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

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

YFuture time stamped to prevent archival. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nipping one of several stalking problems in the bud

Resolved

 – CU performed, does not appear to be any more current SOCKS. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not resolved yet. See my comment below. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who Pajko123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (or whether or not they're another account of a user who's expressed an intent to stalk my edits), but regardless, a user who has made only four edits—all four of which are unexplained reverts of my edits in four different topic areas, can only have been got from my edit history, and are plainly disruptive—should really be blocked. There is no question of newbie good-faith here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted the ANI notice to User talk:Conservative Philosopher as well, since you have suspicions about his/her involvement. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I honestly don't know. I didn't want to avoid mentioning it entirely because it seemed like the sort of thing it would be relevant to bring up (someone says they're going to stalk you and two days later a new account pops up and stalks you), but it could be coincidence - users other than CP have stalked me, and CP only followed me to one more page after stating his intent to continue his prior stalking behavior, so maybe he changed his mind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for copying your username, not his. (thanks for the correction, Doc) If there's any chance that a user is involved, it's best to inform them. I'll let others delve into the content of your report, as it lies outside my experience. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call to inform Conservative Philoposher, Vanisaac. Pajko123's clearly a throwaway harassment-only account, but maybe a CU can check it against other recently active named accounts; with a SPI, probably. Doc talk 04:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spate of this recently or something? Because I know "CU isn't for fishing," and there's no one I'm proposing to check it against. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No suspects... not good. If you've been getting stalked by sock accounts, keep track of them and see if you can make enough connections for a reasonable SPI report. Otherwise you'll have to grin and bear it! Doc talk 05:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The others aren't so recent and at least one of them has since been blocked (ZHurlihee). Pajko's sockitude or lack thereof doesn't concern me - I mean, it's obvious that a user with four edits that are all reverts of the same user is a sock, but that's enough for a "harassment-only account" block, which gets them out of my hair just as well as a sock block might. Pajko has now been blocked as well. Now that CP's been notified, I'll wait to see what he says, but if this is just coincidence (and if he does not continue to stalk me) then I've got what I wanted out of the thread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection with Pajko123. The implied suggestion that Pajko123 is a sockpuppet of mine is false. If anything, I suspect that it was set up by someone to make it look as though I were using an alternate account to 'stalk' Roscelese. I won't speculate about who would do such a thing. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but none of the edits seem directly related to you (i.e. impersonating you). You haven't edited any of those articles. How is that account made to look like you specifically (and not someone else who could be stalking her)? Your last two sentences have me confused a little, I guess. Doc talk 07:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese has accused me of 'stalking' her. Pajko123 is an account that appears to have been 'stalking' Roscelese. So it could be impersonation of me because of the supposed similar motivation behind our edits, even though different articles were involved. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pajko123 didn't just "appear" to stalk. But since there's no relation anyway, that's a good thing! Doc talk 07:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Roscelese accused you of threatening to stalk here. Quite frankly, I think that's a fairly reasonable interpretation of your edit. It's only natural to at least be suspicious when a new account starts doing something that another editor just threatened to do, but like Doc said, you haven't edited any of those articles, so it is somewhat illogical of you to characterize it as impersonation. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It may actually be worth speculating on who would do such a thing. Impersonation does happen, but it's quite uncommon from what I've seen. Who would go through the trouble to so deviously frame another? Doc talk 09:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's probably someone with too much time on their hands, a poor sense of perspective, and tendency to bear grudges. Which narrows it down to... well, everyone on Wikipedia. :P MastCell ^Talk 11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

HEY! I have VERY few grudges against bears. ;) VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• But wait! There's more! Pajko132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear quacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also User:Pajko1. Daffy is squawking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, should I file an SPI to request a checkuser for sleepers? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I already did that; that's how I found this last one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Soooo... seeing as you're an active CU and all, any chance on looking into closing that case? I've got enough pages on my watchlist already ;> Doc talk 14:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't yet resolved, because MastCell, who has accused me of 'stalking' Roscelese, has left an ambiguous message on my talk page threatening to block me if I don't stop 'following' her. I don't understand exactly what I have to do in order for MastCell to be convinced that I am not 'following' Roscelese (does it mean never reverting her at any articles, ever?). I have asked MastCell for further clarification, but he has not yet responded. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[1]. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• The user in question has progressed from stalking to threats, so if there's any way of dealing with the situation other than just blocking the socks every time a new one pops up, that would be nice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wheel warring by DragonflySixtyseven

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) has now twice unblocked an IP editor: 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with opposition from a number of admins. I believe that fits the definition of WP:WHEEL. Short chronology:

• I blocked 76.31.236.91 as an obvious sock of FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) based on behavioral evidence (the similarity of these two edits: [2], [3] and others by socks of Fahey [4], [5])
• Admins Eagles247 (talk · contribs), EdJohnston (talk · contribs) both declined unblocking based on that evidence.[6], [7] Barek (talk · contribs) also recognized the sockpuppetry and re-protected Least I Could Do (see edit summary).
• DragonflySixtyseven unilaterally unblocked 76.31.236.91 with editing restrictions. I emailed DS informing him/her of my disappointment with this action.
• I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC.
• DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) closed the SPI saying the IP "looks like a recruit at least, maybe not a sock, but they are here for all same general purpose, therefore in violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:MEAT."[8] S/he reblocked the IP for being a recruit and continued disruption and attacks on editors. [9]. [10]
• After the block the IP posted this uncivil unblock request.
• kuru (talk · contribs) declined the unblock and removes ability to edit talk page [11]
• DS then unilaterally unblocked the IP again despite DQ's objections.
• After the second unblocking, MuZemike (talk · contribs) did a CU on the IP and said that it is possible that the IP may be connection but also that he had some doubts.[12] (Not directly relevant, but mentioned to be fair)

The second unblocking seems like it fits WP:WHEEL:

• "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion."
• "Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action,
• Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation."

There is a lot more here including two SPIs, but I believe DS's first unblock was ill-advised. I believe the second unblock was wheel warring and in violation of policy. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

After extensive discussion with the IP, I have concluded that he is not a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet, of the original editor. Consequently, I unblocked him, subject to some behavioral restrictions: primarily, that he not edit anywhere other than a) the talk page of the article that's been the focus of this shitstorm, b) my talk page, and c) his own talk page. He is complying with these restrictions. During the initial edit mess on the relevant article, he was told that the subject (adding statement X) had already been discussed extensively; however, he was not given a link to this discussion, because it was on a page which had gotten deleted. So he had no idea what was going on, and then he was accused of being a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet, and summarily blocked, and accused of being a troll. He is understandably upset. I specifically stated that if he misbehaved, I would block him. To the best of my reading, he had not misbehaved at the time of his block. He was describing how he perceived the way he was being treated (although granted, he was being inappropriately rude about it and I would have at the very least chastised him if I'd had the chance, which I didn't).

Overall, I'd point out that this is teetering on the edge of becoming a stupid meta-argument. Meta-arguments can never be resolved productively, because they are arguments about arguments and about the methods used in arguing, and they befoul external attempts at resolution (such as this one). I have edited the article at the root of this whole mess in such a way that should be acceptable to everyone involved. Now piss off and go do something productive. DS (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DS, I'm trying to read your descriptions of your actions in the most charitable light, and it's still really hard to find anything positive to say about your unblocking of this IP editor. As far as I can tell, you've overridden the actions of another administrator based upon your personal, unrecorded, off-wiki interactions with the editor in question. Upon the basis of this, you're overriding the judgement of another admin. Even if you're wholly correct, and the editor in question should be unblocked right away, your method of deciding so sets an extremely worrying precedent. Do we really want a Wikipedia where admins override one another based upon their say-so? Quanticle (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Toddst1, what action are you requesting here? Do you want the IP's last block restored? I agree that the two unblocks by DS67 don't appear to have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like acknowledgement that DS's administrative actions were inappropriate. There was a similar issue with DS a while ago. See this archived ANI discussion. I'll leave it up to the community to decide if any sanctions against DS should be applied for repeating the misconduct. I think the IP should be reblocked, but that's of lesser importance. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation from the sidelines, and commented a while back on DS's original unblock of the IP. While the issue of whether or not the IP is a sock and/or meatpuppet seems debatable, I see DS's actions here as extremely problematic. As far as I know, there's no provision for "own"ing a problem user, such that you and only you may block them, and certainly no provision for unblocking someone simply because you didn't say they could be blocked. My impression here is that Dragonfly is bending over backwards to AGF, to the point where he's approaching suicide-pact levels.

After the IP was blocked, a series of (other) IPs appeared on my talk page and Dragonfly's to leave abusive messages, and my AGF mechanism appears to be broken, because I'm having a hard time imagining that they aren't connected to 76.x. An IRC (chat) account that 76.31.x has claimed in the past (confirmed as him by both that account and Dragonfly) left me an abusive private message overnight, accusing me of "having someone" impersonate them. This IP is, quite obviously, no longer up to much good, whether they were contributing in good faith initially or not. With that in mind, I'm really, really surprised that Dragonfly would see fit to unilaterally unblock a user on a post-block rampage of abuse, especially based only on the rationale that no one except Dragonfly is allowed to block this problematic user. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I see two issues! the block/unblock war, and the user page delete/undelete war. No matter how you slice it, this kind of conduct is unflattering and is indicative of something. Someone else can figure out what that is, because it eludes me. My76Strat (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is never appropriate for an admin to unblock without discussion with at a minimum, the blocking admin, and probably as well, with the admins who declined an unblock. Especially without an explanation. In addtion, Dragonfly's "piss off" comment is entirely inappropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a long-term issue with DragonflySixtyseven. It goes back at least to 29 October 2007.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time with this? Incidentally, I'd point out that by strict definition, it was Todd who wheel warred (by restoring an action that I had undone), although I fully concede that I continued where I should have let it go. Can we get back to work now? DS (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Todd was the initial blocker. How are they wheel warring? That seems like a flat-out lie. You repeated administrative actions when you knew other admins opposed it. It's the very definition of wheel warring. -- Crossmr (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't "long-term" imply that it's been continuous? Anyway, please don't impute motive - "flat-out lie" definitely implies malice; at worst, this is a clash of definitions. As I understand "wheel war", when Admin A performs an action which Admin B undoes, and then Admin A re-performs it, it is Admin A who is considered to have wheel warred. In this particular case, Todd is Admin A, blocking the anon, and I am Admin B, unblocking. I acknowledge that other interpretations can and do exist, and I also acknowledge that even if we do consider Todd to have been initially at fault, I was equally at fault by continuing the action -- and I took Todd's message to me last night, asking if I was going to report him to AN/I for wheel-warring, to be a tacit acknowledgement that we could be considered equally at fault here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have productive work to do. This is a meta argument, and meta arguments are always a waste of everyone's time. Please don't call me to AN/I again. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

CORRECTION - it has been brought to my attention that Toddst1 is not the one who blocked the IP the second time; I acknowledge my factual error in this respect, as well as in my casuistric pickiness as to who precisely was wheel-warring. DS (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragonfly is clearly unfit to be an admin, and should resign that authority immediately. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I politely decline the recommendation of the honorable gentleman. DS (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Dragonfly, but I have to agree with Baseball Bugs here. While you and him were both part of the wheel war at hand, (and DS, please reread WP:WHEELWAR again and again until you have learned by heart what is wheel warring, please.) Dragonfly, according to Kww's message above, have been doing this for almost four years, and that is something that Wikipedia does not tolerate. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago". If I'd been doing this continuously, I wouldn't have lasted a month. DS (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, bringing up the fact that you were accused of wheel-warring before doesn't help your case. Yes, I know it was four years ago (an eternity in Internet time). Yes, I know that you were cleared of any wrongdoing. No, it still doesn't help you argument to state, "Oh yeah, I did something like this before, four years ago, and I was cleared." Quanticle (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"It goes back at least to 29 October 2007." is basically the same as "It has been happening since about four years ago." LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason I normally avoid unblock-l and #-en-unblock. So, okay. I hereby place myself under sanction: I will not unblock any accounts that I did not myself block. Any violation can be dealt with by reporting me to Arbcom. Sound good? DS (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's actually good enough, actually. When an admin blocks someone on Wikipedia, they're not acting on their own behalf. They're acting on behalf of the overall Wikipedia consensus. Given that, when an admin is considering reversing a block, they are obligated to determine whether there is any opposition to the block and evaluate that opposition before reversing.

