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

IP user has been harassing for months.

An IP user whose IP keeps changing, (latest 99.12.181.124 (talk) has been edit warring, accusing me of sock puppetry, and vandalism, for months. Recently he put up this ANI himself with his "evidence" of my supposed sock-puppetry. After it was reasonably ignored he went away for a short time, but now is back and just reverted an edit of mine from Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 where I had removed a redundant paragraph containing information that is already covered (better) just two paragraphs above. The edit comment was "Revert vandalism." He also put two vandalism warning templates on my talk page. I've tried discussing with him. I've tried ignoring him. I'm just tired of the whole thing. Mystylplx (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This same user has already been blocked for edit warring and was blocked for a month for making legal threats against Wikipedia here because he couldn't convince anyone that I'm really this "Griot" person he's convinced I am. Mystylplx (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The content is not redundant. Mystylplx has twice removed it. I have posted reasonable warnings for Mystylplx to stop. The warnings, which Mystylplx refers to as "loony," are appropriate. It thus appears that Mystylplx is the harasser. One more instance of vandalism will lead report. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. It was the other one you put back and I didn't look close enough. Well that one was removed because they didn't "draw similar conclusions" to Burden. The papers bear no resemblance to each other and looked at completely different things. In either case it was removed for good reason and was certainly not vandalism. Mystylplx (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Spurious accusations of vandalism are not OK. IP, your contribution to AIV was removed for the proper reasons, and I see that a past accusation of socking was thrown out of court (on Mystylplx's talk page). Try talking to the editor instead of accusing them, or you might find yourself hit in the back of the head by a boomerang, all proverbially of course. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing vandalism for repeated removal of sourced content is not spurious. I would hardly refer to User:Mystylplx talk page as court. I have not made an accusations of socking, or meating. I have made statements, which I know to be true and accurate. "hit in the back of the head by a boomerang"? I take that as a threat. Do not threaten me. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've really had it. Discussion page additions like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&diff=456555925&oldid=456555755 are truly out of line.99.12.181.124 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see where you're coming from on this. When, other than this one time, did I remove any sourced content? The fact is a great deal of the difficulties we've had was your constant attempts to remove sourced content against consensus. For months you kept removing the Atlantic Monthly content and were repeatedly reverted by myself and several others. Herehere here here herehere hereherehere and on and on and on... ::As for the discussion page fix of my own comment, what exactly is your problem with it? Mystylplx (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx admits that he removed sourced content, after warnings. It seems to me he is misusing this forum and article discussion pages for dispute resolution. I do not believe that these are the appropriate forums for such activity, nor does such behaviour reflect good faith. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm...let's see here. Him: "When did I remove any sourced content?" Your answer: "He admits he removed sourced content". This is sounding rather like WP:IDHT on your part, to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Try here: "When, other than this one time, [italics mine] did I remove any sourced content?" Would you like to change your comment? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Because you still did not answer the question. And, even with removing sourced content once, if that was done "after warnings", that means the warnings issued prior to removing sourced content that one time were issued spuriously - unless you have proof otherwise. Show us the diffs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

( non-admin, uninvolved comment ) @IP 99.x: I've nothing to say concerning the content issue, but you're completely mistaken if you think that your accusation of vandalism is in any way appropriate. Drimes' warning of a possible consequence for doing so could have been phrased more politely, sure, but it was nevertheless spot on in substance. We do not describe content disputes as "vandalism", ever. Further, if your IP isn't stable for at least weeks and preferably months at a time, and you want to be taken seriously in disputes like this, you'll need to register an account and stick to it.

I agree. Threats are not acceptable. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Making edits that are in any way contentious from an IP address that changes often is frequently construed by many editors, myself included, as a way to evade scrutiny of one's history. I'm not saying that construal necessarily applies to you, but did want to inform you that you'll get better outcomes in disputes, and generally be taken more seriously, if you edit only from a registered account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond just evading scrutiny. Here's an example--the 99 ip disappeared for a few weeks in July. Here's his last edit. Then another IP user showed up here making identical edits. The "new" IP user stayed until here making virtually identical edits to the 99.x user during which time the 99.x user wasn't around. Then the 99.x user returned here after which the 184.x user was seen no more.

In In this discussion on the talk page you can see both 99.x and 184.x denying being the same person. You also see (I think) clear similarity in personality and writing style in "their" comments. Mystylplx (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx is offended by my stating that he is a meat or sock, with evidence. Here, he accuses me without evidence. I continue to deny I am this person, or even know this person. I stated repeatedly that I was away, away from Wikipedia, dealing with very serious personal matters. Mystylplx did vandalise the article by repeatedly removing sourced content, then used this noticeboard and an article discussion page to air dirty laundry. I'd like to see some evidence of equity on this noticeboard. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

All I will say is look at the evidence on both sides and see who you think has evidence and who doesn't. I also want to make it clear that this ANI isn't just about the latest incident--it's a longstanding pattern of accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry along with loads of tendentious, disruptive editing. After he was blocked for a month I was hoping he would either go away or come back a bit "toned down" but his very first edits on returning were to accuse me of vandalism and template my talk page. I'm tired of it. Mystylplx (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Harassment. Inappropriate venue. Pure and simple. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"evidence that he is a meat or a sock" - what evidence. Present it, please. Got diffs? So far you have not provided a single bit of evidence, only constantly repeating your accusations and ignoring requests to provide your evidence. If you continue refusing to provide the evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there isn't any. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the fact you keep insisting he "accusing me without evidence", when in fact he's providing plenty of evidence, is not very helpful for your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

99, in evaluating your behavior just in this thread, what stands out is you accuse without evidence and you are impervious to other editors' characterizations of your behavior. So, Mystylplx does something you don't like, and you accuse him of vandalism. Drmies advises you to be careful about bandying about the term vandalism, and you accuse him of threats. The other thing that stands out, as Bushranger rightly says, is you are full of conclusions but with nothing to back them up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I see, equity here is not happening. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Equity that is slanted completely torwards you is not equity, no. If you have evidence, provide diffs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No equity, no participation. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give you his "evidence," at least as he's expressed it to others. Here he tried to make the case to one administrator. Here's his ANI about it. Have fun. Mystylplx (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. True to form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagles247#Requesting_help. Remaining evidence is confidential. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that too. Even more fun. Note: I actually tried to wade through that because, though I obviously know I'm not this "Griot" person, I was curious if maybe there was some rational reason for him to think I am. I'll let you decide. I'll just point out that after two admins and one failed ANI told him there was nothing there he continues making the accusation and claiming he has evidence. Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're responding to the IP, but lack of indentation is making it hard to know. In any event, even when the IP provides diffs (as he did at the ANI report), I can't follow his "logic". And I have no idea what he means when he says the "remaining evidence is confidential." For me at least it's harder to respond to someone who makes no sense than someone who is wrong but I can understand. I can't understand him.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's because there isn't any logic. He's decided that I am this "Griot" and has a bunch of convoluted baloney which he thinks proves it. He thinks he knows my RW identity, but is deluded on that too. He just incessantly continues with the bizarre accusations, tendentious editing, and all around weirdness. Mystylplx (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So, without my going on and on, how would admins suggest resolving this matter equitably? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In a court of law, lack of evidence would see the case thrown out. Such is the case here. IP has repeatedly failed to provide evidence of misconduct despite multiple requests. Without evidence, this should be closed as unactionable. --Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is not a court of law, so the analogy is fallacious. The remaining evidence, were I to supply it, would require revealing RW identity and a source. As for the instances of User:Mystylplx repeated removal of sourced content, which I did and still do view as vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&diff=455565818&oldid=455565053, and after warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&diff=456477242&oldid=456475566. I see at least one of these instances of removal has been deleted from edit history.

I would like actions to be taken regarding the harassment I am experiencing from this user. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the edit history of Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000, I see no WP:REVDEL. As for the rest, you're just repeating yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, yes, it is right in front of you. I would like actions to be taken regarding the harassment I am experiencing from this user. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, how are you affiliated with User:Mystylplx? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, must be one of those confidential Revdels that no one but a select few can see. As for my affiliation with Mystylplx, I'm still working on pronouncing his username. If I ever get that sorted out, I'll let you know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But Mystylplx brought this report here, not the IP. The issue is what action should be taken against the IP? I note that Mystylplx did not specify any requested administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's mis-tull-plix. :) And I don't know what action should be taken. All I know is I'm tired of this. What is normally done in cases like this? Mystylplx (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on your original posts, it looks like you are accusing the IP of harassment and falsely calling you a vandal. You also appear to be accusing him of being the same person as other IPs from similar address ranges. Finally, you say he was blocked and you point to another ANI thread. From looking at that thread, it doesn't look like he - or anyone else - was blocked. It looks to me like articles were semi-protected because of IP issues. However, it's possible that that same thread provides some evidence of IP-hopping - whether it involves this IP is unclear to me. Admins who are commenting here are better able to determine what action, if any, should be taken, but my non-admin take is that there is certainly enough evidence to warn the IP and probably sufficient evidence to block him. My feeling is that the block evidence comes as much from his behavior here than his other behavior as he seems to be willful in his misunderstanding of what vandalism is, and his baseless accusations betray a similar disinclination to contribute cooperatively.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP hopping is clear from the Ralph Nader article and talk page. And it's not just from similar address ranges (see above.) And he was blocked (for making legal threats) due to yet another ANI which I can't find. One of the things about about an IP editor who refuses to make an account is it's hard to find this stuff. Mystylplx (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I found it. Here's the talk page from the IP he had at the time showing him blocked for making legal threats. If you doubt it's the same person just look at the contribs. He's also been blocked for edit warring before, but I haven't been able to find that one yet. As I said, he has a long history of this type of stuff. Mystylplx (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Apparently, Bushranger agrees with you (see below). In all honesty, I confess to it not being as clear to me as it to you and to BR, but, in any event, I agree with everything else BR says.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had been involved with any Nader related article it would be obvious to you. He's always there. The IP changes every week or so but always starts with 99 except the one time he went on vacation, or whatever. His personality is quite... distinctive. Mystylplx (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, maybe we should convince/force him to go on a longer vacation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When he went on vacation (or whatever) he just had a different IP and that's the one time he really pretended to be a different person. Mystylplx (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: "Accusing a fellow editor of sockpuppetry without hard evidence constitutes a personal attack and is a violation of WP:AGF." --JayJasper 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

...Actually, there is some pretty strong evidence there...and I'm pretty sure impersonating another editor is decidedly an offence - which you have just done, 99.12.181.124. And given that your accusations of Mtzy's socking have no basis, I think WP:KETTLE applies here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no WP:DUCK evidence. Furthermore, as an equitable admin will note, the absence of the tildes was unintentional, while inclusion of the quotes was intended to indicate that the statement was made by a user other than myself. As for my statements that User:Mystylplx is a meat/sock, there is basis. And, if WP:KETTLE applies, then I accept your offer that User:Mystylplx has made accusations against me without basis, in violation of personal attack and WP:AGF, which I am beginning to sense you are violating, as well. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a inviolatable pact when good-faith has been rendered impossible to assume. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Or semi-protect the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That would take care of this article - and I certainly wouldn't object to it - but it wouldn't go to the heart of the problem. For example, the blocked IP (see above) edited the Ralph Nader article. My recommendation would be a long (preferably indefinite) block and semi-protection of the article, although I suppose if a block were imposed, the semi-protection should probably wait until there's evidence of IP disruption. Another possibility is a Nader topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That could work if it was long term and was for all Nader related articles. It could at least force him to get an account and then if he continued in this vein it would be a lot easier to show the history. It's hella hard to find diffs and show the history of a user whose IP changes every week or so. But (I think) a better idea would be a range block only for Nader related articles. This would be minimally inconvenient for only those other IP's who are from the same range and are interested in editing Nader related articles. Mystylplx (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given my clear understanding regarding the nature of vandalism and harassment, and taking into account the improvements I've made to the project, I request that admins find the appropriate equitable action(s) to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.181.124 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could something also be done about what appears to be retaliatory edits by User:Bbb23? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Deeper and deeper. Your comment above about "improvements ... to the project" caused me to look at those contributions. Given that you've only been editing since October 19 and most of your edits have been to the Nader article, I looked at your most recent edits and started making changes to the article, including restoring some of the language you changed, actually mostly for stylistic reasons rather than more serious issues. The only substantive thing I backed out (as I recall) was a statement that was cited to a political source and was therefore unreliable. Seems like everyone who disagrees with you is evil, eh?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your responses and edits do suggest to me that you have difficulty with WP:CIVIL. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Are you an admin, Bbb23? What is the goal of your behavior and involvement in this matter? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please decide whether any action is warranted here and then close this topic?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

As I'm slightly involved, I'm reluctant to out-and-out close. I will say, though, that looking over Mxy's edits, I don't see anything wrong with them - there's no policy that prohibits the removal of sourced content, and the IP's accusations are outright spurious. In addition, the IP has opened a WP:DRN case on the article in question - clearly WP:FORUMSHOPPING after seeing things here weren't going to go his way. Given his I didn't hear that attitude, constant unfounded accusations and the fact that a obvious prior ID of the same IP was blocked under WP:NLT without, as far as I can tell, anything ever retracting said threat, I'd strongly reccomend a long-term block against the IP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I viewed that I was doing quite well, remaining cordial, especially considering the WP:CIVIL offenses of other users, threats, provocations, etc., while displaying obvious facts that any equitable mind can apprehend. I simply wished to address the matter of content dispute in the appropriate forum.

No policy that prohibits the removal of sourced content? I thought there was, per User:Mystylplx:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20110329192404&limit=500&target=Mystylplx

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&diff=400471189&oldid=400345037

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&diff=400066078&oldid=399951214

I'll simply point out that those are almost a year old. I was reprimanded for it, apologized for it, and have not used the word "vandalism" in reverting one of your edits since then. The very fact this happened to you before, you rightly complained, and I apologized, lends credence to the idea that you should know better. But I'll also point out that this is about a lot more than simply the most recent accusations of vandalism and templating my talk page. Mystylplx (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: To equitable admin, I have never received any such apology, nor was I aware that removing content is not considered vandalism. I am becoming increasingly confused about what the intentions of Mystylplx and his friends are on this noticeboard. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JayJasper&diff=457112135&oldid=457107585 99.12.181.124 (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How would an equitable admin like to address this? 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a practicable and effective rangeblock available? If not, I'd strongly support a month or two, at least, of semi-protection for the articles the IP focuses on. Can some other admin step in, please, since Bushranger states that he considers himself slightly involved here?  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominate User:Eagles247. He strikes me as very even-minded. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that you just attempted to impersonate another editor above ([1]), I think this is about to come to a rather abrupt end. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: To equitable admin, pardon my oversight. I added the tildes, above, to distinguish the difference in users. The quotes were intended to indicate the identification of another user's statement as it applies here. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well. But you need to realise that "equality" is not what admins are here to enforce. Also, I'd like to point out that notifying somebody whose name has come up at AN/I is not "canvassing". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Inexplicably nasty tone in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of "Occupy" protest locations

This list was nominated for discussion by me, as I feel that it contains a lot of trivia, recycled press releases, etc. Some folks have had the courtesy to discuss it calmly; but others have mocked and abused the very nomination and those editors who support it. There has been conflation of this list with the whole concept of Occupy protest as an article, falsely stating that we are somehow seeking to suppress news of the protests; there have been not one but two attempted early non-admin closes on the false theory that this is a WP:SNOW situation; and generally there is a level of ad hominem and downright nastiness which is to me inexplicable, especially since any competent reader can see that I am myself a support of these protests, just trying to maintain our standards of actual encyclopedic content. Could some folks take a look at what's going on? See also some of the abusive posts to my talk page and that of Crusio. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, would you be opposed to me closing early as an WP:IAR close to keep to avoid further drama in the AFD and here?--v/r - TP 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No offense, Mike, but that does look like a WP:SNOW situation. I'm seeing about 90% Keep voices. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, there are nearly 40 votes, and 9 out of 10 are keep votes. Allowing this to close early as snow keep would have been the right thing to do, and would have ended the "downright nastiness" a lot faster than starting yet another discussion on the drama board. —SW— ^speak 16:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SNOW isn't license for incivility. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, where are the abusive posts on yours and Crusio's talk pages? I'm not seeing them. This entire situation is getting blown way out of proportion; Orange Mike and Crusio are only fanning the flames here. —SW— ^confer 16:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I too interpreted the situation as WP:SNOW. I saw a user request that non-admins not close as SNOW, so I let it alone for someone else to handle. I agree it should be closed immediately. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not seeing the abusive posts the OP mentions. I noticed this which was poor behavior from Crusio though. --John (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for notifying me (albeit indirectly) that I am mentioned in this thread. I really object to the remark that Mike or I myself are "fanning the flames" here. And for those counting the votes above, AFD is not a vote (do I really have to remind people here about this?) Mike brought this to AfD in what is completely and obviously good faith. I myself have been presenting policy-based arguments why I think this should be deleted in, I think, civil and unemotional ways. One may certainly disagree with me, but I don't think that my arguments should be brushed aside casually (and note that I am not the only "delete" !vote here) and I certainly don't think that they are fanning any flames. I came to this debate after it was for the first time non-admin closed as "speedy keep" less than a day after it was brought to AfD. I am completely baffled about the vehemence with which people seem to feel attacked by someone just questioning whether this article should be kept (as Mike notes, nobody is proposing to delete all articles about the "Occupy" movement). I think it was inappropriate that the AfD was non-admin closed a second time, despite repeated requests on the page to let it run its due course, which is why I reverted that closure.

