in my history.

I think it’s time for a wikibreak for me. If my peers are amenable, I hope to be back in good form soon. Thanks for your patience. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's no real point in responding to this, since you left on a Wiki-break, but I suppose I will anyway in the hopes that you'll read it when you get back. First off, you are an amazing editor Toddst1 and I know situations like this are few and far between in terms of your editing and your active work as a blocking admin. The one thing, however, that I would ask that you work on is your attitude toward the people you block. I've noticed that you are generally quite curt, if not outright rude, toward them when they come to you seeking answers. Even if some of them are obviously not on your talk page for the proper reasons, that doesn't mean that you should respond badly to them. If you could just work on this when you get back and also be a tad more careful and less impulsive in how you block, I think events like this will stop happening, for the most part. Silverseren^C 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please

Resolved

 – Edit warrior is already blocked. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to take off and read this great book I picked up today. In the meantime, a clever editor is using us to make some point about a business conflict involving CFX Bank. In the two edits I reverted here, they first added what look like OK sources, but in actuality these are just partisan posts, and in the second instance they changed the link to the bank's website (from .co.zw to .com) to instead redirect to some partisan site. Clever indeed. Oh, they just did it again. I leave it all to you; somehow I expect to find the Chief indef blocked tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc

Could someone possessed of more patience than I can currently muster please impress upon Tarc (talk · contribs) that calling one's fellow Wikipedia editors "undersexed basement-dwellers", and suggesting that they "worship a sexualized image of a prepubescent girl", is less-than-ideal behavior? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not necessarily wrong, but it's unfair for him to generalize that way. It's a cute cartoon character. But apparently some read far more into it than mere cuteness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment #1 was a bit heavy-handed upon reflection though it is from almost 2 weeks ago, you're a bit late in the game if you're gonna carp on that now. #2 is what it is; many people, mainly from one niche wiki-project, are screaming to the rafters that precious Wikipe-tan is not lolicon, when it, um, kinda is. This stuff is swill, leftover from a bygone era of the Wikipedia, and it should not be given an ounce of room in project-space. As some opined in a recent AfD on a related page (linked below), this is the sort of thing that drives away potential new editors, particularly women, which has been a concern voiced at the highest levels of the WMF of late.

At the very least, this An/I should bring Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination) to the attention of a wider audience, just as the last one didn't really see a groundswell of opposition til the pro-tan clique tried to railroad the nominator into silence in an earlier AN/I filing. Good job, Kirill. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of possibly going over old ground, could you supply a diff or two where women stated they were leaving wikipedia because of this cartoon character? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was referring to was several respected (IMO) editors opining to that effect at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, not a specific person saying "I am leaving because of this". Tarc (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're making assumptions. Unless they are also providing diffs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)There are making what I believe to be reasonable assumptions, yes. I don't mean to be rude, but does this tangent have a point? I never claimed specifically that women are leaving or refusing to join the project because of the presence of this Wikipe-tan project-space page, I only noted that others called for deletion of a related -tan page based on presumption of such. It seems like you're setting me up for a fail because I have no diffs for something I didn't really say in the first place. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just trying to get my head around what the real issue is. Apparently there are variations on this kind of cartoon character which are X-rated. But does that automatically mean that any representation of an anime character is suspect? The key question: Is there reasonable evidence that the continuing presence of this cartoon figure could cause significant damage to wikipedia's reputation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Using images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest. And others, apparently, though I certainly don't claim that others share or approve of my colorful commentary above; that's my responsibility and mine alone. Are all the images of this thing overtly sexual? No. But IMO there's enough of a taint with past imagery...whether it was the blackface or the french maid outfits of the "Think of Wikiped-tan" image gallery, or the outright pornography that Jimbo deleted from Commons a ways back...that I think this stuff just needs to be buried in a deep, dark hole. Tarc (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Explict stuff can and should be gone. But the "normal" stuff is something most people either enjoy or couldn't care one way or the other about. Saying that we need to discard all of it because some of it was bad is classic throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and claims that "women might be driven off" sounds like a textbook case of WP:BEANS to me. Contrary to the popular stereotype, there actually are a lot of women who are fans of anime/manga. And we have a lot of more important things to do rather than debate over whether G-rated cartoon personalisations should be trashed because some idjit was stupid with R/X-rated versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're seeing stuff in it that I'm not seeing. However, I'm not up on this "lolicon" stuff. Given that Jimbo is the visible face of wikipedia, has anyone asked him about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