In short, no admin "owns" a block. All blocks are placed on behalf of the larger Wikipedia community. Therefore, in order to overturn a block, even a block they themselves created, the admin must consult the wider Wikipedia community, determine if there is opposition and evaluate any such opposition before overturning the block.

Quanticle (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What you, or any admin, should do is talk to the blocking admin first before unblocking. That's what you should pledge to do, as opposed to putting yourself on probation. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"I did this something similar, four years ago, in a different set of circumstances. That's not "for four years", that's "once, four years ago"." A clear case of selective memory. I distinctly remember this and this instance of unilateral unblocking, from 2009 and 2010 respectively. It's long clear that DS doesn't hold WP:WHEEL or his fellow admins in high regard, but what can you do? At any rate, his reply here was more than "I'm too busy to reply" or "I don't care about ANI threads", so that's an improvement.--Atlan (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The block of 76.31.236.91

As the user in question I think I have the right to speak here in my own defense. I came here in good faith, trying to make an improvement to an article. The behavior I experienced from Toddst1, Elizium23, and assorted friends of theirs was nothing short of uncivil. It was rude. It was definitely nowhere close to the Wikipedia policy of ASSUME GOOD FAITH.

I spoke with Dragonfly6-7 repeatedly, asking for advice. I was repeatedly advised to be calm, to take things slowly, to explain myself thoroughly. I felt I did so. I stayed honestly within the limits Dragonfly6-7 had put forth, namely, to ONLY edit on the talkpage (NOT THE ARTICLE PAGE) and on Dragonfly6-7's talk page. I broke this only once, editing MY OWN talk page only to inform Elizium23 that I was NOT to hold conversations there as my understanding of what Dragonfly6-7 had set forth. I never "disrupted" anything.

I will admit, I had heated words for some people. I had heated words because as I see it, Toddst1 and Elizium23 were violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in their conduct towards me. Sometimes, it was a matter of ignoring the debate over and over again for a protracted period of time. Sometimes, it was a refusal to address the points that were written. Other times, it was much more egregious insulting behavior. Toddst1 constantly accused me of knowing more than I "should", even though he KNEW that I was having continuous discussions with Dragonfly6-7 trying to understand wikipedia policy and what else was going on. He constantly accused me of acting in bad faith or being a "sockpuppet", something which even CheckUser MuZemike admits now is not likely.

When asked to apologize for his behavior, his reply was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALeast_I_Could_Do&action=historysubmit&diff=450598991&oldid=450571622. I don't really care that he "later reverted it", an insult is an insult, a "personal attack" is a "personal attack" as I've been told.

At this point I feel I have been treated completely unfairly. I came here in good faith, trying to improve an article. What I have received in exchange is people making bad-faith accusations against me. It has been hounding. It has been harassment. It has been ugly and insulting tagging that I was a "Single Purpose Account" despite the fact that I WAS UNDER AN AGREEMENT TO ONLY EDIT ONE ARTICLE TALK PAGE AND ONE USER TALK PAGE. It has been continual prodding and poking and infuriating behavior. While I was gone and nowhere near my computer yesterday, someone left a bunch of stuff which Toddst1 "cleaned up" yesterday, I presume in attempt to tar and feather me in a nice neat frame-up job.

They have now accused me of being "a user on a post-block rampage of abuse", which is nothing but a flat-out lie. I'd ordinarily ask what the hell you consider "abuse", but I don't really care. I haven't edited ANYWHERE except for Dragonfly6-7's talk page since, right until this moment.

I COULD have wasted a bunch of people's time. I could have gone around messing up pages all over the place until some hopped-up jerk with too much power and not enough compassion decided to finish the job. I didn't. In everything I've done, I have acted in good faith, I have been open and honest, and that's more than I can say for Toddst1, Elizium23, or pretty much any of the other people I've had the misfortune to deal with here recently except for Dragonfly6-7. All of them simply stood by and let the abusive behavior go on, not saying a word.

As far as I'm concerned, I have been the victim of a protracted WP:BITE campaign by people who ought to know better and ought to have some common sense. But instead, the very people who ought to have been called out for their behavior are attacking the one person I've met on this crappy site with any common sense, and they see nothing wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToddst1&action=historysubmit&diff=452446855&oldid=452444614) with their behavior. So obviously the "pillars and policies" of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL really mean nothing to them or to most of you.

Final point: I repeatedly, in my discussions, was pointing out that it is intrinsically dishonest and unencyclopedic to misrepresent a source. Lo and behold, I looked at the "arbcom" page one of you linked to today trying to tar and feather Dragonfly6-7, and it's RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE: Falsification of sources 2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project. Passed 6 to 0 at 12:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot)

But I guess not intentionally misquoting or misrepresenting sources isn't something you strive for any more.

As far as I am concerned, for those of you needing a tl;dr version: I feel I've been abused. I feel Toddst1 and plenty of the people he coordinated with have violated WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, and probably a huge number of other policies. I don't know who the hell was making nasty comments on Toddst1 and Dragonfly6-7's talk pages, but it sure as hell wasn't me, because I was nowhere near my computer for most of yesterday. If someone wants to tar and feather me and lie about me, feel free to do so. I haven't vandalized, I haven't "gone on a rampage", and I sure as hell have no plans to. On your own misbegotten heads be it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I, and others, tirelessly quoted policy to you and explained why your argument was wrong, and you brought up the same old points that had already been discussed. Yes, there were times when I ignored you, because I didn't feel like feeding the troll, and I had already thoroughly explained policy to you, with quotes and links to the relevant sections. I will note that your predecessor tried to drag me into ANI, and was told to leave me alone, so don't try to accuse me of being uncivil. Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that wasn't me. Nor was it, apparently, FaheyUSMC, who YOU even admitted wasn't that person. So why in the hell are you using that to justify treating me like that? I've been told there are "no excuses" for uncivil behavior. YOU are as uncivil as they come, no ifs, ands, or buts. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Feeding the troll." Sounds like a personal attack to me. But of course, since you're an abuser and not the abused, they won't call you on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see from the sound of the crickets loudly chirping that I was right. Elizium23 commits a blatant personal attack, and none of you blink. He insists that he is somehow justified in this and excused from WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BITE on the basis of secret knowledge that I had no reason to possess - some of it from a DELETED PAGE, some of it from a place I didn't even know about until two days ago that apparently was FURTHER HIDDEN IN AN ARCHIVE before I made my first edit in this sad mess. And none of you are even honest enough to call him on it. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are we to treat the block on the IP and the resulting administrative actions as two separate things? That is, if DS 67 was in the wrong, that is not going to automatically equate to a re-block on the IP, is it? –MuZemike 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no admin is allowed to block the IP, because DS will automatically unblock them. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But if the block wasn't a very good one in the first place, then it wouldn't be fair at all to re-block. –MuZemike 01:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that you are right. Per Toddst's original post, he wanted a discussion of DS's actions and wasn't looking for the IP to be blocked again.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I don't see anywhere where anybody suggested that the block was wrong in the first place. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. I'll start. The block, along with the rest of Toddst1's constantly UNCIVIL behavior (violating WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and I don't know how many other policies because I still don't know half of the amazing number of "wikipedia policies" that seem to be salted into places on this godforsaken website that nobody who isn't an aspergers obsessive could spend the time to find), was completely out of line. What's worse is the number of you, including Toddst1 himself, who insist he "did nothing wrong" hunting me and continually harassing me. Oh, and the form-letter "rejection" the first time, followed by EdJohnston's ridiculous refusal, also are out of line and constitute violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BITE. Finally, the constant insistence of people to MISQUOTE a source, which is what I was here to fix when I saw the source misquoted on the webpage, violates precedence I didn't even at the time realize your "arbcom" had set, though it is now quoted above thanks to one of you being good enough to link to it for me. Dragonfly6-7 isn't to blame here, Toddst1 is. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behaviorial similarities" seems like a bit of a stretch to block someone. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies on Edit Warring and Talk page usage? This could have easily been dealt with via the normal Bold, Revert, Discuss process or simple Edit Warring processes. Instead, an admin decided to use the tools because someone's quack sounded like someone else's quack. One of the first guidelines on the WP:ADMIN page is that no admin is EVER required to use the tools.

I've never even heard of this webcomic that the fuss is all about, and I could care less, but if you have an issue with an edit, just revert it and start a discussion like you would normally. Start the sockpuppet investigation if you must, but my goodness what a lot of fuss over so little.

The edits that prompted this original block hardly seem earthshattering, so I don't see how the block was really all that crucial. Regardless of whether you can get support for an edit, block, or any other action, let's try not to be too zealous to pull out tools and squish people. If you had absolute proof that this IP wasn't a sock, how would you have reacted (as an editor)? Next time, do the checkuser first, unless there is a real threat to the encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action is sought here? N419BH 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@Avanu: You'd be surprised the types of disputes editors get themselves messes into here; we even have an entire page dedicated to them :) That being said (and not to disagree with your last paragraph, criticism of WP:DUCK aside), remember that sometimes CU can't tell you anything, which is certainly true with old socks i.e. ones that are stale in which CU can't check.