Having said all this, tempers seem to flare (and I admit to being close to losing my patience with all this drama myself). I don't object if a respected admin like TParis would close the AfD now. --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an Admin just close it as Snow so everyone involved can move on to other issues besides an AFD that has no chance of closing as anything but keep. Ridernyc (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Closed I've left what I think it a fairly accurate close rationale that covers Mike's (et al) opinion with room for reevaluation later. I think there may be significant recentism involved here but at this time it's fairly strong consensus toward keep.--v/r - TP 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is a continuing shame that editors are either unable or unwilling to separate their personal points of view when it comes to establishing notability or encyclopedia worthiness of a topic. Sometimes this gets thwarted, e.g. Marcus Bachmann, but as we see here today, sometimes the mob is just too big and the pitchforks too pointy to overcome. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, for what it's worth, as I tried to explain at the AfD, I think you acted in good faith, and I'm disappointed at the incivility that erupted. One reason I asked for a snow closure was to shut that off. And now we have incivility spilling over to ANI. Delightful. I'm not seeing any abusive posts on Mike's or Crusio's talk pages. Lagrange613 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No objection to the snow close, but what a disappointing situation overall. The title is fine for a worthwhile list, but the content is basically worthless. --Onorem♠Dil 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Re: OP complaint. If you make yourself the advocate of the devil, expect to be treated likewise by those less discerning. Cheers. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• That is an entirely inappropriate comment to make on Wikipedia. Try being civil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• No offense intended. See devil's advocate and the OP's opening statement in the AfD: "Spam-magnet which is serving as a giant advertisement for a bunch of low-profile events. This has nothing to do with my extremely strong support for these protests; but our standards cannot be waived just because I agree with them." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors voting delete and opposing a wp:snow close. I am - as probably opposed to most wikipedians - very much *for* having (more) voting on WP. Voting is not evil, voting is a simple form of assessing the sheer number of supporters of some opinion. Like it or not, any large majority will be able to enforce its will in WP, irrespective to whatever policy says, in most situations. So this AfD is a clear keep, I have no problem at all with that. But using a majority to shut opposing opinions is unbecoming, specially unbecoming for people (as most of the keep'ers likely are) that support, or do, a protest by people that believe their voices should be eared. Shame on you. - Nabla (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC) PS 1) I do not see any huge incivility specific to this AfD discussion, sure it got harsh, maybe a few ad hominem arguments could have be removed/striked, but (unfortunatelly) not that different from 'the usual' nastiness (it does not turn any nasty remarks in here into good ones - simply pointing that this is a more general problem) 2) This AfD completely fails the the snowball test: it was not even remotely unanimous (a undisputable fact), and the objections were reasonable and based on policy - Nabla (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joefaust

There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[2]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:

• User:Joefaust/Paragliders (the gliding kites of NASA)
• User:Joefaust/Template:Comparison of types of kite hang gliders
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (the pilot)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding by police
• User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts)
• User:Joefaust/Paragliding (industry)
• User:Joefaust/Paraglider (multiple uses in society): This one has a long list of red links suggesting yet others he intends to create/fork
• User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding appears to be a schema for the whole thing

Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [3] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Haabet moved article to derogatory title

User:Haabet moved Kayan Lahwi to Giraffe women here. Kauffner (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really much that can be done here about it; it looks like that'll fix itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently Haabet moved the article to "long neck women" in 2008 and was told that that was unacceptable. Perhaps we should tell the user that this behavior is disruptive and will get them blocked? Looking through the users talkpage the question of WP:COMPETENCE arises. The fact that the user is banned from the Danish Wikipedia also suggests that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• • For now, I've given him a uw-move3. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to G6 the article to Kayan (Burma), but Haabet beat me to it and it's now a redirect.[4] Kauffner (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Haabet's command of English is atrociously poor. He cannot even write a single sentence that is grammatical and clear. In his edits, his intention has been unclear. However, their effect has always been counter-productive. There is nothing to lose, but everything to gain, by banning him.--Palaeovia^talk 09:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not the subject at hand here. If you think an WP:RFC/U is useful simply due to command of a language, go ahead and try. This is not, however, a ban discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Haabet indefinitely - Alexf deleted Kayan (Burma) to make way for the move, and Haabet recreated it and redirected it to a disambiguation page. If he's not a troll, he's completely incompetent. If anyone knows what language he does speak (he certainly doesn't seem to have the English) and would like to explain the situation to him, that would be a kindness. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Article now moved to suitable title, so I guess we're done for now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably Danish, where he's banned (why I don't know). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll give them a message in Danish.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Goldblooded

The above user has been harassing me, leaving the same message plastered three times in a row on my talk page, bothering me about my username which was grandfathered in and agreed to at WP:ARBCOM, and looking up my block log history -- NONE OF WHICH is any of his business (see [5], [6]). Quis separabit? 14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice left at user's talk page. Quis separabit? 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't feel I need to justify my username to anyone who feels the need to inquire, particularly when User:Alison, an admin, attests on the talk page that my username has been grandfathered in. I am not going to take this grammatically-challenged abuse and nonsense. Quis separabit? 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully this helps (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh* I really dont have time for this. All that happened was that i posted a message on his page saying why is his username exempt from the rules and he reverts it as nonsense, so i asked him (i didnt revert i created a new setion) and he subsequently posted a rather agressive toned message on my page [7] which i was rather taken back by, so i simply told him i dont want to waste anymore time with this madness and i said , in his words; we have no further discussion. thus ending the conversation. Not sure why he reported me for asking him a query then i asked him why he removed it which he replied by plastering an agressive message on my talk, if you think thats harassing then you must be joking. If anything your harassing me. Please stop wasting my time, i am sick and tired of these situations which i always seem to fall into. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you "always" fall into them, perhaps you should examine what it is about your editing style that causes that to occur. Hopefully in spite of your last message, you realize on some level your edits were inappropriate, and you'll just move on. If so, there's nothing more to see here as long as the situation ends. Dayewalker (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And actually i didnt post the same message on your page, they were differnt messages. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the definition of WP:REVERT yet? My favourite part is highlighted in WP:3RR where it says A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed i have. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet, you claim that "i didnt revert i created a new setion [sic]"? It contained the same type of query ... therefore meets the definition of a revert, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, but honestly does it really matter? With all due respect i suggest you should read up on WP:LETGO, and i'll go by what ive previously said this debate ended long ago , before he even reported it (which was totally unessarially) anyway i have to go since most saturday's i usually help out this elderly couple i know in the community. If you want to discuss this matter further or have any other questions/queries about me or my editting i suggest you post it on my talkpage or on the constructive criticism page but please keep it clean i dont want threatening material on there. Thank you :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a validly-placed warning, you keep questioning why, and people are merely trying to help you to avoid the same problem in the future. Off you go then, if you think you have learned accordingly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why nobody Special:Searched "rms125a@hotmail.com prefix:wikipedia:a" and showed Goldblooded this, which would've answered his initial question and hopefully stopped this whole thread from happening. →Στc. 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again Σ, at least someone has some common sense. That is all i really wanted to know, but instead the madness began and i was subsequently told to shut up and apparantly i talk a load of nonsense and im an idiot and i dont listen to a word anyone says which is totally untrue, and then i was threatened with a ban! All rather depressing really. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block review: Colofac

I have blocked Colofac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for being an unproductive and disruptive account. He had previously been blocked for disruptive editing (here is the previous block discussion). Since the block expired on Sept 25, he has made about 40 edits. In this time, he has added next to nothing productive including gravedancing, openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, and added aggressive/disruptive user boxes to his user page. Looking at his overall history, he has added nothing but disruption to Wikipedia. Since the block expired, he has had one edit to the main space, and 5 welcomings of new users. That's the extent of his productivity.

I welcome review of this. It might seem to be too long/aggressive, but I have seen very little that is productive out of this account in its 2 months here. The account is just her to stir up and participate in drama. only (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, with this edit he is bluntly stating "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" so at first glance this seems like a sound block but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then again, aside from his userpage he hasn't had any edits since the 5th. I'm curious as to how this user was brought to your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a conversation with this user at another ANI discussion a month or two ago, and when I saw him blocked, happened to watch his talk pgae. Then these edits to his user page popped up today (for which he had previously been warned) and that triggered in my head. only (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Colofac has responded and requested unblock at his talk page. only (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• unblock I agree that it seems unlikely that this editor will be staying here long, but I do think that a fair trial with input from the community is required to impose an indefinite block like this. Productivity is not an argument - editors are volunteers and do not have to fill any quota of "production". Disruption is an argument but the previous block was supposed to be a wake up call, and it doesn't seem that he has caused any disruption after coming out of the block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the gravedancing, the diving back into drama-discussions, the self-SPI to "clear his name" and the user page statements (for which he was previously warned) that have all occurred since the block show a continuance of the pattern already set before the previous block. Those examples all come from about 40 edits so it's clear to see a non-intent to reform. only (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock The "gravedancing" doesnt appear so to me and the SPI seems good faith but wrong procedure. Despite the diffs above the user has made a constructive edit. The userboxes need to go though.--v/r - TP 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention above that he had a productive edit plus several welcomings, but it does not seem like much compared to the rest of the sample since the previous block. only (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak unblock per TParis. I don't see how that diff can be construed as gravedancing, but agree the userboxes need to go. Kcowolf (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - I have to go with only on this one. First of all, they clearly have some sort of a grudge against Wikipedia and have openly stated that they have no desire to help build it (Pillar #1). Secondly, considering the vicious history between this user and user:ChristianandJericho, I certainly do agree that their edits to that page were "gravedancing", which they were appropriately warned for and provided a totally inadequate excuse. They've added to ANI drama, they've added borderline hate speech to their userpage, and what's the tradeoff? One edit to the mainspace? In my opinion, this user isn't here to contribute constructively to the project and is a net negative. I'm all for second third fourth chances, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were unblocked. It just seems that an unblock now would only be postponing an inevitable reblocking of this 'problem user' in the near future. Swarm ^X 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Very weak unblock, mostly due to WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block If users are here to build an encyclopedia they can demonstrate that with their actions and he clearly hasn't. We really don't need to be wasting endless time with disruptive users as we are sometimes want to do, so it's nice to see an admin putting their foot down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Even the users advocating unblock above admit he will not be a net positive to the project. Why should we let him drive a few good faith contributors from the project before getting rid off him? We have few enough editors as it is. Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Looking at the evidence relied on by the blocking admin to block this editor, which confirms the correctness of that decision beyond any doubt, I cannot comprehend how we are even considering an unblock without a credible indication from the user concerned of behavioural change. Making constructive edits here and there is not a licence to do whatever else you like. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment IMO the gravedancing bit links to the wrong diff. While modifying the comment may violate TPO, and I don't really see why Colofac cared since it wasn't negative, I can understand how it might a bit frustrating if you are named and feel you can't respond (and if Colofac had left a response, it probably would have been seen as worse). However [8] does seem like grave dancing. Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - If an editor admits to not being here to improve the encyclopedia, there is clearly no place for them here -- we are not a debating society, and should not encourage drama for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Unblock- per WP:ROPE.OIFA (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Have they not been given enough rope thus far? Is a fourth chance really warranted? Swarm ^X 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. Yes, he does appear burned out, but some his actions were in good faith. He requested SPI against himself to prove his innocence. Although the English Wikipedia doesn't allow that, it's not an unreasonable request, and is even allowed in other Wikipedias. See reply from admin [9] We need to see more serious evidence than this kind of mild disruption. Not everyone takes the time to read the huge and often poorly written policy pages. What happened to "blocks are not punitive"? Do you truly think for instance that he is going to file another SPI on himself after he was told "no"?! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And people should stop edit warring over his fringe politics user boxes [10]. That is disruptive and a waste of time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• And if unproductive editors are your concern, head over to this RfC, where there's evidence of umpteen times more unproductive chatter (and that's a polite understatement) + IDHT, yet no blocks have been issued. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support unblock. My word, I thought this was a no-brainer. There is no policy that says that a user has to make a certain number of edits to mainspace to be allowed to stay. I don't think I've made more than half a dozen in the past month! I gave him the talking to regarding gravedancing and he backed off. I agree he should not be showing disruptive userboxen and he should be blocked (for a time period) if he keeps replacing them as that is disruptive. But blocking him indefinitely because he hasn't done enough good - especially when he hasn't done that much at all - that seems like a dangerous ball game. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock for insufficient grounds. Simply being an "unproductive user" is not grounds for permablock - or any block. There are a truckload of FAR more "unproductive" users that should be getting the axe long before this guy. On top of that - while his userboxen might not be acceptable to a user or three, they absolutely, 100% do NOT wiolate WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA as claimed in the reversions to his page, as there is/are no specific editors that are targeted by those. While I appreciate the spirit of the reverts and the grounds - it does not fall within the letter of WP policy, despite what some admins might think. If you want to block this cat, you are going to have to come up with far better reasons than being offended by his position and claiming he is "un-productive". If we were to whack all the unproductive accounts there would be less than 1/3rd the current active accounts. If you start with this one - don't stop until they are ALL done. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Very first bullet point of the policy you linked, WP:UP#POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). This falls squarely into that criteria. It doesn't require that a specific editor be named to fall under that criteria. - SudoGhost 08:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock so long as the editor agrees to keep this off of his userpage, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Other than the userbox issue I'm not seeing any gross disruption (the gravedancing was out of line, but it was discussed with the editor). While these behaviors might warrant a shorter block, I'm personally (from a non-admin standpoint) not seeing anything overly warranting an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, one thing is clear to me: he lacks the emotional intelligence to take part in editing Wikipedia without hoisting himself on his own petard every so often by starting pointless fights. Because of that, I think he will ultimately be indef blocked or banned, if not now, then later. I no longer support unblocking him because he fails to recognize that his actions were a big part of this drama, and because so far he has not given any indication that he will not restore those boxes or engage in similar behavior. But I cannot support this block either because it was doled out too easily relative to the proximate offense. A RfC/U would have been more appropriate given how similar behavior of other editors is commonly dealt with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Shorten the block to two weeks. His previous block was for one week, so this seems an appropriate intermediate measure. I support immediate unblock iff he promises to stop provoking fights with polemical statements, including in user boxes. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The following snippet from his talk page is indicative of the problem we face here, and also a reply to my comment right above, so I'm copying it here:

I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Wikipedia, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 [11] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [12]. That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once. Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I have copied here all his replies addressed to me as of the timestamp of this message, so I'm unsure what he means by "selective presentation", but I won't engage him anymore per his clear request. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Duh, I actually missed one:

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous block & warning

Blocking admin noted in [13]:

As a consequence of your inappropriate conduct, I am blocking you from editing for a period of one week, and strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interacting with other contributors in the future; otherwise, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Kirill Lokshin to comment here because he seems more aware of the background here than most other commentators. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible rollback abuse by User:Dicklyon

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

---

Resolved

 – Consensus is for the editor to keep Rollback. Nothing to see here. Doc talk 04:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just done about a hundred rollbacks of edits that were obviously not vandalism. See User_talk:Magus732#So-called_cleanups. If this is not OK, please take away my rollback, so I won't do it again. In either case, you're invited to join me in giving feedback to User:Magus732. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it better to say 'I accept removal of my rollback if the community feels it's necessary'. I don't get why we need to remove it so you won't do it again. If you in good faith used rollback in a manner you felt would be acceptable and since you weren't sure later sought clarification as to whether it really was acceptable and the community made it clear they did not agree with your view of it being acceptable, isn't it easier if you just learn from what the community is telling you and don't do it again? (For reasons of history etc, the community may feel it necessary to remove usage but that's a different thing.) Are you saying you don't trust yourself to obey any restrictions the community places on the use of the tool? If so, it seems it should be removed regardless of whether your use here was acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you don't need to feel pressured to sanction me. I was just trying to be a bit light-hearted in my complaint while seeking comment on my behavior and his. Since nobody seems to care one way or the other, I'm OK with it, too. But the guy did about 1000 edits with same summary and the same type of errors, and I only rolled back the 10% that were still "top", so there's a lot of damage that someone will have to deal with still. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

While rollback is only for vandalism, it has also been used to mass-revert multiple bad, but not vandalistic, edits, by the one editor. But the safest thing to do before using rollback in that way is to come to a community noticeboard like this before doing the rollbacks and asking for the community's imprimatur for them. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I knew that, but forgot to ask. Now asking forgiveness (or otherwise) rather than permission. I forgot to notify the guy, too, so I'll do that now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had to mass rollback a couple of people for reasons other than vandalism; the key is being completely confident that the action is really needed, because if you're just reverting lots of good faith work that isn't disruptive in any way (intentionally or unintentionally), you're just creating a big mess. If you're not 100% sure that the action is necessary, as Mkativerata says, bring it to a community noticeboard and discuss the problem and what to do about it. Bottom line in this case, though, this clearly isn't an "abuse" of rollback that warrants a loss of privileges. Swarm ^X 21:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a little confused. Why was I notified about this if Dicklyon did nothing wrong? Magus732 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Since I mention you here, I'm required to notify you of that. So I did, after a few hours delay when I was out and about. My complaint here about myself was also about you. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But you just told me on your talk page that you didn't actually look at all of the articles you reverted; you felt justified by the fact that they use the same edit summary (which, admittedly, is something I need to work on) and had a similar type of change undertaken... don't you think other people, i.e. the ones you're asking about this, should know everything that happened? Magus732 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And that happened later. Thanks for filling them in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - remove Dicklyon rollback rights if he so wish to and per his multiple blind wholesale reverts without first properly verifying the facts. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this seems like clear abuse of the Rollback feature, with a hefty element of WP:POINT thrown in for good measure. Absconded Northerner (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Some of the reverted edits were useful and a case for "abuse of rollback" could be made, but I share the frustration expressed by Dicklyon here regarding how relatively minor edits can cause huge diffs which make checking the edits impossible without a lot of work. Regardless of the merits of that issue, it would be premature to remove the rollback right due to the guideline which permits rollback "To revert widespread edits ... provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location", as was done. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - there has been no complaint by anyone about this editor. He was wrong to use rollback in the manner he did, but it is clear that they have brought this matter here not to be subject to vilification but to draw attention to the editor who's "clean up" activity warranted the action taken by Dick in the first place. He knows how to use rollback and removing it at this time would only be punitive and no benefit to WP. Looking at Magus talk page, that is where proper advisory action is required. They have a history of idiosyncratic style-related editing and misleading summaries. Leaky Caldron 08:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The WP policy clearly states that these rights should only be removed upon persistent misuse, and the first instance here is largely debatable.Niluop (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for starting this unnecessary and POINTY thread. I just wanted to get some attention on the problem. If I had been aware of the clause under rollback usage that explicitly justified what I did, I certainly wouldn't have come here. If anyone is motivated to help repair the mess that Magus732 made, that would be great. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon's use of rollback on the problematic string of edits performed by Magus732. There was no abuse. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• The usual practice, as several admins pointed out above, is to discuss first before performing the mass revert, since if there's a mistake we'll have to do another mass revert again. That said, I don't think there's any rollback misuse here. T. Canens (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I probably have my personal and professional Wikipedia naïveté to thank for this opinion, I don't feel Dicklyon should have his rollback privilages revoked. I may not agree with what he did (or how he did it), but it doesn't sound to me like he did anything wrong.Magus732 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

All the above being said, I come to question why he waited until after doing the reverts to mention it. Magus732 (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Call it a crime of passion. We all make mistakes. And I was probably drinking, too. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose—looks like it was in good faith. Tony (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is there still a "vote" here? Dicklyon boldly offered his own Rollback rights up because he knew he was correct, and the mere possibility of removing those rights was preposterous. An interesting tactic, but to each his own. He keeps Rollback - end of story. This is becoming a "useless" thread, IMHO. Doc talk 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Otto4711 - WP:ban proposal

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

User:Otto4711 is banned by community consensus. Discussion was open for 24 hours with no objections. I have tagged the Userpage as community banned and have also added the user to Wikipedia:List of banned users#O - Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• - User:Otto4711 is the sockmaster.

A few weeks ago I reported that a banned user, Are You The Cow Of Pain?, continued to edit under multiple IP's. I was expecting the IP's to be banned but unfortunately nothing happened. So is there any chance something can be done this time around?--TheMovieBuff (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That is Otto4711, he seems to just create accounts till they're recognized and then goes off and creates another one. Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets of Otto4711 The ones I came across were highly disruptive and personally attacking - He has been creating block evading sock-puppets for the last two years - investigations/Otto4711/Archive Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711 - I support a community WP:BAN on him. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support community ban - add to Wikipedia:List of banned users - support for a community ban has the added benefit that it allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban- No place for him to keep up his personal attacks here.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 21:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - there is no place in this community for nonsense. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban Phearson (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - once the number of sockpuppets created by a user passes a certain point, they've used up their good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Why can't he be stopped, and how will a ban fix this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If we have to semi or even full-protect every article he disrupts, I believe we will do that. If we cannot do that, then there is no purpose of imposing any ban or block on him. –MuZemike 07:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban in order to facilitate handling per Off2riorob's above comment (Peregrine Fisher: that's why the ban helps). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support--I should have proposed this some time ago. Otto4711 has been a large contributor, in his various incarnations to longstanding poisonous atmospheres in both LGBT and deletion areas. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - A ban will make reverting this disruptive editor's socks much easier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, I could have sworn he was already banned. Since he's not this is overdue. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support (but he maybe already banned by Arbcom?) I check Otto's block log, which said not to unblock him without contacting Arbcom. Can I infer that he is already banned by the Arbitration Committee? OIFA (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • To the best of my investigation, that block was placed by one arb, acting on information supplied to the committee behaviorally linking Otto and Cow, and was never formally recorded as an ArbCom action. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support – Might as well make this ban obvious to the community as well as to ArbCom. –MuZemike 07:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Obvious ban. HurricaneFan25 11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support No questions on this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please restore POV tag to Occupy Wall Street and help me with dispute resolution?

I have been accused of edit warring and warned twice because I want to include information about calls to amend the Constitution to the Occupy Wall Street article. I have spent several hours over the past five days carefully sourcing and condensing the material, but three other editors insist on deleting it without any specific objections that I have not fully addressed, apart from vague claims of undue weight. I believe I am being WP:TAGTEAMed by people who simply want to discredit the movement (they also want to remove the most recent polling from the intro even though they had no objections to it when it was not as favorable.) However, I am not going to make any formal accusations until I have tried all other means of dispute resolution that do not involve accusing editors of misbehavior. What is the correct choice of dispute resolution methods in this case?

Right now I just want to add a {{POV}} tag to notify everyone that there is a dispute. I have done so but it was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "consensus is not a dispute." I do not want to be accused of edit warring over a tag, so I am here asking for some administrator to replace the POV tag and explain that it shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved, on the article's talk page, please.

I have stated on that talk page that I intend to replace the disputed material since nobody seems likely to have any specific objections to which have not already been fully addressed, but I will not replace it until after a length of time to be decided by the administrator 2/0 who has warned me against edit warring twice but has not replied to my messages since the last warning.

Relevant discussion sections are:

• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#US constitutional convention
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Summary of polling in intro
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention
  • Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Eleven additional news sources
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Intro now even shorter than required by WP:LEAD#Length
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#What reasons are there to not include this material?
• Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Reliable source for groups joining the call for a constitutional amendment

Thank you. Dualus (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take this to dispute resolution, as there's nothing for anyone to do here. You may also want to consider the NPOV noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of dispute resolution should I use? I just replaced the POV tag, and it was deleted again. Dualus (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, from least to most aggressive DR is the usual path Negotiation before Mediation, for example - details are at WP:DR. Some advice, though - it is rarely productive to edit war over adding a tag to an article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Forum shoping, he has raised this on multiple noticeboards. In fact this [[14]] seems almost to be a cut and past of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus should also remember that there is a distinct difference between WP:TAGTEAMing and WP:CONSENSUS. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

He's been told to discuss this at the NPOV noticeboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ths should be closed then, as leaving it open gives an impresion that may not be valid.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to try WP:EAR as a method of avoiding confrontational dispute resolution, but these accusations of forum shopping (after I have, in each instance, followed the instructions of various uninvolved noticeboard posters to take it to some other noticeboard or here on AIV) make me wonder whether I would be further accused of that. Would anyone object if I tried EAR and if so, would you object if I tried a more confrontational means of dispute resolution? Dualus (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that Dualus is also using all of these notice boards to continue accusations while still refusing to begin true dispute resolution. In his latest effort at NPOV he is now making accusations that may be Wikipedia:Libel.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, Mad, that wouldn't be a legal threat now, would it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey at Barack Obama BLP

Wikipedia is not user friendly.

This board says no discussion about article content here. Yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation says to bring it here.

There are some obscure laws that passed during President Obama's term. These were in the Barack Obama article. The article is "Barack Obama". It is not "The World during the Life of Barack Obama". The 3 small parts that I removed were discussed in the discussion page. Basically, they are obscure acts. President Obama never campaigned hard for these, like the closing of Gitmo or the stimulus packages.

Scjessey just reinstates these, falsely accuses me of vandalism, and still offers no logical explanation of why the passages are there. His bad attitude poisons the atmosphere. That sort of lack of behaviour just creates animosity. He is unlike SMP028 who actually suggests a project to look for relevance of those new laws.

Instead, Scjessey just uses automated templates and automated Twinkle. He creates a hostile environment by refusing to use the talk page and just falsely accuses other of vandalism.

He should be sanctioned by revoking his Twinkle access. Twinkle makes it too easy for him to be a bully. He should be forced to explain all of his actions, not just insert and delete. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not informed Scjessesy of this report. In addition you have been repeatedly been blanking sourced content from Barack Obama without any proper explanation on the talk page: some of your responses there have been overly aggressive, verging on personal attacks.[15] Your edits were reverted and you received the standard warning templates as you approached 3RR. Calling those reverts "vandalism", as you did on the talk page of the article, shows a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. At the moment you are editing disruptively and could easily find yourself sanctioned, per WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic question: I've been having great difficulty accessing the Barack Obama page since Hi Balloon Boy filed this report. I have not had this problem with any other page. What could be causing this? Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is rarely a good idea to perform the same edits to an article three times (diff and diff and diff) in half an hour. Particularly for a featured article concerning an extremely high profile individual (Barack Obama), a considerable degree of patience should be used, and insisting on a particular edit after making four comments on the article talk page at the same time as making the edits is not desirable. The sanctions link you provide above provides a good reason for working calmly on the article talk page rather than escalating a rather trivial issue to this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, access to Twinkle can no longer be removed. Jenks24 (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is not possible, then perhaps a block may be necessary? –MuZemike 07:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For which user? Both are in the wrong here, to varying degrees. Also, as an aside, I'm trying to figure out why exactly revoking TW access is the solution that the poster is looking for. As far as I remember, revoking TW access was only deployed against people that can't tell the difference between vandalism and non-vandalism. This is just people using tools in an edit war, not a remove-TW violation, but a block violation, as MuZemkike stated. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, it probably bears mentioning that the OP here has been gone from Wikipedia for over two years, then returns to edit war on the Obama page tonight, then "retires" for a day or two [16] when the 1RR restriction is brought up to them. I'd politely suggest this one pass with no blocks issued since the edit war has stopped, with warnings for both editors for the future. Dayewalker (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a related question at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Question_on_revoking_access. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not possible to remove Twinkle access any more. It came up on this board once before. As I understand it, the feature was causing more trouble than it was worth, so it was removed. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 25#Blacklist and the linked discussions. From what I read, there's no reason why a user couldn't be forbidden from using Twinkle or otherwise whatever they are doing that is causing problems (whether they are using Twinkle or not), if it's felt they are a somewhat productive editor but have problems that need to be dealt with. This will be enforced, as with all editing restrictions, by blocking of said user if they violate the restrictions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, and numerous other times here and at AN, it is no longer technically possible to revoke Twinkle. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Only someone with a username "Department of Redundancy Department" could write a comment that begins "As stated above, and numerous other times...". Too funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about Twinkle is interesting, but academic. Clearly this was not a misuse of Twinkle. The original poster removed three paragraphs of a featured article with an edit summary "trivial parts removed and discussed in the discussion page", yet no discussion had taken place. I used Twinkle to restore the content and warn the user per standard practice. After this action, Hi Balloon Boy explained the reason behind the removal of content, and I immediately responded with a warning not to remove cited content without first getting a consensus for doing so. None of this is out of the ordinary, and I had thought the matter would end there.

Sadly, HBB again removed the content with an edit summary of "Undid automated TW reversion that Scjessey did not discuss. My rationale is clearly stated in the talk page with no opposing logical reason given." Clearly my earlier article talk page comment was ignored, as was the explanation I left on the editor's talk page. I gave HBB a chance to act responsibly by asking him to self-revert.

Instead of doing that, HBB responded with a personal attack, so I reverted the removal of content a second time, warned him in the usual manner and added the standard notification about article probation concerning Obama-related articles. After HBB's third removal of content (with another misleading edit summary), I decided to warn him one more time and turn in for the night.