He's commented about it recently:

I think this article was misleading in saying that I "recognized" Wikipe-tan. My removal of the sexualized version from commons was in no way an endorsement of the standard versions. I don't like Wikipe-tan and never have. I recognize that some people do, and I'm not particularly agitated about it, but my name should not be invoked in a way that might lead some to believe that I approve. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales

As far as I can determine, while he's not a fan, he doesn't view the character as being particularly problematic either. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like he would be just fine if it went away, but he doesn't feel the need to force the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mentions of specific examples, and I don't expect that anyone else has either. It's certainly possible that something of the sort does indeed take place, and it's a worthwhile topic for discussion; but there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence either way.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think Tarc's comments about the editors who support the retention of this page are warranted, particularly given the scurrilous nature of the allegations he makes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; indeed, the diffs linked to in the first post are certainly WP:CIVIL infringements, and even seem (to me, anyway) to be violations of WP:NPA; a "people who state X are Y" statement is no different than "you state X and are therefore Y". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Kirill appear to show at the very least distasteful comments by Tarc not in keeping with WP:AGF. While one is free to have an opinion on the matter, calling everyone with the opposite opinion what is alluded to above is not in keeping with the consensus-based discussion model. I would suggest Tarc keep his arguments focused on the content, and not other contributors. N419BH 05:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc should be admonished to avoid attacking those who present views different from his in forums such as AFD. There has been a long history of attacking, demeaning, and ridiculing other editors, both in his comments and his edit summaries, rather than simply discussing the issues in a civil manner as required by WP:NPA. Twice in the last couple of months he has characterized "Keep" !votes as "fraudulent" in AFD [52], [53] and has shrugged off requests on his talk page [54], [55] that he strike the incivil postings, just adding accusations of "making up things that don't exist" and then deleting the request (without archiving it). He then characterized a DRV request in an AFD which the closing admin and other characterized as difficult and complex as "To "whine" doesn't accurately reflect what this DRV is; the Brit's notion of a "whinge" just seems to capture the essence far better than us colonials can muster. This is whingeing, the classic case of filing a DRV not over admin wrongdoing or mistakes, but because one disagrees with the result. ". In that DRV, he attacked several opposing editors with comments such as "That is quite a lie there." Tarc, please do not try to win in every dispute by insulting and attacking other good-faith editors. Discuss the issues instead. When people bring a concern to your talk page, do not just disparage and delete. Edison (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what we call "piling on". My dear Edison, that has nothing to do with this; if you have a beef with something said at DRV then you should have taken the appropriate steps to lodge a complaint at the time, not hold it in reserve to pounce at a convenient moment. Honestly, that turns your complaint into more of a pointy action rather than a legitimate grievance. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as your pattern of attacking others in AFDs is being discussed at this forum, it is an appropriate and non "pointy" time to bring up the long history of such behavior, which is not limited to the one DRV as you claim, at which others noted your past habits of such behavior. Clearly you want any complaint limited to the one individual abuse without demonstrating a pattern. That way each personal attack, taken by itself, might be insufficient to justify a block or a restriction of some sort, than a larger pattern might require. This thread should not be an AFD or a DRV as such about any one article. Edison (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to clear this up; there is no real concern in my mind over Wikipe-tan being a "sexualized image of a prepubescent girl". I'm not really a fan of the image, but the suggestion in that deletion thread seems to be that she verges onto the wrong side of child porn. Or that people who like such an image are in some way disturbed (or worse). My expert opinion on this is that there is no issue; Wikipe-tan is about as far from Child porn as you can get, and the people who enjoy such imagery are, psychologically speaking, nowhere near to pedophiles. If we are to get technical imagery like this is usually intended to evoke the tragic innocence of youth (personified by a girl or effeminate male) - tragic because you quickly lose such innocence. It's supposed to be beautiful rather than creepy, and the image some people obviously have of guys furiously masturbating to pseudo-CP is way off base ;) This is an unfortunate side effect of a society where the social crime of paedophilia is (rightly) treated with extreme disdain. My point being that concerns over sexualisation and "worshipping" of this image are unfortunate, not based in any form of factual reality. :) Although I entirely understand and sympathise with such thinking. Leaving Tarc a note about cooling off. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of the images, however, are concerning. I have nommed one for deletion to test the waters over removing the worst offenders. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment if as Tarc says "images of a 9-10 yr old girl in various poses, sayings, and outfits just creeps me the fuck out, to be honest" then I strongly suggest he never looks at a family photo album. Exxolon (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  This strawman has been attempted in the MfD several times, and easily refuted. I am speaking about THIS image in THIS specific context, not of imagery of children in general. Please don't attack positions that I am not actually taking. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of this we still have the same issue; a vocal faction decrying attacks on their "unofficial mascot", a mascot that was until quite recently used in some merely suggestive imagery, and some outright pornographic. I'm sorry if said faction feels aggrieved, but understandably there's very little tolerance for what this image has been put to use for. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of this we still have the same issue: Tarc still dodging acknowledgment that his attacks on others, in multiple AfDs despite his own strawman, are unwarranted and violate the basic principles of Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Copypasta of someone else's words with your own twist at the end really isn't a productive, helpful, or rhetorically imaginative response. Regarding the comments, perhaps in the future I shall think of more creative and less directly caustic ways to express my disdain for those who are in favor of retaining suggestive imagery in project-space. At the end of the day, a WP:SPADE is still just that. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Just a comment on the original complaint. Which seems to have been successfully obfuscated in the ensuing conversation. Tarc is experienced enough and literate enough to not engage in personal attacks. Tarc started in the right direction when he called it heavy handed. Though he veered in the wrong direction IMHO when he qualified that admission, and then focused on the fact that it was two weeks old. But for those comments, I would have viewed this as much ado about little. But under the circumstances, I would simply caution him to cut it out. He can make his point while remaining civil, I'm sure, and I expect it would be more readily received were he to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock Hearing Occuring in Userspace