@N419BH: The main focus is the wheel war between Toddst1 and Dragonfly67 above. However, I would contend that, per my comment at the SPI case there, we couldn't be certain of a connection, and it's possible this could have been all avoided given we AGF'd a little better and gave the benefit of the doubt to the IP in question. –MuZemike 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one wheel warring was DS. Toddst didn't remotely get involved in that. He was the initial blocker and that was it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like a bunch of hot air over pretty much nothing. DragonFly probably shouldn't have undone the block, and definitely shouldn't have undone it twice (not impressed with the edit summary on the second unblock either) but Toddst maybe shouldn't have done it in the first place. But, alas, the only perfect science is hind sight. So how about trouts all around and we move on? N419BH 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass on that trout. Given the long saga of the FaheyUSMC socks/meats, the DUCK test was applied with the appropriate level of discretion - that's why the first 3 admins that reviewed the block (Eagles247, EdJohnston, Barek) all came to the same conclusion. It wasn't until MuZemike ran a CU that any credible questions on the block came up. I'm confident I employed reasonable judgement followed by due process. If you don't believe WP:DUCK should be used, then you've got a different issue. Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. After I was unblocked, it was made QUITE clear that I was very limited in what I was allowed to do per Dragonfly6-7. A note was placed on my talk page to that effect as well. At this point Toddst1 and Elizium23 both began to be very uncivil to me, constantly doing things designed to get me angry, I presume in an attempt to make me loose some profanity-laden tirade that would trigger Dragonfly6-7 to reblock. Toddst1 also began a campaign to get Dragonfly6-7 or others to reblock me directly, including creating a bad-faith "SPI" page along with highly uncivil edit summaries on the creation and notifications. Throughout the process, whenever I had trouble understanding, I asked Dragonfly6-7 to explain what was going on to me. For this, as I started to gain more knowledge of wikipedia policies, Toddst1 then started to insist that I "knew too much" and was "admitting guilt" for HAVING SOMEONE EXPLAIN POLICY TO ME. There was a COMPLETE lack of any assumption of good faith from his perspective and it is my belief that he knew precisely what he was doing, hoping to have me reblocked so that nobody would ever question his uncivil actions. As I am still unblocked, I am now asking if there's anyone honest here willing to actually look at the sort of uncivil nonsense I've been put through at his hands or not. I held up my end of the bargain, I edited ONLY where allowed to edit (despite Elizium23 trying to trick me into editing where I wasn't), and I tried to keep civil, though I'll admit that due to the constant NPA and UNCIVIL behavior from Toddst1 and Elizium23, there were times I lost my temper and described them as I really felt about them rather than couching it in flowery language. Their conduct, meanwhile, was patently ridiculous and obviously designed to harass. This whole section here is just the latest salvo in it, with Toddst1 upgrading his efforts not just to harass me, but to harass the one person (that'd be Dragonfly6-7) who bothered to look at the situation fairly and give me a chance to participate in good faith. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and: just to clarify one thing on the whole "long saga of FaheyUSMC socks/meats" load of manure that Toddst1 is now shoveling, I'd like to point out MuZemike's comments (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FFaheyUSMC&action=historysubmit&diff=452316642&oldid=452309394) in my case that seem to apply to the other case, as well as the fact that even Elizium23 in that previous case admitted to not thinking that FaheyUSMC was the same as the person leaving a bunch of nastiness. Given that someone tried to frame me this weekend, and having read the history of the undeleted talk:The Dating Guy page (which Dragonfly6-7 had to unlock for me! AGAIN with the super-secret-only-if-you-were-there-or-know-the-handshake bullshit knowledge!), I think the same happened to this other person, and I think that's a horribly bad and abusive block too. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Behavioral similarities" has another name: WP:DUCK. On a topic area where socking had been occuring, abuse had been documented, and a vendetta against one particular editor (Elizium) was noted, a new IP appears and jumps directly into the argument, making the same arguments as the last sock and badmouthing the same editor the last sock disliked. You don't need to be a particularly judgmental person to be almost deafened by the quacking in that situation, and in fact I said as much at the time, when Dragonfly unblocked him because he was "sure" he wasn't a sock. At that time, Dragonfly requested that I give both he and the IP a bit of rope, and I agreed and left a note on Dragonfly's talk saying that while the quacking was loud, the IP appeared to be trying to contribute mostly calmly and I was content to watch the situation develop. It turns out, the "way the situation developed" was with the IP becoming increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid in manner, throwing out accusations and refusing to compromise on the article's talk page (one highlight, as I recall, was declaring that since Elizium hadn't replied quickly, the IP was assuming he had won and could go ahead and implement his favored content).

So, let's review. We have an IP that was blocked for very obvious quacking, unblocked with Dragonfly's assurances that he wasn't a sock and Dragonfly would keep him under control, who proceeded to lose control, was re-blocked for quacking and disruption, and was unblocked by Dragonfly because he hadn't given permission for the block. And now, we have the IP here on ANI, throwing out wild accusations of conspiracy, people trying to railroad him, and people harassing him (for what gain, I remain unclear). An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation and posts here increasingly nonsensical commentary demanding that, when we hear quacking, we conclude it must be a zebra, not a duck.

And...people are arguing that these blocks weren't needed to prevent disruption? I started off willing to assume good faith of the IP, but nothing he's done since then has given any evidence that he's here to contribute in a non-fighty manner, and I don't see either of the blocks as having taken any leap larger than a common-sense one in justification. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I get it Fluffernutter: you don't like me. But I don't like being lied about. So let's see: you first admit I "appeared" to be trying to work in good faith. Thanks so much for "assuming good faith." Then you ignore all the provocations and insults hurled my way, and insist I was "increasingly abusive in tone and increasingly paranoid." I'll remind you that this weekend, someone tried to frame me by placing a bunch of abuse while I wasn't around and was blocked. I think perhaps a little paranoia on my side may be justified by now. As for the rest, you insist that "since Elizium hadn't replied quickly", I was "assuming I had won." In actual fact it was two days later that I posted my comment, and it was if anything an expression of frustration at Elizium's never bothering to so much as acknowledge the prior point that I had made. I was, if you will remember, still under my agreement with Dragonfly6-7 and I was not going to "implement my favored content" or edit that article page in any way. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: "An IP who, when blocked, either socks or meatpuppets to insult people peripherally involved in the situation" - I'm nothing of the sort. I'll say it again: I was NOT the person doing that. I spent that entire day from 10am until getting home late at night at my girlfriend's church festival. I have NOTHING to gain by doing something like that even if I knew how. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "for what gain, I remain unclear." How about this "gain"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN) From what I understand after, again, reading the history (even the stuff that had to be restored from being deleted that I could not see when I came here because it was deleted), the previous argument went about halfway. FaheyUSMC and Agent86 along with someone else were opposed primarily by Elizium23 on the Talk:The Dating Guy page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Dating_Guy). Agent86 was driven away from that talk page or gave up in disgust, and FaheyUSMC and the other person were both "blocked as sockpuppets" after someone magically appeared - much like this last weekend - leaving a bunch of profanity and attacks and vandalizing and doing stuff I'm sure I was never even able to find just by following back from that one talk page. And you wonder why after being on the receiving end of it, I smell a frame-up? Because from where I sit, it looks like one. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to any commenting parties that this saga has been going since before June 3, and much of the past involves the deleted article The Dating Guy. Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kyphis/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FaheyUSMC, Forum thread 1, and Forum thread 2 for most of the story. 76.31.236.91 turned up within 48 hours of protection expiring on Least I Could Do and immediately accused me of edit warring on it. He seems to have a crystal clear knowledge of all kinds of policies except for the ones we've been quoting to him such as WP:RS and WP:V. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Once again: I was "being bold" and following the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle." I'm not "new" to wikipedia as in never having seen it before, but I also have never bothered to edit often enough to want to have an account or waste much time with it. I know of the "Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle" because of someone quoting it to me a long time ago when they undid something I tried to improve. This is the most time I've ever spent on Wikipedia and that's only because I can't stand to see people behaving like bullies. I didn't know the history of any of it, I had never seen the forums you link to, there was NO MENTION OF IT on the Least I Could Do talk page and everything you claimed was "already discussed" was hidden on deleted pages where I couldn't see it. I don't have "crystal clear" knowledge of anything except what I've been pointed to, what I've had explained to me, and what I've read on my own in what I again will point out is the ridiculously convoluted, disorganized, impossible to decipher MESS that is the pile of Wikipedia "essays", "policies", "procedures", and on and on. Hell, until a couple of days ago I didn't even know about the page I am writing on right now, and THAT only because Toddst1 started going after Dragonfly6-7 about it on Dragonfly's talk page. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Event timeline

(edit conflict) This event has gotten quite long and fairly confusing. I have organized it into a timeline to make this easier to sort through.

Events timeline

- 1. On 05:05 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes an edit to the article Least I Could Do. The edit doesn't have a edit summary. 2. On 05:07 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes a second edit to the article Least I Could Do. The edit contains the edit summary of: "if you have a problem with it, please take it to talkpage rather than edit warring." 3. On 15:40 September 12 Elizium23 reverts the two edits with the edit summary of: "Reverted 2 edits by 76.31.236.91 (talk): Unsourced - already discussed. (TW)". 4. On 15:41 September 12 Elizium23 leaves a 'level 3 warning on User talk:76.31.236.91 for his edit to the article Least I Could Do. 5. On 15:43 September 12 Elizium23 requested page protection for the Least I Could Do citing “ Persistent vandalism – target of persistent meat puppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC/Archive - inserting unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material, same as The Dating Guy. ” 6. On 15:49 September 12 Barek protected the Least I Could Do article with the reason: “ Protected Least I Could Do: Persistent sock puppetry: resumption of sock edit-warring following expiration of previous page protection ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC) ” 7. On 15:52 September 12 Toddst1 blocked 76.31.236.91 with the summary “ 15:52, September 12, 2011 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.91 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (Block evasion: {{ipsock|FaheyUSMC|blocked=yes}}) ” 8. On 19:29 September 12 (3h 27m later) 76.31.236.91 requests an unblock and asked where the information he added was previously discussed. (It appears it was discussed on a talk page that was deleted on September 10th) 9. On 19:31 September 12 76.31.236.91 makes a minor edit to his unblock request. 10. On 20:56 September 23 Eagles247 declines the unblock request with a templated message. 11. On 23:40 September 12 76.31.236.91 requests another unblock and asks how he has caused disruption. As all he did was expand a paragraph, which, in itself is not violating any Wikipedia policies. The information added was already in the citation already in the article. 12. On 23:42 September 12 Toddst1 removes the unblock request with the summary "(Undid revision 450172401 by 76.31.236.91 (talk) highly inappropriate unblock request - revoking talk page privileges)" Toddst1 then revokes] talk page access with the summary “ 23:42, September 12, 2011 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for 76.31.236.91 (talk) with an expiry time of 2011-10-12T15:52:10Z (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Block evasion: {{ipsock|FaheyUSMC|blocked=yes}}) ” 13. On 23:45 September 12 Toddst1 reverts his removal, EdJohnston declines the unblock request citing that the two edits 76.31.236.91 made was enough evidence to block him as a sock. At this point it appears that 76.31.236.91 found a link to #wikipedia-en-help connect where he explained the situation to DragonflySixtySeven. DS67, seeing that: 76.31.236.91 hadn't edited the article since it was reverted and he was warned. 76.31.236.91 had been blocked despite the fact that he hadn't made any edits since the warning. He was therefore not causing any disruption to Wikipedia The block reason was based on very flimsy evidence 14. Therefore at 01:33 September 13 DragonflySixtySeven assumed good faith and unblocked the user with the summary “ 01:33, September 13, 2011 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked "76.31.236.91 (talk)" ‎ (I'm not convinced that this block was appropriate: neither that it was a block evasion, or that it was otherwise abusive. If he steps out of line, I'll block him myself.) ” 15. On 13:21 September 13 76.31.236.91 states that DragonflySixtySeven unblocked him under the condition that he would only edit DragonFlySixtySeven's talk page, and Talk:Least I Could Do, and that he understands that if he edits anywhere else he will be blocked. 16. A article discussion begins at Talk:Least I Could Do. 17. On 20:44 September 14 Elizium23 comments on incorrect use of inline comment of 76.31.236.91's (A mistake many new editors make) 18. On 20:49 September 14 76.31.236.91 replies explaining that he is only supposed to edit the article talk and DragonflySixtySeven's talk and he asks Elizium23 to stop baiting him (into breaking his restrictions). 19. On 20:53 September 14 EdJohnston explains that Elizium23 was only explaining how to correctly format talk page comments. 20. On 17:21 September 15 Toddst1 accusing 76.31.236.91 of socking because this edit by a blocked user is on the same topic as this edit. 21. A heated discussion between Toddst1 and 76.31.236.91 develops at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. Both Toddst1 and 76.31.236.91 violate our no personal attack policy and our civility policy 22. DeltaQuad reblocks with the reason “ 09:33, September 24, 2011 DeltaQuad (talk | contribs) blocked 76.31.236.91 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Disruptive editing: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC, also No personal attacks.)|2=Event timeline}} ” 23. DragonflySixtySeven again unblocks with the reason “ 04:09, September 25, 2011 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) unblocked "76.31.236.91 (talk)" ‎ (Pay attention. I said, a) I'm not convinced he's a sock, b) if he gets out of line, I'll block him myself. I'm handling this. If he misbehaves, bring him to my attention.) ” 24. On 7:00 September 25 MuZemike comments that it is possible that 76.31.236.91 and FaheyUSMC may be the same person. However, he said that it was also possible that they were two different people. If I missed anything in this timeline please feel free to add it. Alpha Quadrant talk 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• In short, it appears that