After reviewing my actions in this matter, I can honestly say I would not have done a single thing differently. I did nothing more than perform the standard actions after observing an incident of removal of content - standard actions which I have performed many hundreds of times over the years. Had I known Hi Balloon Boy had only two days of editing experience (I didn't look until this morning), perhaps I would've softened my approach by giving him more time to revert himself, but ultimately he responded with a personal attack so it is unlikely the sequence of events would've changed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That is why Scjessey should be blocked. He has no clue that he is disruptive. A non-disruptive person would simply explain why he thought those obscure laws pertained to the bio of Barack Obama. Instead, he attacks me, deletes my revisions, and falsely accuses me of vandalism. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Another editor is suggesting that Hi Balloon Boy (talk · contribs) and BAMP (talk · contribs) (who took up the HBB's cause once he "retired") are sockpuppets of JB50000 (talk · contribs). I have no idea if this is true, but it would certainly put a different spin on this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is classic Wikipedia bad behaviour. Call someone you like a sock. Why not call me a Communist, too? This is another example of bad behaviour by Scjessey and another reason why he should be blocked. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(after e/c) I suspect that the other editor is mistaken, as both of the alleged sock accounts predate JB50000, and also predate Gaydenver (talk · contribs), who is supposed to be the sockmaster. It is possible that there is a sockmaster behind all three, but I suspect that if that is the case, it's someone else who has been blocked or banned, and JB50000 was just caught before these two. I have taken the liberty of informing BAMP that he is under discussion at AN/I, because it's not clear that he would be aware from the discussion on the talk page that he is now under discussion here. Horologium (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the voice of reason. I am not those other people. I simply had a good suggestion for the article (removing some obscure laws not related to Obama). I suspect that Scjessey is a violent Obama supporter (the kind that blindly supports all of his policies, even if Obama supported not covering his mouth when coughing because he was too lazy). In contrast, I support a better article. My suggestion is very neutral, neither attacks nor supports our great President, but merely improves the article.14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• This looks like another case of "let's beat up the newbie" and side with the veteran, however wrong that person is. First, let's look at the facts. Balloon removed the section on 02:35 23 Oct, following a talkpage discussion (Talk:Barack_Obama#Version_2) where several editors complained about the number of random facts in the article. He was reverted (with no vandalism tag but marked as minor in violation of WP:MINOR) by Scjessey at 02:40. Balloon posted his reasoning on 02:39 23 Oct. Scjessey's response was simply "Please don't remove cited content without first establishing a consensus for doing so". Lack of consensus alone is not a valid argument and does not really count the discussion we'd ask for in WP:BRD, and any tolerance of this type of argumentation runs counter to our goal of a well-trimmed and edited encyclopedia. Scjessey, as a veteran quite aware of Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation and what it involves - as well as one with a reputation for very poor behavior (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scjessey), then very quickly jumped to edit-warring and tagging the repeated clearly 'non-vandalism, substantive, well-commented' edits as vandalism using Twinkle. I would suggest asking Scjessey to avoid Barack Obama as he does not seem to have the temperament for it. However, at a minimum he should be barred from using Twinkle for his assumptions of bad faith - if not technically, then through our consensus. It's no wonder participation is in such decline with such tolerance for bad faith by our veterans. II | (t - c) 17:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh what a crock of shit . We have to deal with editors like balloonboy day in and day out, on this and many other problematic articles. On top if that, it is more than likely just a sock of one of several long-term abusive editors who have abused the Obama page over the years. Revert them, block them, ignore them, this is not the type of editor we wish to attract. Scjessey was in the right here. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor, I see, acts like an Obama campaign worker, not a good Wikipedia writer. Besides, there are 300M Americans and maybe 300M others who are interested in America. If just 1 in 100,000 of them comes here (1 in a city of 100,000!), that is 600,000 people editing the Obama article. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, although in calmer terms. We have an account returning after two years away to edit war on one of our highest-profile articles, followed by another account popping back up after ten months of inactivity to pick up the edits, all because of an inactive discussion started ten months ago by an indef blocked editor.

In any case, this section was started by an editor who promptly "retired" after asking for Twinkle to be removed. That can't be done, so unless someone wants to make a block on twelve+ hour edits, there doesn't seem to be any admin attention required. Dayewalker (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor, I see, acts like an Obama campaign worker, not a good Wikipedia writer. Besides, see how I am wrongly smeared. I did not retire. I merely retired for 1-2 days. This was to show that I am a good person and do not insist (but back away). See how those bad people attack me; they re-pay my nice offer of backing away with an attack. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll just note, partially for Balloon's sake, that while this very limited sample of involved people may make it appear that the community is utterly hostile to newcomers and utterly disregards its own rules, Tarc and Scjessey have already been noted for their problems in getting along with other people. The general community's perspective on their behavior is better shown by the Scjessey finding (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Scjessey) and the Tarc finding (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Tarc) as well as the formal reminder (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Tarc_reminded) and Scjessey's topic ban (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Scjessey_topic_banned). I imagine that if the evidence since that 2009 case was assembled, these editors might be removed completely from the article and we could reduce drama; alas, this would be a large and difficult task. II | (t - c) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is your take on this situation, you either are oblivious to the sequence of events that lead up to this thread, or have an agenda. Continually referring to the editor who started this thread as a 'newcomer' when the account is more than 2 years old, while failing to understand the Talk page sequence, as well as the objection of the removal by several long time editors, is not helpful. To continue to refer to other matters here in this thread shows that you have some other objective here. Dave Dial (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The sequence is laid out quite clearly by myself above. Certainly, I have objectives: to elaborate on our complex rule system, which I know well (having edited here since 2007 and having read most policy pages carefully); to swiftly show strong disapproval towards veterans who break rules, assume bad faith, and do not discuss in order to deter such behavior in the future (by them and watchful observers); to make people feel like this is a professionally-run operation rather than a partisan club; and, certainly, to make newcomers (in this case, someone with less than a hundred edits) feel welcome. Admittedly, my background includes that I tried editing Barack Obama a few years back and soon gave up after encountering Scjessey and Tarc, which should not be surprising given what the arbitrators observed. As far as your comments, generally I'm leery of those swinging the WP:SOCK weapon first without even attempting to discuss on substantive merits; I do find the way that User:BAMP just showed up suspicious but two wrongs don't make a right, and in any case Bamp's involvement came entirely after the incident this is focused on. Dayewalker suggests a "warning" for both users above. It's clear that Scjessey has already received many warnings, and action should be taken. From August 2009 to August 2010 Scjessey was limited to 1 revert per week. It's clear that this did not instill the good habits that ArbCom thought it would (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision#Scjessey_admonished_and_restricted). II | (t - c) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That Arbcom case was completely useless in explaining anything. It's sheer tendentiousness to dredge up a years-old botched case to berate the responsible editors around here. Perhaps lacking in tact and diplomacy, something everyone here ought to practice, Scjessey's edits were the right outcome. It serves no purpose other than rules for rules' sake to demand that editors patrolling the article tag team bad edits and misguided editors rather than the one who happens to be there at the time. Making a case out of this only inflames things and enables people who would disrespect the article. Just calm down everyone. It's not vandalism, just a bad edit. A newly-arrived editor was too bold and needed to be told to slow down. From what I can tell there's hint of a sockpuppet and that can be investigated. That's all there is to it, so please don't turn this back into a WP:BATTLE-ground for the whole birther thing again. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Both Balloon Boy and Scjessey acted disruptively by edit warring, but I see nothing to suggest that Balloon Boy wasn't acting in good faith; they removed the content with an edit summary and wrote up an explanation on the talk page, and they were reverted and issued a templated warning that was not even appropriate for the context in which it was used. Scjessey not only edit warred, but accused Balloon Boy of vandalism on the talk page, which was completely inappropriate as well. One particular comment of concern was when Balloon Boy said, "Wikipedia allows people to be Bold" and Scjessey replied, "your "boldness" is vandalism" The only reason I'm not imposing the clearly-applicable sanctions sanctions for both users is because the issue is a bit stale at this point, IMO, but this is the type of disruptive incident should not be repeated in the future. Swarm ^X 19:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly urge you use your administrative tools in the service of article stability and quality rather than to undermine the work of productive editors, particularly on a high profile featured article. In form, Scjessey should have been more diplomatic in the face of edits which, good faith or not, were disruptive. The lack of tack and wiki-political sense has caused Scjessey trouble before. And Ballon Boy, if indeed a novice editor, neeeds to learn the limits of WP:BOLD, and not rushing to file sanctions requests. In substance, Balloon Boy needed to stop and whether Scjessey or someone else, somebody needed to stop him. You obviously don't mean literally that you don't see any evidence of bad faith editing by Balloon Boy, because if you read this entire thread the evidence is explicitly presented that he was editing strangely and aggressively, and exhibiting some patterns of a sock. You've just decided not to give it credence. Socks deserve every courtesy until they're proven socks, for sure, as there is sometimes a simple innocent explanation. But erring on the side of disruption has been a continuing oversight on the part of administrators dealing with the Obama article, who have played the sucker to lots of fake accounts... many dozens at this point though we've mostly stopped keeping count. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lulz. Mr. ImperfectlyInformed, that Arbcom was over 2 years ago, and since then I have not repeated such actions in subsequent hot-topic discussions. If you feel otherwise, WP:AE is thataway. Now if we're done with ad hominem broadsides, should this filing be closed? The sock "retired" before he could get boomerang'ed, and there seems to be no legitimate consensus that scjessey did anything actionable. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Two or three editors have done a great job portraying my actions as bad here. I find the characterizations by II and Swarm to be particularly egregious, with Swarm's edited timeline of events just being plain wrong. The editor who caused all this trouble by popping up after years of absence and removing several paragraphs from a featured article without consensus vanished, only to be replaced by another "dormant" editor who began to do exactly the same thing. This sort of thing is common in Obama-related articles, and the editors who basically police this problem should be applauded, not pilloried. I'd also like to object to the accusatory and inaccurate section heading. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What's perhaps most astonishing about this incident is that Scjessey continues to say that he sees absolutely nothing wrong with the behavior and would do it all over again. All of the following are A-OK in his mind: (1) breaking the rule on edit warring for the article under probation, which he was most clearly aware of; (2) tagging his second revert as "vandalism" [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=456924080&oldid=456923095] (and the first revert as minor), when clearly it was not vandalism; and (3) not responding to Balloon with any substantive response but rather a snippy "develop consensus first", in violation of Wikipedia's discussion expectations in WP:BRD. Scjessey's rather tendentious summary above, which conveniently neglects to mention his tagging the edit as vandalism, his lack of reasoning in response to Balloon's comments; and finally that Scjessey's Balloon's "personal attack" was only in retaliation to Scjessey's inflammatory vandalism tagging. Such a summary is apparently just fine in his mind, but it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest. It's enough to make any sane person's blood boil, as mine does when I think about it. It's clear to me that there's something wrong with the whole area when such a situation is looked at with blithe nonchalance, as the Obama regulars see it. But, eh, if the jury is to be the Obama regulars, who am I to argue with their judgment? Perhaps Wikidemon is right that us non-politics types just don't understand the rabid paranoia which such an article requires. However, I've worked on plenty of highly controversial articles and my experience has never been that paranoid attacks and bad faith improve the situation. Such a position directly opposes Wikipedia's pillar of good faith and civility. II | (t - c) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you paint a false picture of what actually happened:

1. The rule on edit warring (whether or not the article is under probation) does not apply to edits that are clearly disruptive.
2. The second removal of content does constitute an act of vandalism, and so I tagged it as such. What else would you call repeated the removal of content, if not vandalism?
3. I gave all the justification that was necessary, including article talk page comments and user talk page comments.

Incidentally, I've just discovered that you've had your own problems with this topic, so perhaps you might want to climb off that rather high equine on which you are perched. I'm starting to get the distinct impression there's some other reason you're fighting hard for some sort of sanction. Seriously, I've never seen such an enormous mountain made from such a tiny molehill before. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the vandalism policy is misunderstood. The lead to vandalism states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." And there is no reading of Wikipedia:VANDALISM#Blanking.2C_illegitimate under which the edits could have been considered "blanking". As far as justification, per BRD, if you don't have any reasons, it's essentially the same as saying you do not oppose the edit. And "get consensus" is not a reason. WP:BOLD is a longstanding guideline - there is no requirement to canvass around and get "consensus" before editing. II | (t - c) 02:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You might be missing the point. Bold is okay, and it wasn't vandalism. There's no requirement per se to get prior consensus, but if you're going to delete three paragraphs from a featured article without prior discussion you're almost certain to get reverted and "please gain consensus first" is an obvious and legitimate response. "Revert vandalism" is a null response if it isn't vandalism, I agree. If someone reverted a good faith edit of mine as vandalism instead of saying "please gain consensus first" or offering a real reason I might do the same - restore my edits (at this point 1RR) with a similar comment: "my edits weren't vandalism, no valid reason given for reversion". At that point we're square, it doesn't matter who started it, and we all have to talk on the article talk page about the underlying reason why the article should change or stay the same. If they removed a second time while giving me a warning, that's the breaks. Either way it's at the stage where both sides need to cool it. That's where it should begin and end, except that: (a) Balloon Boy may be a sockpuppet, and (b) for some reason this ended up as an AN/I report with editors advocating others to be sanctions. An administrator looking at this before it got stale could tell both editors to can it (no blocks, just tell them to stop)... as a featured article it's legitimate for someone to restore the prior version. And then everyone goes to the article talk page to figure it out. This ought to be very simple. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed continues to be wrong about this, and insists on attacking me for doing nothing more than what anyone else patrolling Obama-related pages would've done. The second removal of content most certainly was an act of vandalism because (a) he had been warned not to do it, and (b) he went ahead and did it anyway. So on the first removal of content, we can assume good faith (and I did), but when it happens a second time (despite the warning) then it is fair to say it is no longer editing in good faith, ergo vandalism. And as if it wasn't enough that HBB thrice removed the content, he has now retitled this section in an accusatory manner. Meanwhile, the "retired" editor is back at Talk:Barack Obama slinging around bad faith at someone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

...and the unilateral content removal continues, BTW. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I stepped away from the article for more than a day, like I promised. I also reviewed all the comments on the talk page. Not a single person among 300M Americans could provide a reason why those obscure laws are a significant part of Obama's bio (of course 295M did not look at the article). Some may believe that those laws are important, but even if they were, they are not integral to Obama's bio. In the absence of a good reason to reinstate those passages, they should be removed. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that sanity has prevailed and HBB has been blocked, perhaps this silly thread he started can be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this is just a coincidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I voiced my support for keeping the information in the article at the talkpage [17]. Since I was the only one who actually entered into what could realistically be called discussion with Balloon, I encourage others to take notes. II | (t - c) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you. The others who did not enter into a discussion should be admonished. I did enter a discussion, like you, and offered concrete steps to improve the article, like re-examine what is important about Israel and why mentioning Admiral Mullen might be good for the Admiral Mullen article but has little to do with the Obama article. BAMP (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use

Please see User talk:SchuminWeb#Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use. SchuminWeb has made fundamental changes to a template which reverses how policy is implemented regarding some images. The post by Future Perfect at Sunrise in the linked discussion outlines how and why this is a bad idea. SchuminWeb maintains that a Tfd with 4 editors commenting (3/4 supporting) is sufficient consensus for this change. I believe this should have been brought to a wider venue. We now have three issues:

• Edit warring on the template by SchuminWeb against so far 3 admins concerned about this change
• Rudeness, flippancy and dismissal of concerns by SchuminWeb
• And of course where and how to have the community discussion regarding whether this change should be made or not