A sockpuppet hearing against me is currently occurring in userspace. I would prefer it occurs in ANI, as the last two sockpuppet hearings against me this week did, but I obviously don't want to levy sock charges against myself. It's also getting a little out of control and has descended into name-calling between me and the person charging me. I'm as guilty of this as he is (my nerves are a bit raw at the moment). I apologize if I don't know the proper etiquette for sock hearings in userspace, I learned about this when the filer notified an admin a hearing would happen against me "offline" so I wouldn't be "tipped off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F) so accept my advance apology if this request cannot be actualized or is in any other way inappropriate. Can an admin review and handle as appropriate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Felix Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "hearing" going on. You're simply arguing with people on multiple user talk pages. I recommend you stop. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 28, I may have been misled. Bugs has been telling people they are gathering evidence against me to post "offline" (here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonywalton#Help and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jmh649#Is_it_okay_to_post_in_ANI.3F). Is there another way I can have an opportunity to defend myself in an "offline" complaint? I'm not familiar with these terms or the concept of "offline" complaints, or complaints anywhere outside of ANI. It's possible no such thing exists and they're just trying to get a rise out of me, if that's the case I apologize for my naivete. I admit I don't know as much about Wikipedia policies as I should. Up until last week I had never had to deal with the political side of WP and had simply edited in peace for the preceding many months. I just don't want to get banned out of the blue without a chance to defend myself. I guess I don't understand the process by which one "gathers evidence" to file a complaint "offline." I'm hoping I have a chance to respond to Bugs daily accusations against me in a transparent manner.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about Baseball Bugs. I expect if you disengage from debating him on user talk pages and this noticeboard, and instead focus on article improvements, the "political side" will fade away. I notice that of your last 150 edits, zero have been to articles and all 150 have been to user talk pages, user pages, noticeboards, etc. I suspect if you reverse that trend and return to article work you will find the Wikipedia experience more peaceful. 28bytes (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I would like nothing better! I generally spend 20-30 minutes a week on Wikipedia editing entries and that's it. Today I spent 5 hours editing 0 entries; it was all playing Law & Order. Unfortunately, if I ignore complaints being made about me - especially when they contain factual inaccuracies that are being repeated with knowledge of their inaccuracy - I face the very real possibility of being blocked. In the last 3 days Bugs has posted 19 messages of complaint on admin Talk pages about me, all for the same issue that was adjudicated by admins last week and concluded in a way in with which he, apparently, did not agree. If I'm having dozens of complaints lodged against me, and don't respond to any, eventually one will "stick" just by sheer volume of the noise machine. Then it's lights out for me. Is there a way I can seek an admin to use methods of compulsion to require Bugs stop registering complaints about me multiple times each day? Perhaps he can be required to condense all his complaints into a single mega-complaint once per day? This would solve all my problems and put me back into my modest 20 minute/week editing footprint I used to enjoy.