1. 76.31.236.91 was bitten quite severely.
2. DragonflySixtySeven's actions were appropriate.
3. Toddst1 exhibited behavior unbecoming of an administrator and should be advised against doing similar actions in the future. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, can you explain on what you're basing your belief that Dragonfly's unblocks were appropriate? Completely independently of the IP's being bitten or not (and I think whether it's considered biting depends almost entirely on how loudly any particular viewer of the situation hears quacking), it appears that Dragonfly was OWNing the user and substituting his own (involved, in the sense that his actions were done out of personal concern for the IP rather than based on the IP's on-wiki behavior) judgment for that of multiple admins who blocked and declined unblocks. Is your belief that because the blocks were debatable, Dragonfly was correct to unilaterally lift them in defiance of the emergent consensus of multiple admins? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP didn't have any behavior that was blockable. S/he made two edits in succession on an article that were reverted and it was badly explained to them why it was reverted. They were then blocked. For what, exactly, i'm still not quite sure. Silverseren^C 17:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP was blocked, both times, for being a sock on the basis of behavioral evidence (i.e. quacking), not for incivility. If, indeed, the IP is a sock (and this seems to be the focal point of the debate), then it seems appropriate for them to have been blocked when they were determined to be a sock, whether they were editing at that moment or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You're onto it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said below, the information 76.31.236.91 added to the article was in the citation at the bottom of the paragraph he edited. It is quite plausible that two editors would add similar information to the same article. WP:DUCK is a flimsy argument because there was a significant amount of doubt about the two editors being the same person. After the checkuser was performed it made the argument for WP:DUCK even more questionable. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the LICD and Dating Guy issues have been highly (internet) publicized, so it is fully plausible that there are a number of unaffiliated users who have heard about it and are trying to put it into the article, per the reference that is already in the article. Blocking them all under WP:SOCK just because of that similar, plausible edit is an obvious violation of WP:BITE. So, no, you're not onto it. Silverseren^C 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the block was highly inappropriate and all of the blocking admins should be trouted for inappropriate process and biting the newbies. In fact, I don't see why Toddst isn't getting blocked for WP:NPA violation if you're going to block the IP for that as well. Silverseren^C 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's a diff for Todd's alleged personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Particularly this edit, as it is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS #5

“ Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users. ”

. He has been accusing 76.31.236.91 of socking. The only evidence of a possible link between the socking user and 76.31.236.91 is this edit. Toddst1 is claiming that he blocked per WP:DUCK because one edit is supposedly evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that anyone who believes otherwise is naive. Despite the fact that the information 76.31.236.91 added to the article was already in the citation at the end of the paragraph he edited. Because the information he added was also in the citation it is quite feasible that two different people would have written the same information. Which ultimately makes the original block on 76.31.236.91 questionable. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think alpha missed an important diff that went with the one s/he presented: this. When you present diffs, sometimes the context matters. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. "But I took it back after I insulted the hell out of someone so it's ok right?" That's kindergarten level manure. I've never even seen so much as an apology from you. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AlphaQuadrant, if you're going to step into the content dispute then you're going to have to recognize that the proposed edits contravened WP:SPS and WP:V that state that self-published sources can be used to support claims about themselves, but not about third parties. And your timeline leaves out mention of the meat puppetry going on at exactly the same time 76.31 appeared, and his appearance within 48 hours of semi-protection expiring at Least I Could Do. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:V well, and yes, the source provided is neither reliable or third party. All I said was that because it is present in the article it is quite possible that two different people used the same source to add similar information. As for the meatpuppetry I can find no evidence of that in the article's page history. All I see is a user who used one IP to sock. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of meatpuppetry, I have already presented most links (right before your timeline was posted, I hope you read them) but here are some relevant ones: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#coordinated_attack_from_Dragoncon Forum thread 1 Forum thread 2 (note these are forum threads with three or more pages, you will want to browse all of them for direct evidence of meat pupetry coordination, harrassment and attempted WP:OUTING. See also the three sockpuppet investigations. Also, protection and patrol log for "The Dating Guy" and protection log for "Least I Could Do" show that the following admins agreed that the material being added was disruptive: Toddst1 (talk · contribs), Barek (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I disagree on the question of whether it violated either of those. As did a number of other editors, one of whom had the following to say regarding your conduct long before I was even here, Elizium23: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Dating_Guy&action=historysubmit&diff=448158277&oldid=448149545) So apparently I'm not the only person by any stretch who wonders about your competence and thinks you play around violating policies. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the kind of bullshit accusation that got dragged into ANI before, and you still haven't provided any proof - diffs or GTFO. Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to provide diffs and count the number of times you reverted that page as Agent86 mentions. Unfortunately, someone DELETED THAT PAGE and so I can't do that because I can't see it, not being a member of the secret-handshake club. As for the rest of the incivility, your edits speak for themselves but I'll give you a few:

1. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=prev&oldid=450533861) this is just freaking rude. Especially since you had obviously read my talk page and KNEW I was under an agreement only to edit on that talk page and Dragonfly6-7's talk page.
2. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Least_I_Could_Do&action=history) If I understand what an edit war is correctly, and I think I do, you are engaged in one long before I ever came along.
3. - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&diff=next&oldid=450567506) Dragonfly6-7 asked you to calm down and apologize. You were silent, Toddst1 responded by posting a major insult instead.

Do you really want more? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a few demotions are in order. From what I understand:

1. The IP was unfairly blocked TWICE, due to simply having supposed similarities in behavior to a sockpuppeteer. The block did not have enough evidence to support it, as just because two edits were in the same behavior as a sockpuppeteer, does not mean that they are sockpuppets.

   This is why blocks should not even be placed in the first place without sufficient evidence. (Even DeltaQuad should have enough sense to have evidence like that)

2. DS here apparently was trying to help the IP editor in question. At this point, I am actually taking DS's side here.
3. DS does not seem to be wheel warring, because the IP agreed to editing only the articles talk page and DS' talk page. (This of course, also includes the IPs own talk page)

The real problematic admin here seems to be Toddst1 (talk · contribs), as Toddst1 reverted this unblock request here, saying it was inappropriate use of unlock requests, while from what I see, it is NOT inappropriate use. They couldn't have abused the unblock template either, as two times is NOT abuse. This is why we usually warn four times, and block the fifth violation, not the second.

DeltaQuad also blocked inappropriately, as I do not see any vandalism edits, and there is also a difference between sockpuppetry and making edits in a similar behavior to a sockpuppeteer.

Toddst1 inappropriately protected the users talk page, when he also blocked the IP that made the "if you hadent already figured it out" section. We do not do such protections on an IP talk page, as that also obviously prevents the IP of whom that talk page is for from responding.

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) and EdJohnston (talk · contribs) do not seem to be problematic here, as they are being nice to the IP, and Elizium23 did not post anymore on the IP talk page, except for one Level 1 warning. This "dont post here please" request was indeed made by that IP editor, and Elizium23 followed it to the dot.

Basically, there are a few admins involved that should be demoted, or at least warned, and it seems DS had a good reason when unblocking. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Elizium23 did not, in fact, pay attention to the request and instead dumped a comment on me again later. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There was sufficient evidence, LikeLakers2. The blocking admins and the admins who declined the unblock requests clearly saw it. Fine, the IP may or may not be a sockpuppet per CU evidence, but I believed 100% that he/she was a sock based on behavioral evidence and thus I declined the first unblock request. A personal-attack-laden unblock request is subject to removal by anyone, DS clearly wheel-warred, and most of your arguments are incorrect. Do you need to re-familiarize yourself with policies? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, as I understand policies well. DS did NOT wheel war, as the IP clearly agreed to a proposal DS made, and DS clearly said that if the IP steps out of those bounds, he would block him himself. This does not seem to constitute Wheel warring. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And I always say that a few admins all believing something is this or that is nothing to me. You do realise that group of admins could be all 855 of them, and they could be completely wrong, correct? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And may I add that, even if you are correct, Eagles247, that there is still inappropriate use of admin powers by people that are not DS? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

<DeltaQuad> LikeLakers2-1: I didn't block him as a scok FYI

Just saying. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that... Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DS does not own the blocking rights to the IP. Any admin who sees fit to block will do so. Your assumption that individual admins do not do any research when blocking or declining unblock requests and just go with the "herd" is incorrect. Was it inappropriate for Toddst1 to revert an unblock request with a reference to admins as Nazis? Or was it inappropriate for DeltaQuad to block for valid non-sockpuppetry-related, but disruptive, reasons? No, DS was acting in a correct manner by unblocking twice without discussion with the blocking admin, right? Mind you, I like DS, but I feel he went a bit too far here. I suggest no action be taken here. Let the IP stay unblocked for the time being, and if he/she acts up, we can just block him/her again for non-controversial reasons. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sock Uncertainty Principle, and other ramblings

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. -George Box, statistician

The fallacy of the above discussion is much of it hinges on whether a user is a sock or not. This is a poor model, as we can't actually know whether they are or not. Can there be any doubt that some socks escape detection, or that some nonsocks get unfairly blocked? Since certainty is impossible, resolving that issue is moot. Therefore a probability model is superior; we should act in a way that simultaneously considers both possibilities. My first suggestion is that discussion of whether ip76 is a sock or whether the block was "fair" is moot; they're not blocked now and not mucking up the article in question.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. -Creepy mirror sunglasses prison guard, Cool Hand Luke.