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed that people are so up in a wad about this, but there you go, I suppose. I don't care anymore. Do whatever you want with the process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone is reverting that template, shouldn't this one be restored? Template:Di-replaceable_fair_use_disputed--v/r - TP 16:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I believe AzaToth suggested that, but that rather begs the question. SchuminWeb edit warred for this change claiming community consensus. Now, either there is or is not consensus; I opine not, but I submit that neither you nor I alone can judge that. In short, I refer you to the third bullet point above; this requires more input IMO. However, if you wish to restore that so we have a working template while this discussion is ongoing, I have no objection. I would check with AzaToth and Future Perfect prior to doing so, however. Should I notify them of this thread, since they have not weighed in? Also, as a secondary note, this in no way addresses SchuminWeb's behavior in edit warring on the template itself, and his incivility to three concerned admins on his talk page, which has me concerned, especially as he tried to close this section[18] in order to avoid discussion here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"The entire discussion was had at TFD. It doesn't matter where we had the discussion. We had it, and consensus was achieved. ". I think the phrase we reach for here is "I don't bloody think so". You don't effectively screw about with policy (i.e. an editor can unilaterally short-circuit the CSD for an image which is clearly speediable) by having a discussion in a backwater page which no-one knew about. Did you link it at WT:NFC? At WP:VPP? At WP:CENT? No, I thought not. As an admin, you should frankly know better. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• A discussion at TfD that is not advertised anywhere simply cannot change policy. Therefore the modified version of the template is arguably deletable under WP:CSD#T2 as an unambiguous misrepresentation of existing policy. {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} should be restored, SchuminWeb should be subjected to one (1) application of the clue-level adjustment device, and everyone should move on. If this matter needs further discussion, this should be done at either WT:CSD or WT:NFCC with a cross-post to the other location and to WP:VPP and WP:CENT. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have restored the deleted template, with a note that a deletion with wider implications needs to be discussed at a venue with wider visibility and participation. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  tl;dr version: I'd prefer a reversal of the IDHT but I'm not holding my breath. Support template restoration

  full version: Clearly I would support this course of action, as it restores the policy and procedures in place for over 4 years and undoes SchuminWeb's ill-advised unilateral change of that; I confess I would be more optimistic about the future if SchuminWeb had acknowledged that he did not apply best judgment in this; or even if he acknowledged that the current (unanimous) consensus is that he did not apply best judgment, and made some kind of statement that in the future he would seek wider input before taking such actions, and follow more closely his admirable statement from his user talk page that "If you are writing to comment on an action that you disagree with, first just fix it, and then tell me what you fixed and why you fixed it. This permission also includes reverting administrative actions that I have made. I won't wheel war with you if you revert an administrative action. Just make sure you tell me that you did." as I would prefer to be assured this type of lapse, compounded by edit warring and WP:IDHT, would not happen again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Joy: Use of admin tools -while involved- in a content dispute

The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

• Deletion of the page Moroccan: [19]
• History of Moroccan (disambiguation) now merged with the history of the page Moroccan: [20]

I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan (disambiguation) that you've merged elsewhere with no discussion no consensus Tachfin (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't restore (unmerge) it but you can trivially move it over there, with zero loss of functionality. Overall I'm at a loss for words over your blatant WP:OWN violation and inability to reasonably argue a content dispute without resorting to petty procedural complaints. This, coupled with the appeal to "consensus" over the circumstance that nobody noticed this page being redirected wrongly for years, indicates a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONS. Sure, someone can assume bad faith in my "admin actions" and undo them completely without regard for what they actually were, but that won't change the simple fact that all my arguments of the matter have remained unanswered. Talk about WP:DISRUPTIVE, sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly clear case of WP:INVOLVED and a violation of use of the admin tools. The admin actions should be undone, while discussion is still continuing. Silverseren^C 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How exactly did I use admin tools to gain an advantage over the non-administrator user? What advantage did I gain? Because, I honestly don't see any - I did not prevent them from doing anything they want, apparently I only enabled them to complain here, which seems... disadvantageous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You used admin tools to delete and then move another page to the deleted title, while in a disagreement with another user over the title and the disambiguation page. It seems pretty obvious. Silverseren^C 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) He cannot undo your changes because he is not an admin, that's the advantage you have. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Er, what? Of course he can undo my changes, he can move the disambiguation page back to its old location and create the same redirect again. Nothing I did prevents him from doing that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Can plain editors do history merges, and more importantly, can they undo them? I think not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Like I said before, yes, that's a procedure they can't do on their own, but I fail to see the observable benefit to me / harm to them from that history merge that prejudices the content dispute and constitutes an admin tool abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
            • After I've read the talk page discussion, I agree that the complaint about the histmerge is of marginal concern. The main dispute is about the page move. As with such controversial moves, it should probably be undone and a {{movereq}} posted on the talk page. Right now this is a two party tango on the talk page. It's hard to say there's consensus either way. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It would have been recomendable to avoid doing any actions while discussion was still going on, however we must see that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on. Unfortunate rush and perhaps a lesson to be more patient in future... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on.' Doing that only seconds after I posted on talk page with no reply and no consensus for the move, I saw it as an attempt to impose a "Fait accompli" since I cannot do/undo what he did and what he did was certainly unwarranted with no consensus and in violation of WP:INVOLVED. User:Joy (as any other user) should not disregard opposition to the breaking of a status quo that has been going since 2004, and unilaterally use his admin powers to impose his preferred version. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the admin actions are undone and the discussion continued, then everything should be fine, yes. But they have to be undone to be fair to the discussion. Silverseren^C 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• So is there any good Samaritan Admin to restore things to the previous status quo? And friendly warn User:Joy to not use admin tools while involved and not edit war (The instant reverts are quite uncollaborative to say the least, I feel as if I am personally targeted since I'm just willing to restore a version that has been living since 2004, even Ips weren't reverted with such quickness and enthusiasm) Tachfin (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there are many admins who would be willing to (consensus here seems clear that Joy was involved and should not have used the tools), but the problem is that the two articles should never have been histmerged at all. They had parallel histories and the histmerge has left the history of the article in a mess. The correct procedure would be to perform a history split, but I can't see how an admin doing a history split would be able to tell which edits were from which article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

It was closed by a non-administrator as keep, but the participants were roughly split in !votes, and some more commented on the sources without voting either way. That suggests a close call, and WP:NACD discourages non-admins from closing in such circumstances. Perhaps an admin wishes to re-close it in order to avoid further controversy? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I count 5 Keeps and 2 Deletes. That looks like consensus, but for anything besides a Snow Keep I think it would be better for an administrator to close. Edward321 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the nomination counts as delete too, so that makes them 3. The nominator has complained to the talk page of the closer, so I assume he was not convinced by the keep arguments yet. Also, User:Lambiam who did not vote either way commented that the source at that time in the article was not independent. Also, the last !vote was still delete for lack of independent sources, so presumably the article had not improved much during the AfD. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think AFD's are races where the last person to vote counts more then any others. I also note the last vote admits it could not check all the sources, so all this proves is that the user made a judgmenat in incopmplete data.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said that. I only said that the last !vote suggest that the initial sourcing concerns were still valid in the minds of some participants at the end of the AfD. Ergo, this was hardly a non-controversial closure, as additionally evidenced by the nominator complaining on the closer's talk page. See WP:NACD for why non-admins should not close in these circumstances. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the closing editor basically supervoted by deciding that sources presented by RolandR were reliable and decisive [21], even though another editor, Stuartyeates, who had posted after RolandR in the AfD had disagreed that they were so. It does not appear the kind of clear-cut closure reserved for non-admins. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the last vote was at 23:35, 22 October 2011 where at it was closed at 04:02, 23 October 2011, I assume you mean that niominator disagreeing with the closure. If I understand things corectly ther is no requirement for the nominator to agree to a close. Also there was a 2 to one vote to vkeep, and a lot of users claimed it was reliably sourced, some of whome appear to have actualy read the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself apparently without reading what I wrote above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Then explain how someone saying they have not checked all the sources is a valid deletion arguemnt?Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And if you insist, the depth of coverage in RolandR's sources has been questioned immediately thereafter in the AfD by Malik Shabazz who is an administrator, so surely not the most clueless person around here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The nominator complained on the closer's talk page after the closure. And a straight vote count is more like 5:3.5 keep:delete, if you count the user who expressed reservations about sourcing as 0.5 delete. Far from the uncontroversial closure recommended by WP:NACD. This is why I have posted here. Please the guideline. This not WP:DRV. I'm simply asking for an admin to comment. You are not one as far as I can tell, so please stop interfering; you have made your opinion known multiple times already. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Forstly, AfDs are not vote counts, they are a discussion. Secondly, I don't think a non-admin should be closing AfDs where the consensus is not obvious. GiantSnowman 18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but am a frequent participant at AfD. I am uninvolved with this particular AfD debate, but agree 100% with Have mörser, will travel and GiantSnowman here. The topic is potentially quite contentious and there were good arguments advanced in favor of deletion based on the claimed poor quality of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is a case where the debate should have been relisted for further discussion by more editors, or closed by an administrator. A non-administrative close does not sit well with me. The vote counting going on in this discussion is, in my opinion, not how we ought to conduct AfD debates themselves or later discussion or their outcomes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See also comment by User:Horologium on closer's talk. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Issues with deletion discussions need to go to DRV. Night Ranger (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The operative language in WP:NACD is "better left to an administrator". I don't think that language is enough to de-legitimize the close. Arguing that it would have been okay if an admin closed it the same way, but it is not only bad for a non-admin to have done so, but that it should be reversed, flies in the face of the idea that admins are just normal editors with extra tools, see WP:NOBIGDEAL. While it is fine to disagree with the close, I don't see anything substantively unreasonable with how the closer read consensus. The close should not be overturned, and if it is to be overturned, it should go to WP:DRV. This is not an appropriate case for an admin or anyone else to unilaterally overturn the result. Monty₈₄₅ 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that one editor !voted to delete, but after reading the sources I noted changed his !vote to keep. RolandR (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page to review this closure. I agree with many of the opinions above that Alpha Quadrant inappropriately closed this discussion because its result is not obvious. Per WP:NACD, I am undoing the closure and am relisting the discussion.  Sandstein  19:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Haven't we been to ANI several times regarding Alpha Quadrant's improper non-admin closures? The AfD is leaning towards keep, but it isn't even close to a slam-dunk. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time there has been a discussion about this on ANI. The closure I made was not unanimous. However, at the time of my closure, there did appear to be a consensus that that the subject met the notability guidelines. AfD is not a vote, it is a process where one of the intended purposes is to establish a topic's notability. WP:NACD suggests that these discussion be left for admins, but the policy does not say that non-admins are prohibited from closing non-unanimous discussions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• We need to rein in those controversial NACs (it's not just Alpha Quadrant; I've noticed a couple users doing this kind of closes lately). Far from saving everyone's time, they actually consume more of it. Whenever people contest them, admins will have to spend time reviewing them, and there's always the possibility that an inappropriate NAC slip through the cracks, which means that some admins may decide to spend time reviewing the non-contested NACs as well, which means that having NACs in this system actually increases admin time consumption. This we don't need. Any NACs that are not obvious should be summarily reverted whenever they are brought to the attention of an admin and reclosed by an admin. T. Canens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we need to reign in the idea that admins have some special authority to judge consensus. I would counter propose that any NACs that are not clearly erroneous should go through WP:DRV if there is a challenge, admins should only revert those closes that are so bad that discussion at DRV would be so pointlessly one sided as to waste everyone's time. Monty₈₄₅ 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I see you have started a RfC on Village pump. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      • ...which has now been WP:SNOW closed by Beeblebrox, an admin in good standing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A comment from User:sitush requires attention

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

Nothing to do here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

---

User:sitush made following comment on his talkpage. [22]. He is either Jimbo himself, who may edit without making others know this. Or he is trying to impersonate as one. In either case the account should be blocked. Or, given the context of the talk he is making it public that he may game the RFCU requirements. Whatever be the case an action is required. Ikon ^No-Blast 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No action is required; the edit you linked is clearly meant to be humorous. In addition, while this thread is done, please remember in the future that you must notify anyone who you report on this noticeboard that they are being discussed.  Frank  |  talk  19:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the context of the talk, it is quite obviously a joke intended to poke fun at the fact that he's has numerous frivolous SPI opened against him (I myself am apparently a sockpuppet of Sitush, much to my surprise). I think the most "action" that is required here is telling Sitush that sarcasm can be misinterpreted, and to keep this in mind. - SudoGhost 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No need. The frequenters of my talk page either start their own section (usually a diatribe) or are well aware of my humour etc. Ikonoblast is just being deliberately obtuse, even after I explained that it was joek-y. This is probably because they are on the wrong end of a discussion at Talk:Yadav. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You did say it was a humour, however, a bit late. It has nothing to do withtalk:Yadav. Anybody impersonating, or giving hints that he is a sock of banned account Or Jimbo should be banned. No matter what is the context. it has been done in the past too. Ikon ^No-Blast 19:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Δ blocked for 48 hours

It is with regret that I have blocked Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)) for 48 hours, in enforcement of his community sanction (listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as follows:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand has run his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation on over 130 articles between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011 (see Special:Contributions/Δ) without seeking this consensus. I, and other users, have attempted many times to engage him in dialogue about his recent return to automated editing without consensus to no avail. The sad thing is that for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive; but regretfully, the productivity of edits does not excuse failure to seek and adhere to community consensus, nor does it excuse ignoring restrictions placed by the community or the opinion of other community members. I feel sad that this has been necessary. (Corrected) --Tristessa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - if he has violated his restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success" (block log) — err, where? I assume this refers to a recent speaking-to? NW (Talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[23], [24] from me, but plenty of other people have tried to talk to him in the past; he's definitely been warned and knows the consequences of his actions, I think, as this has gone on for literally years. The history goes back a long way before I first communicated with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2, his block log, AN/I discussion way back in 2008, his talk history. I think we can safely say he's been gently spoken to, counselled, begged, pleaded with, screamed at, and generally informed. --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them. As the last complaint at his talk page was Oct 6, its a little hard to see what the issue is here; if someone thinks his editing is making a mess, that needs to be told to him than sitting on it. The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines. ---MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit severe to block him for this , "for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive" - can we unblock him and talk to him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the productivity, regretful as it is, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad. As for talking to him, this has been tried exhaustively and has routinely failed (he does not generally reply effectively to talk page messages attempting to discuss these issues with him, if at all). Were communication possible, I wouldn't have blocked. --Tristessa (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob, please calm down. Your assertion that an admin not use their tools because you don't feel they've made enough contributions lately is ludicrous. Let's please stick to this situation. Dayewalker (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not ludicrous at all - if your not contributing you have no authority - simple as - so you should not make unilateral judgments on active contributors and restrict them, you should make a report and defer to request the communities position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Then take it up at the village pump, because that has no basis in policy that I can find. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, not even in the slightest. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its more reflected in common sense and as such doesn't need taking off to the village pump, it more needs promotion of the reality to stop such violations as this, so that users are aware that whatever the labels they have, thay actually only have and only should only use the authority their contributions reflect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last (apparent) communication with him was on Oct 4. He replied. I can't tell (without reviewing all his edits) whether he did take your advise re: Wayback links, but again, spotchecking the 130 contributions you're pointing out, I don't see this. The fact that he replied a few weeks ago means that you should have at least tried to communicate this concern to him before blocking. And evenmore if the edits were all productive and non-distruptive (and truly, as best as I can tell, all seem to be non-controversial), this is a bad block. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. But he only replied tangenitally in the middle of a discussion with another user (User:Hammersoft), in effect offering almost no reply to any of what I said on his talk page. How would you suggest proceeding given his recurrent proclivity towards not communicating, and that so many people have tried to address this with him? I think he's been more than adequately warned. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the "tangenital" and "don't be..." comments, you might want to review your own edits just a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm here on other business, but just as a suggestion, every time one of this seemingly endless series of incidents turns into a heated argument between beta blockers and delta enablers the community loses that much more patience, and it's probably increasing the likelihood that he'll end up banned from the encyclopedia entirely. That's a poor outcome for everyone. Best tone down the emotions and deal with it practically and efficiently. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions. Previous history suggests that, unless he respects the person questioning his edits, he won't reply, and, even if he does, he won't stop before being blocked. In fact, the only times (that I can recall; I haven't been watching him continually, so I may have missed an incident) that he has changed his behavior is after a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block. Indeed, my sense of AGF is stretched a bit here, because it does look as if the blocking admin - who has used the block button precisely eight times in five years - was irritated by an error that Δ made in his edits 19 days ago, and waited for him to make some edits that could possibly be construed as a pattern before pressing the block button without further communication. If this block was not of Δ I think it would be reversed immediately because it contravenes numerous parts of WP:BLOCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this definitely wasn't my motivation, Black Kite. My first attempt at interaction with him over this issue was [25] (09:15, 28 September 2011) which I linked to above, and that was before I made any specific comment on the actual effect of his edits at all. Given the massive history of DR activity related to these behaviours, are you seriously claiming he had too little notice that he'd be liable to be blocked? I suppose there's no way of me proving to you that it's not a case that I was (or am) "irritated" with him, and indeed regret deeply that it came to the point of blocking him. --Tristessa (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'm just going by the edit history. If you (or indeed, anyone) had even considered informing him that his editing pattern might be violating his sanctions, then I'd agree with the block. But no-one did. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem here is that blocking out of the blue without approaching for discussion and claiming there's a violation when it's on a very subjective edge (eg I don't see this as the "pattern" of edits that the community restrictions call on, but that's my opinion) is an issue. Starting an ANI thread, discussing the problem, and in the end if he still got blocked for 48hrs, I can't argue against that. But out of the blue blocks, and ones that claim communication has been tried when they haven't is a bad block. The edits should be reviewed here, and if still deemed a problem, sure. But this feels like the case of people trying to find any way to get Delta blocked indefinitely from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the time difference is germane. The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone did that, they'd be accused by the regular crowd of stocking, harassing, or provoking him. I seem to recall last time we had a delta discussion someone mentioned all these clean-up edits to him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