Also, I'm still unclear if the "evidence they're gathering to use against" me "offline" is something about which I should be concerned? I'm not sure exactly what this is about and would appreciate some clarification. I'm still learning how to defend myself against complaints as it's nothing I've ever had to deal with until a few days ago and now I've just got a kind of baptism by fire with so many hitting me from Bugs at once. I guess I'm just concerned I'll wake up tomorrow blocked. None of this is enjoyable for me but getting blocked is even less enjoyable. I really just want to edit articles. I don't know how I can get Bugs to lose interest in me. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You just need to shut up. Seriously, continue in this vein and you're blocked again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't be concerned about the "evidence-gathering". Baseball Bugs has agreed not to post to your talk page, and if he says something elsewhere you take exception to, I suggest ignoring it. If you're editing articles constructively, not acting controversially or against policy, and not posting to the admin noticeboards all the time (hint), I am confident you will be able to edit in peace. 28bytes (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You will not be judged by the number of complaints against you and there is no need to challenge any factual inaccuracies in them. You will be blocked (if at all) for what you have actually done, not what someone else says you have done (even if they say so multiple times). For example, if you are not socking you will not be blocked for it - no matter how often someone accuses you. So stop reacting to every post made by someone else, get on with editing the encyclopaedia and everything will calm down. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.  Sandstein  14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fut. Perf. above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia actually under the heel of this new regime?

I would like confirmation from the community that the regime content editors are now under, according to Bwilkins, is in fact actually the case. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Bwilkins felt the need to respond as he did; perhaps you and he have a history I don't know about? Or maybe just having a bad day? But your underlying question is too vague to really comment on; you said to Beeblebrox "You subsequently announced your campaign to block well established editors who attempt to protect articles on the grounds that they are edit warring. You indicated that you would do this unless content editors operated within certain highly circumscribed parameters, although you did not make it at all clear what those parameters are.". Could you point me to this conversation? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. I have Beebebrox' talkpage on my watchlist, and I saw a vague yet extremely angry tirade against him. Without trying to clarify, I gave what I thought to be quite gentle, polite advice regarding 1RR. As a response to that, I was effectively called a Nazi and "one of the most problematic" admins on Wikipedia. I look back, I have called nobody names, and honestly thinking that Epipelagic has me mixed up with someone else, because becoming the target of wrath for politely helping makes no sense. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not "quite gentle, polite advice". Every response the two of you made in that section on Beeblebrox's talk page is worse than the comment it is responding to. If you want to solve problems, de-escalation is more useful than escalation. But that's kind of a side issue. The question I have is, what is the background that lead to Epipelagic's first post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to Epipelagic's question, I can confirm that what Bwilkins wrote is correct: namely, edit warring is forbidden and certain articles may be subject to particular additional revert restrictions.  Sandstein  14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But is it true that any admin can unilaterally impose additional revert restrictions? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, only where they are authorized to do so by explicit community or ArbCom decision. You are right, Bwilkins's response does not correctly represent policy in that regard.  Sandstein  14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask the same thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just up for a moment, it's 4 am where I am. I'll see if I can find relevant difs latter. Thank you for your most "gentle, polite advice" Wilkins. It was you, not me, who called you a Nazi, I merely reflected back to you precisely what you said, which was that my position was "filth". I have no doubt that if anyone had said that to you, you would have blocked them for a long time, and that no other administrator would have challenged your block. But I am a powerless content editor, therefore dispensable and of no consequence. As you say, just filth. One rule for administrators, altogether another for dispensable content editors. Sandstein has endorsed your position of the draconian control admins can exert now, where content editors who try to protect Wikipedia may have little leeway, not even to make one revert. Why now would any any sane being choose to be a content editor on Wikipedia? Content editors are not posting much on this matter. Perhaps there is too much fear. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My advice to you at the moment Epipelagic, would be to get some sleep, come back here when you're slightly more relaxed, re-read what users (Sandstein in particular) are saying, and try to take a less melodramatic approach to fixing this issue. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic, we forbid edit-warring because content editors may legitimately disagree with each other about how articles should read. The rules that restrict reverting are there to prevent such disagreements from being continued through reverting rather than resolved by discussion. Admins who enforce revert restrictions do not do so to penalize editors or to promote their own point of view (in fact they may not block editors with whom they are in a content disagreement), but to enable pacific discussion rather than confrontative reverting. In other words, revert restrictions are content-neutral, and they apply to all editors (including admins) in the same manner, no matter how much the editors believe that they are correct.  Sandstein  16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders and Press Freedom Index