As a nonadmin I appreciate DS's intent. There is a WP caste system and IPs are often treated poorly, and AGF is an important component to what makes WP that work. Unfortunately, their execution faltered. While sockedness is subject to uncertainty, the WP pillars are not, and one of them is WP:Consensus. Regardless of whether they are right about the ip's sockedness, their combative tone -- e.g. "stupid, stupid," "meta arguments" escalated the situation rather than calming it. Independent action contrary to admin consensus based on IRC information is a really bad idea. By trying to bludgeon their point of view through assertion rather then gentle persuasion, they contributed to an us vs. them mentality which caught ip76 in the crossfire. A "look, guys, I've talked to this guy on IRC, let's give him a chance" approach is more likely to bring consensus than a confrontation. (One option would have been to reach consensus on upblocking the talk page to let the ip make their own case.) Furthermore, modeling calm civil behavior to/for the ip would encourage him to adopt a similar manner. (e.g. I think the other admins have made a mistake, please stay calm while I try to reach consensus).

Do or do not. There is no try. -Yoda, Star Wars Jedi Master

While efficacy requires admins frequently act quickly and independently, gray area cases require WP to act as a community, not individual agents. I don't know if the "unblocking with restrictions monitored by a single admin" thing is a common practice, but it's a bad idea. Block the editor or unblock. It juvenilizes the restricted editor, requiring them to run to Momma to ask permission to do this or do that, and it provides them with "admin approval" for actions they take. If an editor is not responsible enough to use the unblocked editing privilege wisely, they shouldn't be unblocked in the first place.

Short cuts make long delays -Some hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring

While I understand the frustration of editor(s) repeatedly inserting the same piece of contested text in an article, and the need for admins to accomplish tasks quickly, once consensus isn't evident, slowing down and being more explicit and explanatory is appropriate. While it's a good shorthand to use terms like DUCK initially, further conversation should more respectful on the probabilistic nonsock ip76. A quick response which "saves time" by producing a contrary quick response doesn't really save time in the long run. Clearly there is a history here (including a deleted page) which could/should be explained to try to bring everyone to a common understanding. Gerardw (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

1. - The question of whether the block is "fair" is not moot. I currently believe, based on what I have seen, the history I have read, and based on his own activities ("diffs" provided quite thoroughly above) that Toddst1's behavior violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and WP:AGF (and if anyone knows of any others, please let me know, as I am sure I don't know half of the complete mess that comprises "policies", "essays", "procedures" and the other godawful gobblygook that may be involved and impossible to find on wikipedia). It is as another person said "conduct unbecoming an admin" and if I don't speak up now he'll just keep doing it to anyone else he feels like doing it to. By his own words (again linked above), he will not admit a single thing he did wrong. This is a problem.
2. - When I talked with Dragonfly6-7, the impression I got from him is that now, or in the past, an area-specific unblock where I was limited to only editing a few places was considered normal because it would allow me to prove I was acting in good faith, being honest and staying within the terms of the agreement I had made. If this isn't the case, I have no idea. The term "probation" was used at one point or another. So I tried it. I didn't expect the horrible treatment I would receive from Elizium23 and Toddst1 and if I had known it would be that way, I wouldn't have bothered. I think that on the average, at least, I proved that I am honest, that I am acting In Good Faith, and that I stay within the limits of any agreement I make when I could easily have not done so.
3. - Honestly, you people talk in such a damn alphabet soup that it's impossible to make sense of what you are saying half the time without consulting someone on IRC and having them spend 20 minutes explain it. FFS (yeah I at least know that acronym and I'm sure you do too) would it kill you to speak in plain english? It's like the old joke about the prisoners who know all the jokes by heart they just call them out by number until one day the new guy shouts "5" and nobody laughs. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a couple more. WALLS & TLDR. Honestly, you aren't helping DS or yourself at this point. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr version just for you, the stuck up jerk who can't understand multisyllabic conversation. Toddst1 acted the jerk. Mentorships and probation agreements are common. Wikipedians need to relearn the concept of speaking english. Oh and IPs are tired of assholes like you treating us as third class wikipedians. Signed, Steve. 107.33.224.12 (talk)

Spoken like a true "drive-by". This, along with your frivolous MFD. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who read and attempted to send talk page mail as an IP recently: IPs are treated like shit and Baseball Bugs has just demonstrated that by assuming that Steve is a "drive by" because he signed as an IP. Assume good faith, people! Now — let's get rid of the underlying problem, which is the fact that IP editing is allowed at all. Sign In To Edit. Carrite (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a death pact...and the IP 76.31.x.x had begun to rant the same stuff repeatedly in long posts which is why I left a short recommendation. The IP 107.33.x.x...I wouldn't even consider a third class Wikipedian. He's here to troll. Why would one extend good faith to someone who left a post like that?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but we all know what you think of anyone who isn't either an admin or a kiss-ass, don't we Asshole Bugs? Fucking elitist shithead.

Editor mass reverting

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

---

I'm trying to prepare a section of Women's rights in Saudi Arabia for ITN, but I've hit a snag because an editor who seems to have an ownership issue with the page (User:Noloop/User:Mindbunny) insists on mass-reverting the changes. Firstly, this was done because I had orphaned two refs. So I fixed that. Then it was done again because I had removed a (totally inappropriate) boxquote from the Koran. So I replaced it (although I moved it to a section where it was more relevant). And now I've been reverted a third time because my edits apparently don't have consensus.

I wouldn't come here, but ITN waits for no-one and I don't see why I should have to put up with such erratic behaviour. No actual issue has been raised with any of my updates to the article.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know what ITN is, and FormerIP has not communicated any goals for the article to anyone (until now).
• FormerIP and some others added new material, deleted material, moved material around, added redundant material, and did a bunch of stuff extremely rapidly. Some of it probably has consensus, some not. It was too much, too fast, and combined with deletion of valid material. I reverted, started a thread in Talk, and asked him to slow down.
• My requests were ignored and he started a thread here, essentially on the grounds that I disagree with him. He is the one making the "Bold" edits, however. Noloop (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what ITN is either, and one look at Talk:Women's_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia#slow_down started by Noloop to discuss changes shows little "discussion" from the FormerIP. FormerIP, please discuss changes to the talk page. A post like this "I don't wish to seem unfriendly but I don't have time for this pettiness. If you carry on I'll take it to ANI", should not be your very second post on a talkpage.AerobicFox (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ITN = Wikipedia:In the news. GiantSnowman 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's this ITN, it means the OP here is trying to turn the article into a press release or something. ←baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's Wikipedia:In the news. GiantSnowman 19:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, the ITN thread is here. Swarm 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Aerobic Fox: Please look at the recent article history, not just the talk page discussion. Noloop has been reverting changes to the text without reason. I haven't ignored the users comments on the talkpage, I've accommodated them, but its become clear that Noloop is just not comfortable with someone else editing the article. "It was too much too fast" is not justification - it's gatekeeping. Noloop is entitled to tweak, amend, criticise, delete information that is wrong or unsourced, but not to just mass-revert and demand talkpage discussion before any change is made. The ITN process can't work if that is allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

From Noloop's userpage: "I've contributed a lot of content to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Bitch. Not coincidentally, both articles were abandoned and I was able to work alone." --FormerIP (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had mentioned your goals regarding ITN, and the purpose of your edits. Also, if your main goal was a quick, consensual update, deleting quotes from the Koran was an ineffective method. The law doesn't go into effect for a year, so a simple sentence or two is all that seems appropriate at this point. This is the sort of thing you might have discussed in Talk after the first or second revert or before starting an ANI thread. You can't dodge the consensus process just by declaring it an ITN matter. If ITN requires fast editing, it seems at odds with nature of writing an encyclopedia. Noloop (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus issue if there are no specific content objections on the talk page. everyone who edits the article is not obliged to get consensus/your permission. --FormerIP (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The very first step in any content dispute is to discuss the issue with the other editor(s), not to threaten to "take it to ANI". You have skipped that important first step. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that, if I have to spend time getting approval from one editor for all the changes I make (to which there is no objection beyond "please discuss these changes on the talk page"), then there's no point. ANI is the only real way to resolve the matter in a reasonable amount of time. The way this discussion in going, an important news story just won't get to the front page. I suppose worse things happen at sea but I think it would be a shame to let it happen just because there's an editor hogging the article.

The important point is that there is no content dispute to be resolved. It's about whether Noloop is entitled to just blind revert and ask for changes to be discussed first. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was perfectly clear in my objections. A quote from the Koran on male guardianship, located in the section on male guardianship, was deleted. Another quote on women's rights of inheritance, located in the section on women's legal rights, was deleted. A reference was deleted that orphaned several other refs. A statement was added that implied women currently have the right to vote. They do not currently have that right. It's true that I haven't explained an objection to every edit that was made. A flurry of a dozen edits was made all at once and it was hard for me to sort out what was being added, moved, and/or deleted. I didn't know there was a "deadline" to beat. I think there is a contradiction in thinking of encyclopedia articles as news stories to be gotten on a front page. Noloop (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Noloop, you complained about the orphaned refs so I fixed them. You wanted the quotation box back, so I put it back. The inaccurate material in the lead you are complaining about wasn't put there by me. I would have also reverted it had I seen it first. But I would have been content just to revert it, rather than see it as a reason wind the whole page back half a day for the third time. You haven't raised any objection to the content I actually added to the article. Because there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. WP has no official speed limit and the material I added would have taken you about thirty seconds to read if you had wanted to. It looks like you get to retain control of the article though, so well done. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I am completely uninvolved. My previous participation in the article was part of some mass categorization I did on women's rights around the world; I came to the article to see if someone had already added information about the new decree. And I cannot for the life of me understand why Noloop is making edits like this one. Why would you insist on keeping the article out-of-date? Why would you insist on re-adding unsourced personal interpretations of a primary religious text? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you would make an effort to have a discussion in Talk, you might find out why an editor would "insist" on something. Instead, you've just decided to pick up making the exact same mass-deleting edits that FormerIp was making--only you are deleting even more. As I said, I think some of the changes are consensus-worthy and some are not, but we can't find out what has consensus when editors refuse to converse. One reason I "insist" on reverting is that you and FormerIP are piling multiple issues into your edits: the quoting of the Koran, the addition of recent news, the removal of allegedly unreliable sources, etc. I am reverting because I can't begin to figure out what is going on, and nobody is using the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I would like to re-open this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) has decided to continue deleting text and sources from the article. S/he has twice mass-deleted material and reinserted material into the article, yet does not have a single comment on the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, deleted things once (two separate edits), without discussion; you then reverted, and you added to the discussion on the talk page. If Rosenclese repeatedly re-reverts without discussion on talk page then there's reason to have independent review... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Twice: [13] and [14]. Noloop (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I sit corrected; I missed the first change in the morning. This is still preferably addressed by user talk notification that they please talk on the article talk rather than further revert. It does not rise to the level that admins need to intervene unless that persistently fails. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Samofi and page of Principality of Hungary