According the to restrictions, Beta is required to propose edits on the village pump if they affect more than 50 articles. Did he do that in this case? If so, we can get a link, and all is well. If not, then it seems to me the block is sound. If he makes 130 edits with the same edit summary, it is unreasonable to expect others to review them to see exactly what was changed. It seems like he simply ran the same script on 130 articles - and that seems like a "pattern" to me even if the script might not make exactly the same edit on each article. The restriction specifically is intended to prevent Beta from unilaterally running scripts on large numbers of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he needs to not violate his sanctions, as he is well aware. It is a pity he puts us through this every so often but there is no reason to shoot the delivery person when Beta is the one who filled out the order, mailed it off, paid for it, and then opened the door. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell if a script is being run, but the edits seems to be all doing different things, even if there is the same edit summary. It doesn't appear to be a script. In on edit, he's correcting IMDB to IMDb (or was it the other way?) and in others he's removing links to deleted images and in others he correcting the format of infoboxes. The edits are too diverse to be a script. I think he just used the same edit summary, but it doesn't appear to be a progress of the same edits. Silverseren^C 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary. He made 320 edits in August with the exact edit summary "clean". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can learn much from the edit summaries then. We just have to check to see if a series of the same edits are being done, which would indicate a script. But the edits all seem to be different, at least from what i'm looking at. Silverseren^C 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the main effect of the single summary is to obfuscate which tasks he is actually doing, to make it more difficult to find a pattern. But it would be amazing if there was not a pattern of 25 similar edits among the 2,000 I mentioned. IMO it is up to Beta to use different edit summaries for the different tasks. If all the edits summaries claim to be doing the same thing ("cleanup") then that is a pattern of edits. If Beta wants to show he is doing different things, he needs to use descriptive edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Re automated edits: As has happened before, this user is running scripts or 'bots which make large numbers of minor changes, some of which are useful, some of which are pointless, and some of which make things worse. And, as before, the edit comments are useless. This time, there's a new pattern of pointless changes. See [26], where the script or 'bot is converting HTML 24-bit hex colors such as "#ffcccc" into 12-bit hex colors such as "#fcc". That's a "legacy color" format from the NeXTstation/Amiga era, and is deprecated in the HTML5 spec.[27] (See "Steps for parsing a legacy color value", esp. item 6.)

This is apparently done whenever this user's script touches an article. This is not only pointless, but a step in the wrong direction. It generates a large number of diffs, obfuscating any substantive edits. It will confuse later editors who aren't really, really familiar with the formal HTML parsing specification. Somebody please make this nonsense stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial...- User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Rob - most of the user's sanction-violating edits in this last period (> 100) occurred within one day (22 October 2011) in high-speed chunks (4-6 per minute), and I haven't even dealt with the subject of his historical editing using the "Cleanup" script on dates before the period given in the block. Aside from that, again, please stop the ad hominem. It's not helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I took the data from the comments here - I have seen nothing presented , and you yourself said it wasn't that his contributions were detrimental - It's not an ad homin to point out that an account is not contributing to article content - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its boorish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are considering a rule requiring significant recent content contributions by editors who impose sanctions on others then we should first consider it in light of the sitting Arbitrators.[28]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not considering a rule - just a heightened degree of common sense application of attributed authority - I would suggest that its well understood that arbiters have a heightened degree of authority and workload that can and does restrict them from ordinary contributions to project space - unlike administrators who have a lower degree of authority and if they are not contributing to article space they need to understand to not action any controversial authority edits and simply request community consensus first - what is so wrong with that - nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst having some sympathy for Rob's position (and yes I realise I pointed out the blocking admin's lack of use of the tools), this is probably distracting from the main issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, he should have been blocked for a longer time, he got blocked for a year for a reason. --Hinata talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, if the edits are beneficial, then WP:IAR concerning the sanctions and get off his tail. Are we going to start blocking active contributors now? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rainbow Dash. IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried. Or can somebody point to me how Beta's edits were disruptive? "It's not the point, he broke the rules"? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just for my own edification, are we claiming that he's made a series of distinct, beneficial contributions spread out in reasonable numbers of the course of days, but since he's used "cleanup" as his edit summary, that he is deserving of a block? Is it a part of his sanctions that he must use different edit summaries? If he's violated his sanctions, then a block is justified... but if we're blocking because he used generic edit summaries, resulting only in preventing him from making positive contributions, then it should be reversed. Are any of his edits detrimental? The HTML color code thing isn't convincing to me, even as a professional web developer. That could easily be a mistake from a non-automated process.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's my take - its people trying to read into "a pattern of edits" to as much a degree as necessary to "criminalize" Delta. It is vague, unfortunately, but I think one has to look at why these are in place to be understood what the issue is and what that means to "pattern of edits". The community clearly did not want Delta editing mindlessly with changes to articles with no human oversight that was creating avoidable errors and problems in articles. Again, not having reviewed every single edit, the spotchecks show nothing earthshatteringly bad. A few weeks (months?) ago, he had been doing cleanup that stripped hidden HTML comments from articles, but when he was warned on that, he no longer did it. Again, best as I can tell, when he was warned off adding Google Book links or adding Wayback links, he backed off. He's listening. This is what the community wanted, yes?

If the issue was that this felt like a pattern of edits (arguably either way), then the right course of action shouldn't have been to block but warn Delta "This appears to be a pattern" and request he VPP what he's doing. A block this fast is just assuming a lot of bad faith when Delta is trying to contribute as much within what he can do within the restrictions. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Hinata. Two weeks seems more appropriate. He is right, but that doesn't mean he gets to steamroll everybody Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You agree with user Hinata - since the last five months the User:Hinata hasn't even contributed a single minor edit the the en wikipedia article space. - a user that has only ever contributed minor reverts to the en project - and only ever fifty of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Hinata&namespace=0 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, strange that isn't it? Wonder how he suddenly got alerted to this thread? My AGF is certainly being strained tonight. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Rio, I believe another ANI has been started in response at least partially to your Re: of my comment. The bottom line is that I think that Delta/Beta has acted improperly, because he is using the fact that he is right to ignore other guidelines that suggest how to act. I feel the block was appropriate, and could/should even have been longer. How many contributions some editor I agree with has zero bearing on my opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss every Betacommand sanction violation exhaustively, on the grounds that he really ought to know better by know, but keeps violating his sanctions anyways. Just how much longer will his ridiculous behaviour be tolerated? Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a wrong question. The correct one would be: are the sanctions helping, or hurting the project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the sanctions have averted some of the bad tendencies in Beta's editing, they have helped the project. When I was on the group that developed the sanctions originally [29], I expected Beta would have no trouble following them, because they were written to be easy to follow. The fact that he continues to step outside them underscores their value. Also, without the sanctions Beta would simply have been banned from enwiki. So in a sense the sanctions help the project by allowing Beta to contribute in some way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the "pattern" part of them isn't actually that clear, if this ANI discussion is anything to go by. And unfortunately, that's the important part here. The rest is easy to follow, but they aren't relevant here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that it's a stretch to argue that 2,000 edits with exactly the same summary do not constitute a pattern. Also, if you look at his contribs, the articles are editing in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order, which is evidence he has made a list based on some criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if all the edits were doing the same thing; but they're not. In fact they appear to be doing a quite wide range of cleanup operations. As for how the list is generated, I suppose the best person to ask would be Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the same cleanup script does different things depending on the page it is run on (one example would be AWB), it's still the same script. Experience shows there is little benefit in trying to discuss these things with Beta; that's how we ended up with the edit restrictions. However, it seems like the common thread in the recent edits is removing references to deleted or nonexistent images. Start with the edit to Carleen Anderson and go down the list of contribs from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow (it's 1:15am here). It's fairly clear regardless that this block isn't going to be undone anyway; but I do hope it'll lead to Delta's constraints being tightened up (in the sense that it's patently clear to everyone what is and isn't a violation). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, persistently yelling "ban him" at every ANI discussion when everyone else is trying to have a sensible discussion is not really helpful. We heard you the first time. It's like the random person who walks behind the TV reporter and makes faces. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup. Some aspects of it are beneficial (the removal of redlinked images), some are unnecessary (the addition of spaces after asterisks), but it does look as if the errors and more controversial aspects of this cleanup task have been stopped after the discussion we had on his talk page on 27-28 september[30].

Basically, it is clear that this is a pattern of scripted edits, but on the other hand I can't find actual problems with the current run. Suggest unblocking on the condition that Δ gets approval at some location (VP or so) for his current cleanup task (which shouldn't be a problem), and that he gets prior approval for any changes/additions to it, to avoid the need for constant scrutiny of his many edits (which did contain errors and problems last month). Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• There were actual problems; that they are minor is arguable. Here, the edit removes an important (IMHO) hidden instruction to editors, and removes "is" from the intro entirely, which is restored by another editor here. Not a big deal, but sorta zealous and hurried, without proper previewing. Yes, it's a giant article, and it's hard to preview everything, but that was the first word in the lead sentence. That's the only example I'm going to cite, because I feel most of the edits performed were beneficial, though a few were neutral, and arguably personal preferences (shortening named ref names). I have no beef with the editor whatsoever, and it is indeed regrettable that the situation has gone this far without the editor responding to requests and suggestions in a meaningful way. Hell, I even learned how not to be uncivil as a result of reasonable requests, and (finally) links to helpful essays. I'm saying that requests shouldn't be ignored, or blown off; they should be considered civilly. If they pile up unanswered, per WP:DISPUTE, escalation is not only desirable, it is necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. If escalation is all that will get an editors attention, it's not so bad. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is doing the distributed TCP flood attack on my home connection's static IP (I guess you must have found it via /whois on freenode), can you please stop doing it. If you have a grievance about the block, please raise it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Tristessa (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

""Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation"/"apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time"/"They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup." - If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?

So can someone show me where exactly there was a pattern of edits? And if not, can we then overturn this block? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to "dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same", I just have to look at the last 25, or 50, or 100 edits by him with the "cleanup" tag. They all are based around the removal of deleted images from pages, and add some minor AWB-like cleanup stuff. Do other editors have editing patterns as well? Obviously, e.g. my AWB edits are a pattern, even if they include things like space removal, template replacement, and adding of orphan tags. The pattern in my case is tagging as unsourced. Some of my non-AWB edits also follow a pattern, e.g. category additions. Others are completelyt outside any regular pattern. Taking the same approach, it is quite obvious that Δ makes patterned, scripted edits. E.g. these 4 consecutive edits in one minute: [31][32][33][34] all have one image removed, and some layout cleanup, including the automated addition of descriptions to bare links. You can check the dozens of edits before and after these as well. I don't see the point in your denial that the sky is blue here, or that this isn't a pattern. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is clear then. Doing 25 cleanup edits is a pattern - as probably is doing 25 edits in a row. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually wonder how someone who is not allowed to perform more than, what was it, 25 edits with a conceivable pattern without permission is allowed to do thousands and thousands of edits. Δ should have been blocked way earlier than this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Delta use more than 25 edits on one page to bring it to FA status? Or is that a pattern of 'bringing a page to FA status'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The restriction is to 25 or more pages, not to 25 edits to one page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WHAT, now you say that he is allowed to do 25 consequtive edits to one page, which all would, e.g. convert 'period-space' to 'period-space-space' and it is not a pattern, but if he does that on 25 different pages it is. No, Carl. Both are patterns - 25 edits to 25 different pages, changing some text in all of them is a pattern of changing text in 25 different pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the contribs from Carleen Anderson down in the current list of 50 contribs, they all involve removing a reference to a deleted image. So there is one pattern just in the recent ones. It is probably true that he should have been blocked earlier, unless he did get a village pump approval for these. But nobody is being paid to watch his edits so closely, so we can only expect people to notice things occasionally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the edit before that, removes another image than what is removed on Carleen Anderson. So editing 25 pages in a row, in all cases adding or removing a couple of (every time different) words is a pattern of .. adding a couple of .. editing. Can we please define 'pattern' now? What is the pattern that you see and that is different from 'adding every time a different word to a different page'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In all the edits he is removing a reference to a deleted image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• @CBM; you're effectively saying that if Δ makes any edit that is similar to another one, it's the beginning of a pattern. If he removed a link to a particular image, I could see it. But, you're saying that if he removes links at all he has to seek approval. This is mind bogglingly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if he makes a series of edits that are similar to each other, that is a "pattern". He clearly has **some** purpose in mind with his edits, he is simply obfuscating it by not giving clear edit summaries. The restriction is not excessively vague, he is simply pushing it to the edge instead of working inside it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Carl, but .. well, adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern, or are you (or Tristessa) singlehandedly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked this last time, and never got an answer. Is Delta not still prohibited from making automatic/semi-automatic edits? Last I checked that was on his original list of sanctions and I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about that being listed anywhere. Frankly he just shouldn't be anywhere near that scene at all. It always ends badly for him.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them. I know patience with Δ is low, but what harm would it have done to question him on the matter? If the edits are, as evidence suggests, beneficial to the project, then the goal should be to stop Δ from violating the sanction while continuing to add those beneficial edits to the project. Put another way, if he had actually posted and asked permission, would it have been granted? Would it be granted now, seeing as we have examples of the work? I don't know. But, however valid, I think this block was mishandled - and I'll bet half the discussion here is a direct result. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

For as far as I can see, there is no restriction on automated or semi-automated edits there. Strict review, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [35], just a month old. The behavior being found at fault here is effectively the same. So one AN/I thread concludes with no apparent violation, and then this thread starts with a block and unsurprisingly the resulting fracas.

I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed.

But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ. Sure, some of you are going to scream "but he doesn't deserve fair, he hasn't earned it!". Cart before the horse. If you can't provide an environment in which he can work within his restrictions, you are dooming him to fail no matter what he does. At this point, according to Tristessa, a series of different types of changes constitutes a pattern. How in hell is anyone supposed to abide by the restrictions when it's interpreted so broadly that any edit constitutes a pattern?