An editor using several IP addresses in the same range has been waging a slow-motion edit ear on these articles, adding unsourced attacks and also abusing other editors. IP has also posted attacks on BLPs, including Antony Loewenstein, Jon Lee Anderson and Orhan Pamuk. I have found at least 14 such IPs, all locating to Colombo.

As well as inserting unsourced hostile material, which has been reverted by at least seven other editors, the IP has posted personal attacks on various talk pages[56], [57], [58].

I'm not sure if this editor (and it is clearly all the same person) has technically breached 3RR; but this is still edit-warring and uncivil behaviour. RolandR (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your header links to the same article twice. I find it useful to use {{la}} in such cases.  Sandstein  14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPs referred to are

• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.111
• Special:Contributions/123.231.80.225
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.137
• Special:Contributions/123.231.82.23
• Special:Contributions/123.231.84.222
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.184
• Special:Contributions/123.231.85.56
• Special:Contributions/123.231.86.167
• Special:Contributions/123.231.88.210
• Special:Contributions/123.231.91.115
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.190
• Special:Contributions/123.231.93.200
• Special:Contributions/123.231.95.71
• Special:Contributions/123.231.114.221

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope Roland doesn't mind: I replaced the duplicate mention in the article with another article edited (in a decidedly biased and unverified manner) by these IPs. I agree with RolandR's complaint, but Roland, let me ask you, why didn't you put warning templates for soapboxing, personal attacks, etc., on all those IP talk pages? It may be redundant in the sense that it may not help, but it shows that you did go through the motions and that the user(s) is (are) warned. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because each of these IPs appears to be used for just one day, on a spree of reverts and attacks, and is then abandoned for another. I didn't think that the next IP would look at notices on the user talk page of the previous IP. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Most of the talk pages are still red links. Please try posting warnings etc. in the usual way and then report back here or to WP:AIV if that fails to stop the problem. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, for what good it's worth I have warned each of these IPs. But, since the next disruptive editing is likely to come from yet another, there may not be much point to this. When that happens, I will report it here; and I think we may need a range block. Meanwhile, I will request semi-protection on these two articles. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement over Eurovision content