This page is about the Principality of Hungary. I assume this user continuously wants to ruin it. See its talk page Talk:Principality of Hungary. First, he wanted a speedy deletion[15], after that an AFDWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Hungary and simultaneously a renaming process (see talk page)...Now he always changes the introduction part of the article, because he does not like the title "Principality of Hungary". I have inserted a reliable source from the historian Susan Wise Bauer about "Principality of Hungary" confirming the name.[16]
He just disregarded this source and changed the introduction of the article again. I do not want edit war. This article is not about the Hungarian tribal alliance (as user Samofi desires that), it is about Principality of Hungary. The title of Hungarian tribal alliance is incorrect, we can talk about 'Hungarian tribal alliance' in Etelköz, prior to the Hungarian state in the Carpathian basin, so those expressions are not entirely synonyms. Anyway this board is not the place for this specific 'debate'. Please check it, it is alright if Samofi flourishes like this? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My work is ruined by Fakirbakir here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Hungary&diff=451294848&oldid=451293128and and also in the article Principality of Hungary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=452489154&oldid=452487328 It nonsense that this user write reports about me almost each month. Today he broken rule with edit-warring, coz he 3 times reverted my edit in 24 hours in the article Principality of Hungary. I think that my behaviour is not different that his, look his activities here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&action=history also ruined my work and he is hysterical (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Nitra&diff=449413784&oldid=434969260). If he has a problem with the article Principality of Hungary he can tries this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard --Samofi (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

1, He should cite the full conversation about Principality of Nitra: [17], 2, I did not remove sources without valid reason(as opposed to user:Samofi [18]) I only took them to the more appropriate part of the text. (see Principality of Hungary) 3, User Samofi continuously change the introduction part of the article. This article is not about Hungarian Tribal alliance, He would not have to change it..... 4, He obviously provokes me. 5, Check the page of László Mednyánszky [19] or [20], or his contribution here Magyar tribes.[21] 6, I almost forgot it:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#I_can_not_write_a_proper_comment_anymore_because_of_user_SAMOFI
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#User:Samofi_vandalism.2C_personal_attacks
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User_talk:Samofi

Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reports are old, some of them older than year. A) I did not make such mistakes as I do before in this case. B) Sockpuppets were not confirmed as mine - they were of user:Iaaasi. Hungarian sources in article about Mednyanszky were deleted only once and I asked you for a translation in the footnotes coz I could not verify and translator told something different than you. You add the translations and I let it be. It was explained in the talk-page of Mednyanszky. Which provocations do you mean? I dont know about this. I added sources about Hungarian tribal alliance in Carpathian basin - no about hungarian tribal alliance in Etelkoz. All the time it was a nomadic tribal alliance which moved from Etelkoz to Carpathian basin. Why is it no article about Principality of Hungary in Hungarian Wikipedia? Why is it no scholar article about Principality of Hungary with the exact year of the foundation and the main seat of the principality? You have found a few terms in the encyclopedias and hungarian sources, took it from the context and created a new article. I cited a sources which speaks nothing about this principality in the Carpathian basin. I invested a time to read these books, I spent a lot of time to explain it to you, but you are not able to discuss and you report me oppressive each month. --Samofi (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What administrator action does either of you require? Please cite any diffs that justify the specific action you are requesting. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The report at ANEW (here) makes a clear case for a 3RR block. I'm not sure on the length, however. If this is a continuation of his disruptive editing and a breach of the unblock conditions from his indef block, then that block should be reinstated. If this is just a simple 3RR, then I'd go lower. Would like other opinions. Kuru (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Can he (User Samofi) change the article with no boundaries? Is it normal? The name of the article is Principality of Hungary. We have to emphasize it in the introduction. And he just deleted it a lot of times because he does not like it. I think it is highly disruptive.

The introduction with the title of Principality of Hungary:

• The Principality of Hungary, also Hungarian Principality or Duchy of Hungary (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state, a tribal alliance in the Carpathian Basin, established 895 or 896, following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.

User Samofi's editing without the title of Principality of Hungary:

• The Hungarian tribal alliance, Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség). Árpád, who lived between 845 and 907, founded the formal Hungarian state in 896. This state was established in the Carpathian Basin in 895 or 896, following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.
  

Fakirbakir (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A) I was not in edit warring about 1,5 year (so I dont know which disruptions I make). B) I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. Sorry. Term Principality of Hungary is based only at tertiary sources. Its no reliable secondary source which deals with this term. Principality of Hungary is not in Hungarian Wikipedia but its kind a original research or fringe theory. Some encyclopedies from 1905 use this term and some Hungarian writers of popular literature (Hodos created 2 new countries "Principality of Hungary" and "Czech-Bohemian kingdom of Moravia" - he is not expert in the topic). But we have a Hungarian experts like Sugar, Hanak, Lendvai which has a detailed analyses of the period 895-1000 about the history of Hungary and there is written nothing about Principality of Hungary - but about Hungarian clans and Tribal alliance. User Fakirbakir just used this rare term "Principality of Hungary" (its not mentioned in old chronicles) and he is writing about the Hungarian tribal union. This term is very rare neologism from 21th century - majority of English language sources speaks about tribal alliance. Btw, in the google books is term "principality of hungary" more connected with Transylvania. Entry was changed, coz secondary sources are prior to encyclopedies - secondary sources talks about tribal alliance. There we have a few logical problems. How could be created a principality of hungary in 895? It was a strong country Great Moravia on this territory which ended in 902 or 907. It were a 2 principalities in this territory? What is the capital city of this principality? What was the borders of this country in 895? When was created a first coin in this principality? It was a seminomadic tribal alliance.

Fakirbakir wrote:

The Principality of Hungary,[1][2][3][4][5] also Hungarian Principality[6][7][8] or Duchy of Hungary[9][10] (also "Grand Principality" Hungarian: Magyar Nagyfejedelemség), was the first documented Hungarian state,[11] a tribal alliance[12][13][14][15] in the Carpathian Basin, established 895[16][17] or 896,[11][18][19] following the 9th-century Magyar invasion of Pannonia.

The Magyars (Hungarians), a semi-nomadic group of people led by Árpád formed the Principality of Hungary at the very end of the 9th century,[2] arriving from Etelköz, their earlier principality east of the Carpathians.[20]

The principality was succeeded by the Christian kingdom of Hungary with the coronation of Stephen I in AD 1000.

In contemporary Byzantine sources, the territory of the Hungarian tribal alliance was also known as in Greek as "Western Tourkia", because of its allegiance to the the Khazar Khaganate.[21]

Its total original research, its like an essay from my high-school. He is patriot and he wants use name Hungary from 895 to 2011, but its unscholar. How can we know that Principality of Hungary, Hungarian principality and Duchy of Hungary are the same country? Duchy of Hungary is a tribal alliance? Where is it cited? Createing a new history of Hungary in 21th century? lol.. He took articles about Hungarian tribal alliance, than he found a term Principality of Hungary and created a article. Its not complex analysys of the history in Principality of Hungary, but maybe it will be - in Wikipedia. Its just a new term and Wikipedia is not dictionery. Its like I would find a informations about Upper Hungary and call it Slovakia, because in the Czech, German and Slovak sources the name is Slovakia for this area (from 15th century). This is special case, coz its very big different between hungarian interpretation of history in carpathian basin and interpretation from the neutral sources. --Samofi (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Samofi for the 3RR violation. I don't really care about the content dispute, but if WP:DR is not utilized and the edit warring resumes when the block expires, I would recommend reinstating the indefinite block from last year. Kuru (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Fractyl and composing prose

I am fed up with dealing with Fractyl (talk · contribs) (who also edits as 72.184.129.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and his persistent intent to write extensive swathes of prose, despite his constant inability to write with proper English grammar, without repeated spelling errors, and without omitting words or entire sentences that make the sentence or whole paragraph indecipherable. I have told him on multiple occasions throughout the past several years to stop writing prose (mainly episode summaries) because it is unnecessary work to clean up after him. I do not know why he persists in making these edits, but I want them to stop. He has on occasion rewritten items that I have written, and turned it into his indecipherable garbage. He will not respond to me on his IP (which was proven to be his during a past checkuser run by Muzemike), and he poorly defends himself on his account, saying that he puts in information I miss, which I severely doubt.

Something needs to be done about this user, because kind requests and emotionally charged requests do not deter him (both talk pages are full of requests from me and some other editors that he stop writing content). This is not the first time I have brought my qualms concerning Fractyl to these boards:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171#"Problem" user
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#User:Fractyl and writing prose