This restriction either needs to be more tightly defined, or Δ needs to be banned from the project, since the restriction is making it impossible for him to edit. This middle ground is resulting in far too many threads, far too much acrimony, with entirely predictable and avoidable results. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that we are dealing with an editor who is unable to communicate effectively. Further up the page here, there is an incident involving Rezabot, which had to be stopped because of a total of 3 bad edits in a run. The bot owner's preferred language is Farsi, but he's been perfectly amenable to efforts to diagnose and resolve the problem, and the bot has been restarted without concern that he'll just go back and do it again. If Beta only communicated, we would not be here. I agree he may not understand the restrictions. Do we want to say "you may not edit with bots, scripts or any other automated tool, unless you have completed all the paperwork and got approval." Is that the intention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that if Beta wants to perform some task on 25 or more articles, he needs to get approval. That is an explicit goal of the editing restriction, to prevent him from doing undiscussed semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. It is unreasonable to allow him to avoid the restriction by obfuscating thousands of edits by giving them the same edit summary. If he were to focus on writing content instead of cleanup, these sorts of complaints would disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But, Carl, writing 25 different articles is a pattern of editing. And 'removing 25 different images from 25 different pages' is not more or less a pattern than 'writing 25 different articles'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It gets even worse, technically, over, say, 10.000 edits and a period of, say, 2 years (or more) {Δ would not be allowed to remove, e.g., the word 'the' as superfluous in >25 different articles, since that is also a pattern. Just a matter of going closely through his edits, and for sure you will find 25 of that type of edits over the last year. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This situation is not like that. In the last 50 edits alone we can see a pattern of removing references to deleted images. It is not as if these "cleanup" edits were infrequent and interspersed with other sorts of edits - the recent contribs show over 25 in a row with no other edits at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The paint brush you are describing is using TYPES of edits as a "pattern", rather than SPECIFIC edits. Under such an interpretation of the restriction, it's impossible for him to edit unless he gets approval for every 25 edits. We can debate whether it was a pattern elsewhere. The point is, you've construed this paintbrush very, very broadly. Others don't construe it as broadly. This needs to be clarified, or we WILL be back here again because of disagreement as to what this restriction really means. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, the restriction applies to types of edits. The same sort of cleanup edit made to 25 articles is a pattern, even if the exact change to the text is not the same each time. We don't expect a semi-automated process to make exactly the same change each time, just the same type of change. In this case we can point out exactly that the type of change appears to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then it is impossible for him to edit here without your approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but still, doing 25 edits in a row trying to improve 25 articles is a pattern as well. And are you now suggesting that if he, say, every 20 edits does one dummy edit to break the pattern it is not a pattern anymore? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, that's not a broad enough paintbrush. These two edits separated by two years constitute a pattern: [36] & [37]. See, they both used "cleanup" as an edit summary, and both modified what templates were being addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would even go as far as calling this a pattern: [38] and [39] - you see .. 2 edits which do not use the word 'cleanup' - a clear pattern of not using the word cleanup in the editsummary.</ridiculous addition> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Arguing about the definition of soup isn't helping anyone. –xeno^talk 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is the definition of "pattern" isn't defined, and is being construed to apply across a broad swath of editing. Without a clearer definition, we will be back here. So, I suggest either clarifying the restriction or banning Δ entirely, since it is in practice impossible for him to comply with the restriction according to all definitions apparently in play as to what a "pattern" is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra and Hammersoft are trying (so far unsuccessfully though) to muddy the waters by debating what constitues a "pattern", and using reductio ad absurdum as if it was a valid debating technique. Perhaps they can indicate what, in their opinion, constitutes a "pattern" and what doesn't. The edit restriction gives "any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", but apparently removing references to deleted images on dozens of pages in a row, with minimal automated additional cleanup on the same pages, does not fit that definition. Could either of you please give an example of a task that you feel does fit the "pattern" definition? Or are you trying to say that anything extremely repetitive set of edits is not a pattern as long as Delta makes them? I hope the former, but it looks more and more like the latter, and that you are trying to defend Delta because it is Delta, and are willing to ignore reality when it suits you here. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I already stipulated that if Δ were to remove a particular image 25 times or more that that would be a pattern. Perhaps you missed that? The point is what YOU call a pattern, and what I call a pattern is irrelevant. Every person here might have a different definition of what that is. Without a clearer definition, Δ is set up to fail. No matter what he does, he can't comply. As an abject demonstration of this lunacy, the case here in call was already discussed a month ago, and concluded with it not being a pattern. Now, it suddenly is and his head is being served on a platter. He can't comply. The only possible way to make all of you happy is for him to stop editing entirely. Perhaps that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, Δ could err on the side of caution and request approval as indicated if he wants to make a large series of semi-automated edits that all do something quite similar. –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity. I intend to make separate requests to cover such things as adding stub templates, removing references to deleted images, re-pointing calls to templates away from redirects to the proper template name, etc. I'm going to paint using as broad a paintbrush as possible to avoid the sorts of threads this one is so emblematic of. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful I feel. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• First five proposals have been made. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks and subsequent five threads. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 Should Be Blocked

Toa Nidhiki05 should be blocked. He is being a disruptive contrarian on the NFL Lore page.

His only purpose is to be a contrarian. He has demanded "consensus" when it is clear that he will never agree with anything. I have attempted many times to explain why an event should or should not be allowed on NFL lore, yet, he continues to insist on being a contrarian.

I checked his reputation--he has been blocked more than once and has repeatedly engaged in edit wars. I suggest that his block be for an extended period, considering his history.67.169.25.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

Do you have a diff of any blockable activity? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You should not have called him an annoying prick. I wonder if full-protection is in order so that everyone can resolve this (without snide personal attacks, of course). –MuZemike 22:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this warrants full protection as only one IP is editing against the consensus reached on what should or should not be added to this "lore" list. Full protection would IMV adversely affect potential edits by other registered and IP editors. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In October I see three reversions (not contravening WP:3RR) to National Football League lore by Toa Nidhiki05, citing additions made against consensus. I see 18 edits by 67.169.25.132, adding things. I also see another editor removing something added "against consensus". I also see several suggestions by 67.169 for entries to the "lore" list being rejected by editors other than Toa Nidikhi05 (too numerous to quote diffs; see the talkpage ). 67.169, it appears that you may be the only one in step - "consensus" doesn't mean only your contributions are of value ("Toa Nidh [sic] your contributions are useless", as you said here). It means you need to discuss the merits of contributions to the list, rather than simply stating that only you are right. No admin intervention required here, except possibly to draw 69.169's attention to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am no expert on American sport, but isn't this a particularly useless title? It's a list - should it not be List of memorable NFL events or something similar? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I requested the block. Here is further explanation of the situation. Tao never provides any explanation for his reverts, simply citing "no consensus," without any real explanation. I had attempted to add events to the list, with valid citations and reasonable support - only for Tao to insist that there was "no consensus" on whether those events should be considered memorable for NFL lore. Thus, I opened a thread to discuss the removal of events that I believed were not memorable. I stated that many of the events could be parceled out to other pages on team-lore or rivalries. I was trying to adapt to a stricter standard of "memorable" when previously I had been more open-minded. No one responded to the thread--so I went ahead to make the changes; only for Tao to reverse the edits because there was "no consensus." It became clear that Tao had no intellectual interest in the NFL lore and simply wanted to be disruptive, which I must add, he has a track record of doing. By the way, people have said worse things to me on Wikipedia than "annoying prick." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.25.132 (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If I wasn't having my reputation slandered on here, I wouldn't feel any need to respond. However, this is my statement on the matter:

Yes, I have a history of disruptive editing. I'll admit to that, I have nothing to hide, as anyone who looks on my talk page will notice. However, it is just that - a history. You'll notice my last block was in April - six months ago. My blocks were further for 3RR violations - not for vandalism or personal attacks. I get caught up in my interests and occasionally get too involved.

With that aside, the only one being disruptive here is IP - you may notice on the main page of the 'NFL Lore' page there is a notice under every subheader that new additions must be discussed first. Now, IP decided to remove lots of content, including The Epic in Miami, a very notable game that is often listed among the best ever. Indiscriminate removal of events without even any discussion is not bold or even prudent, so I boldly reverted to allow discussion. I made a comment on the talk page with a perhaps ill-advised wisecrack that 'If you seriously think the Epic in Miami isn't lore, you need to get checked out', a comment I did not intend to be taken seriously. IP made this statement:

Dude, you are an annoying prick. You're only purpose is to be a contrarian. You have demanded "consensus" when it is clear that you will never agree with anything. I have attempted many times to explain why an event should or should not be allowed, yet, you continue to insist on being a mindless contrarian.

Like most people, I don't appreciate being called a 'prick' or 'mindless contrarian', and removed the comment. I also warned IP on his talk page with the lowest-level personal attack warning. Now, here we are. It appears IP believes he is always right, and is not willing to discuss with me in good faith.

Now, what here warrants a block from me? I never personally attacked (save an ill-advised wisecrack), never mass removed content, and never removed large amounts of notable content. I don't believe anyone deserves a block here. I do not think IP is using good faith or editing constructively, but this can easily be solved by alerting him on policy, asking him to create an account so he can be mentored and be involved further here. I know I started out rather disruptive on here, but WP is a learning experience - hopefully, this dispute can aid in that for both parties, myself included. I rest my case.

EDIT: Also, I do have intellectual interest in the NFL, as evidenced by my userbox page and my involvement on Panther-related pages. I edit the stats for Steve Smith weekly, and for Cam Newton occasionally.

Toa Nidhiki05 00:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP, when you bring a request here you should provide evidence, which you did not, and also sign your posts. You have provided insufficient evidence for administrative action and therefore this thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Right after the IP gets blocked for personal attacks... N^oformation ^Talk 06:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's comments at ANI

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

---

To start with, Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is a good editor who has taken on the thankless task of helping with BLP problems, which I think is admirable. However, at the recent ANI discussion dealing with Beta's block [40], Rob made this comment about the blocking admin [41]...

"...Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing."

When the admin understandably took offense, Rob became upset [42] and asked to see the admin's RFA (from 2005 [43]). I tried to talk to Rob on the page about his feelings on judging other editors, and encouraged him to take something that radical to the Village Pump. Rob replied that his belief [44] [45] "is reflected in common sense." He repeated the process with another six-year veteran editor [46], comparing his output to Beta's in an attempt to discredit his opinion.

I've tried to discuss this in good faith first on the ANI, then on Rob's page, but he closed the discussion and called my good faith apology "vandalism," [47] so I gave up on talking it over with him. Yet again following our discussion, he [48] commented snidely to Purplebackpack89 that Purplebackpack89's opinion was in agreement with Hinata, who didn't have enough mainspace edits for Rob's tastes.

My question here is this actually a policy, or "common sense" in Rob's terms, to summarily discredit the contributions of editors and admins based on one man's criteria? If not, can someone clarify to Rob what's going on? This seems a pretty inflammatory thing to just decide arbitrarily, and I can't see how it adds one ounce of calm or clarity to ANI discussions. Thanks in advance for your attention. Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor notified here [49]. Dayewalker (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like an AN/I issue at this point. What admin action are you looking for? --Onorem♠Dil 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment about his comment to me, but that is uncivil. And he tries to discredit people. Obviously, that is against Wikipedia rules. And please - when does it matter what edits I made? There is nothing wrong with my edits. I've kind of give up on editing mainspace, but I may later. --Hinata talk 23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification on whether or not Rob's edits are within policy, as he says. If they are, I'd like to see the policy so we can all adjust accordingly. If not, I'd like someone to let Rob know he's pouring gas on the fire with his judgements, which seem very uncivil to me. He's not very communicative on his talk page to anyone who disagrees with him. We spend a lot of time discussing how to bring in new editors, Rob's edits and attitude don't seem as if he even cares about keeping veteran editors and admins. Dayewalker (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's comments were incivil, yet at the same time, there is WP:SPADE. While he should not deny that others have no right to do something, he has a point that there is a problem when editors who do little hurt editors who do a lot. The project does not gain when this happens. I'd cautioon Off to be more civil, and the editor he warned, to try to be more active in a constructive fashion, rather then in blocking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• - My comments were completely civil and I will not retract or apologize or be warned for any of them - I repeat them again now - I double them. - Users contribution history is relevant and can be quoted and it is not uncivil to mention that they have not contributed to the improvement of content in article space. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Bro, some of us are editors in the more traditional sense of the word, rather than writers. we have enough to deal with just keeping a lid on the content that's here and now rater than consider adding new content on top of it all. I do not put a premium on a person's article creation or contributions, because 9 items out of 10 it is just penis-waving look-at-me bean-counting. Look no further than the WikiCup, the Pic of the Day, and DYK for that sorta junk. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course this is a consideration with some experienced contributors and in fact some not so experienced contributors - ultimately we all have our part to play. - and simple article contributions is not a specific guideline at all - there are multiple factors worthy of consideration - Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      • While your comments may have been relevant, they were anything but civil. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
        • All my comments were civil - all of them. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
          • If this is considered civil, I despair for Wikipedia. (This also is at best borderline.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after being attacked - a comment of - don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap is about as civil as it gets - and after being further attacked by them a comment of, I took the data from the comments here - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its borish. - is equally understandable - Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I checked, and I haven't found a single image or bit of descriptive text in any of those places of someone waving around their penis while counting beans yelling "look at me". Just figured you should know... thanks for wasting my time Tarc! ;-)