Hi, I have a concern User Parishan has removed a huge part of text on the Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest article see here. Claiming its not sourced and that it doesnt belong on the article, I have tried to reason with the user and stated that we needed a third party opinion. Instead the user reverted it back to his version and basically said that because he has been on Wikipedia longer he is right and I am wrong,and he/she did this in a very patronising tone overall. Also referring to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball which isnt any reason for removing the content as that guideline says that speculations and unsourced material arent welcome, this section are neither speculations or neither unsourced or not good sourced. Quite the opposit. The material removed by Parishan were sourced, and my personal main concern is my feeling that the user sometimes edits with a Azerbaijan bias. I have noticed that his edits often are pro-Azerbaijan and not Armenia. He has also been blocked twice way back for editing with a pro-Azerbaijan bias. I would request that the content removed are restored and that the user are told not to remove it again. Its up to you.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the page history and the talk page exchange between you, it appears that Parishan was making a very reasonable point, while you were just reverting him for the sake of it, avoiding substantial debate of the content issue and instead engaging in procedural lawyering and ad hominems. If anybody is not looking too good in this incident, I'm afraid it's you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree ofcourse, first let me remind you that I was the one who wanted a third party opinion while Parishan didnt listen at all reverting back. But now this isnt a who is right who is wrong discussion, it is a discussion about if the content removed should be restored or not. I have nothing personally against Parishan. And you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion but I have to disagree I felt personally that Parishan were unwilling to even wait for a third party opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If a user is that confident of his own edit then it doesnt hurt to have a third party opinion. Especially when another user specifically says that, that is what he/she wants to feel confident about the removed content.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have to question if the content had been removed had it been Azerbaijan that complained about Armenia. As the user has in fact edited alot of Azeri articles in a pro-Azerbaijan manor. That is no insult is a fact when looking trough hes/hers edits. I think the obvious answer to that question is that the content had not bene removed had it been Armenia turning off its airing of the JESC.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see a need for a third opinion, as long as nobody has bothered to present a second opinion. You have not, as far as I can see, presented any coherent argument, based on the merits of the content, why you would want to the content to stay. In the absence of such an argument, I don't see why he shouldn't have gone ahead and made the edit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

By your response I can see that you dont give any good reason at all for your decision/opinion. You totally ignoring my very very mutch so detailed explanation to why it should be reverted back. I am not interested in having any argument or meta-discussion with you, but let me just say it like this, I think you are not seeing the very good reasons for reversal just because you simply dont want to. And to say that I didnt give a reason when you dont give even a reason at all for your opinion...hmmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I also has to ask if you actually has read trough my original message? I really wonder, because if you had you wouldnt say that a second opinion hasnt been raised.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please block my account Indefinately

I'm not sure where to ask this but can someone please block my account indefinately. I am not longer interested in editing in Dramapedia. Due to the number of edits I have done in the past I don't want someone to vandalize anything if my account gets compromised. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Smacks of an overly dramatic exit. If you want to leave then just leave. Flag your account with "retired". No one needs to block your account. If off the off chance you get compromised we can just block you then. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to look at blocking requests for further options. Who (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Its no big deal to me, if knowone cares. I just wanted to try and do the right thing in case it happens. --Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we do not care, there are just strict policies. Take a look at the link I provided, possibly try the javascript auto-block. Who (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that abandoning you account is the easiest solution. If you really want, you can exercise your right to WP:VANISH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch

Resolved

 – Just an errant mouse click. All sorted. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a mysterious addition of the phrase "Bold text" that I definitely did not put into an edit that I made, even though it appears that I did.[59] It disrupted the editing. Could someone explain how this could have happened and possibly investigate it? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably just a slip of the mouse. If you click the "B" button above the edit window it will insert that. Just make the edit again and use Preview to double-check before saving, and everything will be OK. No harm done. 28bytes (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your second try was successful. 28bytes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're on the topic, theoretically is it possible for an administrator or someone else with privileged Wikipedia tools to covertly make such an alteration of another person's edit? 75.47.148.36 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes: Nope. (I could imagine that some serious hacking from a dev could do this). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Something permanent?

I just ran across User 216.51.166.26 making this series of edits. Normally I would just add a warning or report to AIV if there was enough warnings recently. However, as you can go and see yourself, I ran across a talk page with a myriad of warning spread out across years. I'm not sure if this is something that AIV would deal with, since this would be the first vandalism since January, but I do think this account should be indeffed, as it is clear there is nothing good coming from it. Thus, I brought it here. Silverseren^C 17:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at North Shore High School (New York)

Another bored and unimaginative high school kid inserting crudely derogatory comments about private persons, presumably classmates he dislikes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)