I do not know what to say to him anymore because I am tired of dealing with this every week.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have really tried to improve myself. Plus, I have been using a Microsoft Office spell/grammar check. Furthermore, I said I add stuff Ryulong misses because I watch the subs to get the info needed. But I respected Ryulong, too. He defended me from a fellow member who treated me like a sub-human and cursed at me alot. Therefore I'm sorry to Ryulong but in writing, sometimes I do a good job and sometimes I don't. The fact I have Ryulong telling me my mistakes helps me to at least try and fix my mistakes, sometimes even fixing the few mistakes that he made in correcting mine. But I am sorry if it seems not to be the case.Fractyl (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not sure I am seeing this as a major issue; and I can't find in your prior ANI links where others have either. Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required makes it clear that good faith additions should be expected to be perfect the moment they are submitted. If you don't like cleaning up grammar, Ryulong, then don't do it. You're a volunteer, and no one will think worse of you. If you would prefer to see the grammar improved, feel free to fix it. If the additions of text themselves don't belong because they violate Wikipedia guidelines, then remove them completely. If they belong, but need some work, fix them up. Why is this a major issue? --Jayron32 20:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to get Fractyl to improve, but I have seen no such improvement. His prose is disjointed and full of errors and it makes it that much more difficult to try to clean up after him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But is this just a matter where his grammar and word choice and spelling needs fixing up? Because I checked a few of the places where you "cleaned up" after him, and I don't see you substantially changing the content of his additions or removing them altogether, which would seem to imply that you have not yet had a problem beyond the copyediting. Is that a fair assessment of what you have done so far in response to Fractyl's additions? Or am I misreading this somehow? Please clarify. --Jayron32 00:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is because his grammar, word choice, and spelling needs fixing. However, he has been like this for five years now. I am tired of copy-editing after him every single time, particularly when I haven't caught up with the content that he decides to write about. Other users have shown that they are completely capable of performing the edits he gets to first, but then we have to work around his sometimes indecipherable prose. Sentences will end abruptly, be missing key words, or he'll use some sort of awkward phrasing that completely obfuscates the meaning of the sentence. This would be fine if he was writing one to two sentence blurbs, but these are massive paragraphs of information that he is adding.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't get the problem. Yes, I understand his writing is substandard. But if you or "Other users have shown that they are completely capable of performing the edits he gets to first" then, if they were going to write text on the same subject anyways, he hasn't cost anyone anymore work; just write that text as if his didn't exist, and replace it. If his writing isn't being replaced or deleted, but instead just cleaned up, then there must be some redeeming quality to it. Again, I notice that you have not, as yet, deleted or removed wholesale his additions. I recognize that his edits need massive copyediting, but if they still have something worth keeping (they clearly do based on your keeping of some of his text), then I can't see where WP:AGF needs to be cast aside here. I understand you are frustrated, but I don't think that Fractyl is being disruptive, and I am not sure what admins can do here. If there are real problems that you need to document, perhaps WP:RFCU is in order to gather some opinions on Fractyls editing. Maybe the community will decide that there exists a problem, but as yet I don't see the overwhelming evidence of that. RFCU exist as a place to gather that community opinion. I will not speak for my fellow admins, but I highly doubt any admin will block a user who makes good faith additions to Wikipedia merely because his writing needs a lot of copyediting. --Jayron32 03:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not casting aside AGF. I just don't know how to proceed with him anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong, you're a good friend to me and I don't want to mess it up. There has to be a way we can work this issue out where we both come out winning.Fractyl (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Bravo, Fractyl, bravo. This discussion has just started to move towards a resolution.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) May I suggest that Fractyl submit suggested edits to Talk pages for group improvement before committing? This way one editor might not feel so burdened "dealing" with prose in live articles. As long as proper sources are provided, other editors might be happy to add the text to the article while copy editing a bit. --Lexein (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Finnish IP vandal

Earlier in the month, I added an image (an alternate album cover) to Who You Are (Jessie J album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For some reason, an individual in Finland who uses Elisa Oyj as their ISP has been removing this album cover repeatedly, with the only attempt at communication being this. The IPs responsible are the following:

• 91.154.111.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.154.101.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.154.105.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These appear to be on the same range (91.154.96.0/20). Would it be feasible to block the range (4096 IPs), or would semi-protection of the article be better?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Feasible to block that range, yes - but less-damaging than semi-protection? I'd say no. It's probably in our best interests to just semi the article for a while. m.o.p 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, can one of the two be done?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Only established editors can edit for the next three days. I did not want to do it longer since that article has a history of good IP edits. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of the edit-warring, I have removed the additional album cover again, because it clearly fails at least two criteria, and probably three, of NFCC. Alternate album covers should rarely be used unless the alternate cover is notable and the subject of sourced commentary (for instance see Electric Ladyland, with its famous censored cover). Black Kite (t) (c) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  That is a new rule concerning album covers that I have never heard about. As far as I have been aware, they do not fail any of the criteria (minimal use, contextual significance, no free alternative) that you claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Another IP vandal

I've found another vandal working across several IPs who seems to be vandalizing reality television program pages by putting in false information, particularly information about episodes that are yet to be broadcast.

• 49.145.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.127.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.97.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The range 49.145.64.0/18 seems to cover this, but the Philippines are notorious for having shitty IP assignment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN on Militant atheism by User:Anupam

user: Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After responding to an RfC at Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I've had some time to observe the behavior of editors. It's become clear that this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK by a small cadre of editors which hope to link new atheists in the mold of Richard Dawkins with oppressive regimes that used state atheism for oppression, like Lenin's. What stands out most is several instances of disruptive editing by user Anupam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The general editing behavior has been one of using edit warring, and tendentious editing on talk pages to enforce ownership of the article.

If anyone has infinite time, they are free to review the tendentious editing themselves and the production of massive walls of text at the article talk page: Talk:Militant atheism‎, and the archives. In lieu of going over the talk page, I'll speak to specific instances of Anupam's disruptive editing and issues of ownership.

unrepentant tag team edit warring: This is covered in detail on the talk page thread Stop edit warring over WikiProjects. The short of it is that when confronted with his role in the edit warring, Anupam preferred debating whether or not he was engaged in an edit war to discussing the content being warred over. The article page has been fully protected for some time to prevent edit warring. Despite this, an edit war broke out on the article talk page relating to the status of various WikiProjects. In conjunction with two other editors, Anupam himself reverted article content for a third time. His rationale for reverting content a third time: I correctly restored the relevant templates after there was no more objection at the reverting users' talk page. (Other tag teaming diffs: [22].)

edit warring on template sidebars: An RfC on Talk:Militant atheism exposed a significant ambiguity problem with the article content. Specifically, that both state atheism and new atheism were treated as a single topic in the article without any context or disambiguation or sourcing. In response to the synth/or/pov/ambiguity issues brought up by the RfC I updated several templates, unlinking Militant atheism: [23], [24] noting this on the article talk page: [25]. These links to Militant atheism had been inserted by Anupam: Template:Atheism Sidebar, Template:Irreligion. Today Anupam reverted those changes based on the fact that the RfC had not been closed[26], [27]. I undid that changes as the RfC neither applies to the template, nor would it resolve the quality and ambiguity issues related to the article. Anupam reverted again: [28], [29]. (Here is a link to the template discussion: [30].)

reverting corrective relinking: Four days later I was reviewing articles which linked to militant atheism to update the links for articles which clearly were referring to state atheism as opposed to new atheism, or some generalization of the two. As I was doing this, I noticed the text for many of the articles was eerily similar. Reviewing page histories, I found the following:

• the text "militant atheist" was introduced by User:Pseudo-Richard copy/pasting the same summaries across many articles back in 2007 (e.g. [31],[32],[33],[34]).
• the linking to militant atheism was done by User:Edward based on suggestions from the Find link tool.

In other words, the linking to militant atheism is generally an occurrence of serendipity rather than one of sourcing. After correcting several these links, which deal explicitly with the topic of state atheism, Anupam reverted the disambiguating edits that I had made: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

other editors views: Anupam's disruptive editing and ownership issues have been discussed by other editors, and this has apparently been an ongoing problem.

• previous ANI discussion regarding ownership issues.
• There is an extensive discussion of ownership issues related to militant atheism with over a dozens diffs on Master of Puppets' talk page.
• From talk page archives: The thing is, all the other editors LEFT because you and Anupam are impossible to work with. You revert EVERY single move that has been made.

I'm not sure of the best way to resolve these issues. For the time being waiting for resolution of the RfC to conclude the most sensible way to go. But the problems go much deeper than the specific issue raised by the RfC. I think more community involvement would help in this situation. I invite uninvolved editors to at the very least review the issues presented here. Thank you, aprock (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to complaints from both of you about each other (on the edit warring noticeboard), I've warned the both of you. I know this sounds confusing, but if there's any tendentious edit on the areas related to the RfC by either of you before the RfC concludes, I'll be forced to block the one making the edits. As you correctly mention, the sensible way is to wait for the RfC ending. I have to admit that in terms of warring, Anupam seems to be worse off than you are Aprock. Therefore, even though my words may seem harsh, they're made simply to ensure that you don't destroy a clean record by making edits that perhaps anyway would be authorised by the RfC. Clearly, there's no excuse for jumping the gun while the RfC is in progress. In summary, if either of you sees the other guy going against this warning note before the RfC concludes, drop into my talk page or here and the respective editor will be blocked. Wifione ^Message 09:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and reasoned response. aprock (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is now three seperate threads on ANI (one of them with many subthreads) that relate to disputes originating in Militant atheism.... Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the new Scientology :p. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully all the dogs are ok. aprock (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there are already two other topics on the militant atheism article - all three seem to unite on the fact that waiting for this RfC to conclude will solve all problems. So why keep making discussions about it? I'll close the RfC as soon as I've reviewed all responses and discussion has stagnated - then, whatever the result is, you guys are free to discuss further actions like unlinking sidebars and the like. m.o.p 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the RfC, which deals with article content, but the disruptive editing of Anupam. aprock (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I, too, was brought to the page via the RfCs, and I've been observing what is going on. It does not really appear to me that Anupam is engaging in WP:OWN. Wall-of-text, yes. Civil POV-pushing, probably yes too. But annoying other editors isn't really ownership. It's important to get these things right. Yes, this is becoming the new Scientology, and maybe the new Santorum. If so, it will eventually work its way up the dispute resolution food-chain. I notice another recurrent theme in these multiple ANI threads, which is that good faith editors keep saying they are exasperated. I wish that weren't true, but given that it is, the best advice is patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• As someone who (like Tryptofish) came to the page on the basis of an RfC, I share his view. I'm not sure this is WP:OWNership per se, as opposed to just an obsessive focus and civil POV-pushing. Anupam (talk · contribs) is by far the heaviest contributor to Talk:Militant atheism in the past few months - no one else even comes close (see recent talkspace edits and edit-counter). I think it's just wearing everyone else down - the Abd-esque combination of civil POV-pushing, voluminous and narrowly focused editing, and poor listening skills can make other editors feel like they're beating their heads against a brick wall. As to the best solution, I dunno, but this problem comes up fairly often. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that I've been mediating the various goings-on over at the MilAth talk page for the last few months, and as I've said above, I have not seen Anupam engage in ownership of the article. At worst, they're simply very interested in improving the subject matter, and have the patience to outlast other people of differing opinion. Does that mean they're doing something "wrong"? I don't think so. m.o.p 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Content disputes shouldn't be resolved by one party having the "patience" to exhaust and outlast all other comers. That dynamic favors obsessive single-purpose editors over those with more diverse and generalist approaches to the project. In fact, when you phrase it like that, it makes me think that there is a real WP:OWNership problem here. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith when I say this: Anupam's not doing it with the purpose of "winning". In fact, they've been more than willing to discuss (and, in fact, have lead most of the discussions on the talk page) with other users, including ones new to the article. I don't believe outlasting the competition is Anupam's intent. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

MoP was there an official mediation request that everyone signed onto, with you as the mediator? I'm asking in earnest because while I also became involved more recently because of RfCs I'm unaware of anything like that being the case. If you feel that you are unofficially mediating in your role as an admin then it is my opinion that it hasn't been a very neutral mediating job. Tryptofish and Mastcell might not feel that this is actual WP:OWN behavior (though they are not dismissing it like you are either), but a vast majority of editors opposed to Anupam's POV do think it is. Other than simply saying, Anupam isn't doing anything wrong, I have not seen you try to "mediate" between the people who find his behavior problematic and those who do not. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a formal complaint submitted to WP:AN3 about Militant Atheism somewhere in June or so. Given that the article was in a rampant state of disrepair and there were a good five or so editors edit-warring repeatedly, I stepped in and helped mediate a compromise. Through a lot of discussion, we managed to turn the article around from something that needed to be protected to something that the community was actively building.

Of course, we're in a different place now. I understand that you're new to the article, and, as a result, haven't been part of most of the compromise building, but I assure you that I haven't taken sides; I am simply here to facilitate discussion. If you feel there are things I could be doing (for example, if you have a proposition that will help your dispute with Anupam get resolved), I'd be happy to hear it. All I have on the list now is closing the RfC (which I'll be doing when it turns seven days old).

Now, when it comes to Anupam: as I've said, I do not see outright ownership. Other issues that have been raised were taken care of, but to say that Anupam is attempting to control the article strikes me as strange, given that user's tendency to initiate discussion and compromise on the talk page. Is Anupam interested in the militant atheism page? Undoubtedly so. Does he/she want to shape it to their own will? I don't see it. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

m.o.p.: I want to make it clear that what I said was that Anupam isn't doing OWN. I did not say that Anupam is doing everything right. If you really think there is no problem at all, then Griswaldo may be right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said Anupam was doing everything "right" either. I just don't believe that some of the accusations being thrown are valid - this article has seen some strong opinions rise up, and a few of them concern the composure of certain editors. Yes, Anupam's name has risen up a few times. Each time it has, the dispute has been cleared up and settled. So no, I don't think there's a problem with Anupam that we haven't covered. m.o.p 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that there have been many editors (more than 4), including myself, who left this article because of Anupam's disruptive editing and WP:OWN. Here are various users complaining about it to m.o.p.] Abhishikt (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page, please!

I'd like to propose Militant atheism for deletion, but can't run it to AfD since the page is locked. There is no such encylopedic concept as "Militant atheism" any more than there is "Hardcore conservatism" or "Wild-eyed liberalism." The whole thing is an elaborate POV-driven original essay which is in practice a fork of the authentic encyclopedic concept, atheism. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Note - There is an RfC currently running on the talk page that proposes a similar result. The proposal is to turn the page into a disambiguation page, and to merge any quality content into other entries. See Talk:Militant_atheism#Should_the_article_be_split_or_made_into_a_disambiguation_page.3F. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Once the RfC has run its course, whether or not an AfD is appropriate can be looked discussed. m.o.p 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle by User: STSC

Resolved

 – Editor warned about misuse of Twinkle, no further action needed at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User: STSC reverted an edit with an edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Cybercobra." which is never identified as vandalism and reverted immediately by User:Cybercobra with edit summary "Undid revision 452666201 by STSC (talk) clearly not vandalism)". Wikipedia:Twinkle#Abuse says "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's access to use Twinkle revoked or one's account being blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.". I request to revoke STSC's privilege to use Twinkle and block the user to convince the user never to do the same wrong doing again. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, only preventative, so that's not going to happen without a lot of bad behavior. Pertinent questions are: 1) has this user been told about their violation of expected behavior on their user talk page? 2) do you have reason to believe that they will continue dispite the warning? If those two conditions have been met, we can start a conversation about revoking rights, although tools in general have a much lower threshold on #2. A block is only appropriate if they have indicated an unwillingness to modify their behavior, and we need to block them to protect the project from their continued disruption. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The text "For the state currently governing Taiwan" is not technically vandalism, but it could look like a politic statement of some kind, even if it wasn't intended that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The user defended himself with excuses at User talk:Oda Mari, User talk:Phoenix7777, and Usertalk:Cybercobra, clearly acknowledged the user's wrong doings. The community should at least warn the user not to do the same wrong doing again. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's typically up to individual editors to provide gently warnings - Twinkle access is no longer something that can be removed, except by full-out blocking. Show them WP:VAND, guide gently. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the technical ability to revoke access to Twinkle ("one's access to use Twinkle revoked") is no longer available - the only recourse now is to block - and I have updated the documentation accordingly[41]. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Please discuss at talk page. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User:SchuminWeb and User:Bwilkins warned me to block for editing. Is this the community's consensus? This is the discussion about User:STSC. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it started out being about STSC, but if you keep edit warring without thinking, it's going to quickly become about you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, I have to be warned edit warring and STSC is innocent to anything to using Twinkle reverting the edit clearly not vandalism? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you're either not reading what people are writing, or you don't care. When someone acts like a snot, most people tend to not want to help them. Perhaps if you altered your approach... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I left you a message specifically explaining why the passage about removing access to Twinkle no longer applies. I did not issue a warning or discuss blocking. Please ensure that you get your story straight in the future. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My edit was only to correct an oversight after the change explained to you on your talkpage. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, listen carefully: in terms of computer-programming, Twinkle access cannot be disabled anymore. Full stop. This is not policy-driven, it's technology-driven - it's now built into the standard Wikipedia interface. The only way to stop someone from using Twinkle is to full-out block them from editing anything. At this point, the user has been warned to not mark things as vandalism that are not really meeting the definition. You have been warned to not edit-war - nobody is free to do anything. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand you comment, then why STSC is not warned of miss use of edit summary? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He has been warned, Phoenix. You warned him, by posting this ANI thread. Cybercobra warned him by undoing his revert with a summary that told him he was wrong. If it will make you feel better, I'll warn him again: STSC, reverting that edit as "vandalism" was a bad idea. Oda Mari's edit, whether you agreed with it or not, was not an attempt to damage Wikipedia, which means that it's not vandalism.

Phoenix, what further action are you hoping for here, given that STSC has now been warned repeatedly that their revert was unwise? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do so. The user is not conscious of one or several warnings. Waning from ANI is a quite effective to restrain the users disruptive edits. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me say that if the editor continually breaks policy in this manner, a block might be needed. But 1 or 2 incidents are not significant enough to block. A warning from any editor formally carries the same weight as one from an admin ... we have a sequence escalating levels of warnings; use them wisely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard and 1RR violations on Planned Parenthood

Over the last few days, User:JGabbard has made several non-neutral edits to Planned Parenthood, with multiple editors disagreeing with him on the talk page. However, in the course of the dispute, Gabbard has violated the 1RR restrictions placed on the article. [42] [43]. The article in question has the template above the editing box when you try to edit informing editors of these restrictions. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Falcon, This was last week's news, and is less about the wording of a sentence than it is about the disagreements on the PP Talk page, where I have already spoken my peace. I had attempted to revert myself, but User:Noleander also did the very same thing.--JGabbard (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JGabbard was warned of the 1RR violation at the first instance (User_talk:JGabbard#1RR_violation_at_Planned_Parenthood), and asked to revert himself, which he did not do. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bink, I did attempt to do so but for whatever reason the system did not allow it.--JGabbard (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A timeline of relevant edits can be seen at Talk:Planned Parenthood#JGabbard's activism, NPOV and edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked User:JGabbard per the evidence provided on Talk:Planned Parenthood and per the restrictions at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Abortion/Log. I will note the block on the log.--v/r - TP 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple and identical vandal edits to multiple talk pages

Resolved

 – [44] 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[45], [46]

Normally with vandalism you revert it and move on but this person seems to know me somehow. My suspicion is this person is a long-term abuse case judging from Special:Contributions/Barongarong. then again I only see edits to my talk page as I do not know which talk pages to track this user. Is a checkuser needed? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Already being discussed here. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New pages has lost a template

Hi normally Special:NewPages shows MediaWiki:Newpages-summary but it doesn't today. Presumably it used to be transcluded somewhere but I'm struggling to find where the transclusion was removed from. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's showing up for me. Maybe a transient thing? 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not transient, I waited a while before raising this. I'm using Firefox under Ubuntu and logged in under http not https - could be variable on one of those things perhaps? ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it. Also FF, on Win Vista, using HTTP.--v/r - TP 19:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

@WSC: do you get the same results logged out, or logged in using https? As far as I know, that template is hard-coded into Special:NewPages and wouldn't have been untranscluded without developers making changes. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Curious. I see it as an IP and with my alt account. Now working my way through user options to see what it could be, I've ruled out skin and some other user Preferences. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Never rule out "I somehow pissed off the deities of electrons across a wire" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cybergnomes. Always watching. Always waiting... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious user

Resolved

 – Editor seems to get the message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Tomballguy (talk · contribs) has been going around various movie articles, "zapping" negative criticism without adequate edit summaries, and when I reverted one of his contributions he reverted me back, calling it "vandalism" in the edit summary; he also did that to another user. When I tried a polite conversation on his talk page, he reverted it with the following edit summary: "goodbye, stalker". Diffs can be provided upon request. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. GiantSnowman 21:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Tomballguy has been whitewashing a few film articles, stating in his edit summaries that "razzies are not notable awards." Unless there has been consensus somewhere that these are not notable enough for inclusion, it appears that Tomballguy has been incorrectly marking edits as vandalism, not adhering to NPOV by removing criticism, and attacking other editors. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Diffs for whitewashing: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Diff for incivility: [55]. Another troubling diff: [56]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The rules of his talk page ("and around the site") are interesting. The AN/I notice apparently broke Rule #1 as a possible "administrative threat".[57] But "Pornography, Hentai, etc., is NOT allowed, especially if it's in a sexual content." How could it not be in a sexual content? Competence issue, I wager. He's also relatively young, as he used to sign his name as "It's my Junior year in High School!". Doc talk 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right....which would make him possibly a college freshman at this point. Still a baby, yes, but theoretically approaching the age of responsibility... ---jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He's posted this on his talk page (apparently unable to edit this page?). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence indicates that this erroneous interpretation of notabilty is one he is going to be sticking to. The Razzies are notable enough to have their own article here since 2003 and to be mentioned by sources like the BBC and AP. Doc talk 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He claims he'll do better[58] but I'm not convinced he understands the basics of working with others and being civil. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I have been completely unable to find (perhaps I did not look long enough) was any attempt to resolve this directly with the editor on their user talkpage ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the page history: the attempt to discuss; the response. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A few people just don't "get" it, no matter for how long you counsel. AGK [•] 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As KillerChihuahua points out, Tomballguy has said he'll cut it out, so as far as I'm concerned we should take him at his word. If that doesn't work out we can always reconvene here. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NBG Radio Network legal threat

I'm not sure what's going on here. It's an article about a defunct-in-2003 Oregon radio network. A look at the page history from the past few days shows an unregistered user (from Switzerland) who may have been connected with the company trying to get the page deleted, apparently thinking that defunct companies don't need articles. Today a different unregistered user (from New Jersey) adding a prod tag that includes a legal threat regarding a similarly named IT company. I reverted the tag because of the threat and because it wasn't a legit reason to propose deletion. (The company seems notable enough, so it would probably pass an AfD.) I didn't block the anon per WP:DOLT. I think it is a coincidence that the two IPs have tried to get the article deleted recently, as they seem to have different motivations, but maybe something more is going on here? Anyway, I'm hoping someone with more experience (and interest--I don't particularly care about the topic) in these matters could advise. Valfontis (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. It's a pretty clear legal threat and it's not a biography of a living person. I'll leave a message on their talk page they can email OTRS or the Wikimedia foundation.--v/r - TP 01:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)