Echo'ing Tarc. I'm a decent example in this; I've contributed to content creation on a bunch of articles, but my edit history won't support it (article talkpages will), and the rest of my time is spent "keeping a lid..." as Tarc puts it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between some content creation and practically zero, which is what Rob was pointing out in the case of Hinata, or recently in the case of the admin. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I was alerted to this thread because I was mentioned. Me agreeing with another editor who didn't have mainspace contributions seems like an ad homenum (sic) attack. Did I check to see how many contributions the user had? No! Did I particularly care, or does it matter to what I said? No! An autoconfirmed Wikipedia user can comment in any discussion regardless of the number of edits he has. If edits are relevant at all, which they're not, perhaps the user should have commented on the extent of my contributions, all 8,000+ of them. I would have said much the same things about Beta acting inappropriately regardless of whether or not Hinata had commented. Also, the bold text was highly inappropriate. I think this series of actions by Rio should be noted as highly inappropriate; in what manner that is is up to someone else Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I spit in the face of your comment - "I think this series of actions by Rio should be noted as highly inappropriate;" - as a series of actions goes, there are none. - Users (there are exceptions) that do not contribute to article space have no authority and their contribution history can be mentioned and is relevant. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • And you're being uncivil right now, in that comment right there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It's about time that someone stuffed a cork up the civility policy, to avoid any more of the shit that pours from it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
        • What part of quality contribution requires incivility? --Onorem♠Dil 01:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
          • What part requires civility? Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
            • I can't believe I just read that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, we have more than 3 million crappy articles here, and you're complaining about what exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Who? Me? RobRio? Daye? I'm complaining to a certain extent about Rob's actions (and since there are multiple diffs, it is a series of actions), and to a certain extent about being mentioned at all. Agree with Bush about the spit comment being highly inappropriate. RobRio, can you point to a policy or guideline that says that "contributions talk", i.e. people with more contributions should be listened to more? Because Wikipedia:Equality, among others, suggests the opposite Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Its just reflective of real life -"contributions do talk" and talk loudly' - Wikipedia:Equality is a close to worthless essay that like the users I was commenting on - hasn't been edited in a year and that in itself reveals, like the editors, they and it have little assertive authority. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell them, then; I haven't had any success getting the message across. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, .. live the dream - I am here , right now - getting the message across - I never said it was/would be easy - push the boat out - Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Equality, contributions, whatever - statements like "I spit in the face of your comment" have no place on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Crap attacking comments can only expect the response they reserve. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That gave me a good laugh. "Mommy, he started it!" SDY (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this whole thread is crap - I think you should leave his mommy out of the issue. . Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I was actually talking about your comment, but... whatever. Whoever started doesn't matter, a lot of these comments have been unacceptable, and context does not excuse incivility. SDY (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Half-following this, just here from a page protect request a bit ago, but I heartily agree with the B. Might also be worth reading WP:NVC. We should reward our long-term contributors, sure, but we should not coddle them or give them a sense of entitlement. There's a lot more to WP:CIVILITY than WP:NPA, but it seems like that's the only portion that gets enforced. I don't know the specifics of what precipitated this, and I don't have an opinion on the details, but a specific and absolute refusal to even listen to criticism is a bad sign. SDY (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rob, stop refactoring other peoples' comments. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well - this crap is a false portrayal - When the admin understandably took offense Rob became upset and please stop replacing it. If thats the best attack you have got this thread might as well be closed now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I'm not trying to attack you. I started a discussion on the Beta thread, and then took it to your page to try and talk calmly to you. You didn't want to have anything to do with it, and now other editors are trying to discuss the matter with you, and you're rejecting conversations with them as well. You're escalating the situation with comments like "I spit in the face," can't you see that? Dayewalker (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob I'm not trying to attack you - well you're doing a good job. Off2riorob (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend closing this topic. There was clearly nothing actionable here from the start, and this appears to be an irrational escalation of a rather harmless dispute between editors that should never have gotten so inflamed to begin with.AerobicFox (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob has made a similar comment before, about TenOffAllTrades when he blocked Baseballbugs recently. I think the general point Rob makes does have merit, but I can't judge if in these cases it is all that relevant. Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember that comment. In that case Ten had blocked Bugs for seemingly punitive reasons which a snowball of editors disagreed with, and Rob was pointing out how Ten had only 5-6ish minor edits in the article space for several months, and therefore had no right to be interfering with an active editor(bugs). I see harm to making such a point, or relevance for the merits of such a point to be debated in its own ANI topic though. I think this discussion is more likely to pointlessly escalate into something that requires admin action than to argue that there is something currently for an admin to do.AerobicFox (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Rob's comments on admins being worthy of using the tools to block is one thing, and that could be debated at the Village Pump or somewhere else in policy. There might actually be something to that in the future, but it should be based on policy, not one editor's opinion. However, twice in that same thread following his comments on the admin, he used the same tactic to discredit regular editors who [50] [51] were merely giving an opinion on the matter. If we're going to start discouraging editors from giving their opinions based on their contributions, who's going to decide who's worthy to speak at ANI? Dayewalker (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it not taking things a little too far, to take someone to ANI because they are making what you perceive as irrelevant ad hominems but which other editors(myself included) may see as potentially relevant. ANI is for personal attacks, or a level of incivility which causes significant disruption. If you wish to debate the merits of considering an editors article space edits when considering their opinions then there are avenues apart from ANI which are more appropriate and which won't needlessly inflame discussion.AerobicFox (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I would have loved to not have this escalate. I tried to discuss this in two different places with Rob, and asked him to take his opinions to the village pump for discussion. He not only cut off discussion, he went back to [52] the behavior, belittling a veteran editor for agreeing with an editor who didn't pass Rob's once-over. At that point, his behavior seemed to cross over into disruption so I brought it here. The Beta thread was heated enough without editors being attacked for daring to speak their opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is how I see that this discussion got started:

Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob

There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa

What follows from this needless provocation "don't be a dick" is a retaliatory response by Rob claiming the admin is the dick. You then started a discussion on Rob's talkpage asking him to " Please stop trying to judge other editors based on your own criteria.", Rob then responded that he feels it is a reasonable criteria to hold to which you responded "It's fine that's your opinion, but those comments aren't based on policy, and can be pretty incendiary when they're dropped into the middle of a discussion at ANI.", to which he responded that you are being incendiary to which you started an ANI topic.

I would like to note that I have problems with the way you presented the argument upfront, you stated at the top "When the admin understandably took offense, Rob became upset [53]", but you omit that Rob becomes upset after Tristessa tells him not to be a dick, and instead characterize Tristessa's comment as "understandable". Again, it seems not to be your pejorative to tell other editors that their opinions are incendiary and that they shouldn't present them any more than it would be Rob's telling other editors not to post because they don't have article space edits. You are free to post that you disagree with opinions you find incendiary just as much as Rob is free to post that he disagrees with posters who don't have article space edits.AerobicFox (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AF, if my response to your ANI post was to say "Just to clarify, this editor has fewer than a thousand main space edits and has been here just ten months, while I have more than thirteen thousand in more than three years," do you consider that dismissal of your opinion at all civil? No, it's ridiculous, and there's no call for that, especially from Rob. However, if that's the way we're all going to agree things should run, so be it. I'd just like to know.

Incidentally, your characterization of the discussion needs one correction. Rob took offense to the way he read something I said, and I apologized profusely for the misunderstanding here [54], which he deleted as vandalism [55]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for omitting your apology as I didn't see that. While I could possibly be offended by such a comment I could at the same time appreciate such a point of view, so I personally would not find it inappropriate(especially since I can imagine many editors having this opinion).AerobicFox (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just do a search through past ANI discussions and you'll see Rob come up often enough, almost invariably about civility. Malleus too, for that matter, if memory serves. But we all know that ANI (or any admin for that matter) never does anything about civility. You can insult people all you want on Wikipedia, we all know that. Silverseren^C 03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, seren. Frequency of ANIs filed against is usually a tally of frivolous, thin-skinned busybodies than it is that the target did something actually actionable. You can't just bean-count ANIs anymore than you can look at someone's block log to gauge actual wrong-doing. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Please, Tarc, don't start. You've taken every opportunity in the past few weeks to insult me, for whatever reason. Like the snide last sentence there. And don't think I don't notice the purposeful use of "Seren" all the time. Silverseren^C 03:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I would like to re-state my opinion that this thread should be closed since there is nothing actionable, and since this thread will only serve to inflame editors further.03:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I’d like to second the opinion expressed above by Malleus Fatuorum before this thread gets closed. For years I’ve been following the contributions made by one-time users. Not a single piece of new data lacking external source can be trusted. Almost all smaller edits I run into nowadays, contain misinformation, vandalized statistics, unsourced and negative claims about living individuals, political extremism, mock references to insulting lies from non-accessible sources, manipulated half truths etc. Irrespective of our technologically advanced infrastructure – developed more recently – or perhaps because of it, the deterioration of the actual content of Wikipedia mainspace has become more visible than ever, beyond hope for any significant improvement in spite of all effort of our long-time contributors. Mainspace entries, which in the past were stubbed with hopeful expectations, have grown to become undemanding and (usually) badly written blogs featuring highly suspicious subsecs full of misrepresented citations and unsupported refs. It doesn't matter what you say in talk anymore. — A. Kupicki (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the drama is about at this point. But I was just notified on my talk page that I'd been mentioned in this section of ANI, which I don't seem to be. Above, I posted something about rather lame bulk editing of HTML color formats, which was followed up with "User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all". Actually, I have somewhat more edits than that. (Nagle (talk · contribs)) My general comment on Beta and his various scripts and 'bots is that his enthusiasm for making changes in bulk needs to be strongly restrained given his history of problems. --John Nagle (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Close this thread. It is simply causing drama, while not having any actionable administrative aims.Griswaldo (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Close Yes, please. Doc talk 04:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, at this point let's just close it. It's obvious nothing will come of this. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any action against Off2riorob. I agree with closing this thread. There are many editors here who I would advise to dial it back when it comes to civility and unnecessary confrontation. Off2riorob is one, and Tarc is another. I've locked horns with Rob a time or two, and have also tried very hard to make peace with him. I've criticized Tarc's abrasive comments and been blown off. So be it. Both are useful editors here and I appreciate their contributions. Both should take a chill pill, as should several other editors chiming in here. Rob makes a very legitimate point about our primary purpose here - improving and expanding the world's greatest encyclopedia. Of course, there are many useful and productive jobs to be done here, but every one of them ought to be primarily in service of improving and expanding this encyclopedia. Accordingly, productive and useful content creators should be accorded the highest social status here, since it is the work that they do that is indisputably the most useful and valuable. I encourage Rob to apologize to the extent that apologies would be useful, but I also recognize the absolutely essential work that Off2riorob does here in enforcing our BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Meh, close it. (FWIW, I happen to agree with the gist of Rob's comment) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Physiogod1; soapboxing, OR, edit warring.

Resolved: User permablocked. m.o.p 05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Physiogod1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been edit-warring his own personal opinions on multiple pages including Occupational therapy, Speech and language pathology, Allied health professions, Podiatry. He has also been using multiple IPs while blocked to make similar edits, and has been edit warring throughout tonight. This has been ongoing for since early September, and despite three separate escalating blocks. If someone can please block him and semi-protect these articles from the inevitable IP barrage, I would appreciate it. Yobol (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to report him to WP:AIV for continuing the previous behavior for which he was blocked, and decided to go ahead given the extent of the problems and the fact that he immediate took up his edit-warring upon returning from his last block [56].

I agree with the recommendation to block him for considerably longer than in the past. --Ronz (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely. Given that they haven't seemed to learn anything from their previous blocks, I feel like their continued presence is a net negative. So, I'll address it appropriately. m.o.p 05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cohen-Cruse ruse

Some users have discovered what appears to be an elaborate and carefully presented hoax comprimising possibly many articles. For the current status of the investigations, see User:Vivisel/cohen cruse ruse.  --Lambiam 05:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good find! I'll check it out. m.o.p 05:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright. So far, I've:

• Blocked British buff indefinitely - nothing but hoax contributions coming out of that one.
• Blocked Miamibeachjew indefinitely.
• Blocked Southern jew indefinitely.
• Deleted all three pages mentioned in the AfD and closed it.
• Removed a mention of another hoax character.
• Removed mention of hoax characters. It should be noted that Jonathon Cohen seems to be a legitimate real person according to various press releases originating from Temple Kol Ami (Fort Mill, South Carolina) - see here.

If we could get a checkuser to compare all the IP addresses and accounts listed in there, I'm pretty sure we'll find a match. m.o.p 05:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sour news, I'm afraid. Only one named account is not stale and I did not see any other accounts. TNXMan 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Were they perhaps inspired by this Baron Cohen? Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the OPERA neutrino anomaly page

This is my 5th report to Wiki admins since 21 October 2011. Starting from 10:57, 21 October 2011 group of users (before it were users D.H and 83.89.0.118, now it is also User Ajoykt, Revision 20:46, 21 October 2011) persistently continues to delete my contributions on the OPERA neutrino anomaly page, namely the block: Other researchers pointed out that the Cohen-Glashow arguments are valid only if the Lorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of a preferred frame but they become invalid if instead the symmetry is deformed. The group claims that the reference I provide cites the primary source. But the primary source here is the original OPERA announcement whereas the reference to arXiv:1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. Besides, the group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing their actions.

The attempt to use the Talk Page to change the user 83.89.0.118's opinion was not successful, s/he keeps on referring to some policies and rules which were never documented in Wiki. Here's the discussion thread:

Hi. First of all, I'd like to express my protest against those who deleted my contribution in 1st place, without prior discussing. Why you didnt want to discuss your decision before applying? You must restore my contribution first, then discuss the possibility that it should be deleted. Besides, your group destroys my contribution in such a way that it could be undone only manually and also it creates difficulties in analyzing your actions. Now about the Smolin etal paper. 1110.0521 is a secondary source because it is a research paper which analyses some prior results and works. You know exactly that it will be published (although, Arxiv is itself a reliable source because it is a e-media source and it is premoderated, and some renown scientists, like Grigori Perelman, just put their work on Arxiv without further "publishing."). If you dont trust three authors from INFN, University of Wroclaw and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, then I have doubts about your neutrality. Besides, you are making double standards because the CG paper is not officially published yet either. To conclude: you must restore my contribution first, then discuss the possibility that it should be deleted. Otherwise it is an offence to my work and work of those 3 authors. User1344 (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is solely on you. Besides, you were pointed to this talk page section multiple times.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User 83.89.0.118, you deleted my original contribution within 4 minutes since it was posted. You claimed that the Arxiv paper can't be regarded as a secondary source, without any attempt to prove your statement. On the other hand, you left intact other contributions on the same page which referred to Arxiv's sources. Can you explain why you did that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1344 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the other contributions were backed up with secondary sources, e.g. articles from New Scientist. Adding a link to the primary source is fine as long as one or more secondary sources are listed alongside it.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "backed up"? Those were the news websites, they cant be classified as the secondary sources because the latter are defined as those which "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Those news websites didnt contain any analysis or evaluation, did they? On the other hand, the paper 1110.0521 did contain the analysis of the Cohen-Glashow's paper (also at Arxiv), as can be easily judged from its abstract and content, therefore, why does it need additional "back-up"? User1344 (talk) 08:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

1) The work a journalist and his or her editor does in unison is evaluative. 2) The claim that you cited with regards to Lorentz deformation etc. does not appear in Cohen-Glasgow's paper, i.e. it is original thought. To the extent that a source conveys original thought, it is a primary source, which must be backed up by a secondary source.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(1) No, news websites are news websites, they cant contain the analysis and evaluation one can rely upon in Wikipedia. Otherwise every 12-yrs old journalist or reporter will start to teach scientists how to do physics and decide what is wrong and what isn't, and the whole division into primary and secondary sources won't make sense anymore, (2) you are not only wrong - you seem to be ignorant in the modern beyond-relativity physics. The Cohen-Glashow paper is based on the beyond-relativity theory developed by Coleman and Glashow himself some time ago. That theory presumes that the Lorentz symmetry is broken by the presence of the preferred reference frame, and it has not been confirmed by experiment yet. Moreover, it is not the only theory available at this moment hence the Cohen-Glashow arguments are not universally applicable at most (actually, they merely indicate that the Glashow theory couldnt explain the anomaly if it existed). The paper 1110.0521 gives the example where the Cohen-Glashow arguments fail, namely, when the Lorentz sym is deformed rather than broken. Moreover, the paper analyses also the original OPERA report as well as some preceding work. User1344 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

1) "news websites ... cant contain the analysis and evaluation one can rely upon in Wikipedia" According to which guideline or policy? 2) Calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant, is not generally considered a winning strategy for building WP:CONSENSUS.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen, in an attempt to justify your highly controversial actions towards my contribution you have ended up proving the point that one page written on some news webpage by sobebody who's not even an expert in the fied is more "secondary" or "reliable" than many-page article written by three university professors. Don't you find your logic a bit twisted? Now, you are pretending to be offended and try to deviate the main topic of discussion. I dont want to build anything with you because I have doubts both in your competence and neutrality, sorry. Ok, I've already spent lots of time lecturing you so let me ask you a binary-answer question: User 83.89.0.118, do you admit that the paper Arxiv:1110.0521 qualifies as a secondary source? User1344 (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Listen, I don't really care about you. As you were told on AIV, arXiv is not a reliable source, and your position is weak. That is your problem - not mine.--83.89.0.118 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"...arXiv is not a reliable source" According to which guideline or policy? Show me the specific rule, not another obscure sentence.User1344 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thus, we failed to reach a consensus and the final decision by a Wikipedia admin is asked for. User1344 (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins on wikipedia do not have the power to settle content disputes. See WP:DR. N^oformation ^Talk 08:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanx. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "OPERA neutrino anomaly". Thank you. User1344 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please try to work out something sensible on the talk page. I'd say don't worry too much about whether arxiv is primary or secondary, if the content is legitimate and written by recognized experts in the subject. I don't recognize the other two names but Lee Smolin's stuff is certainly well known if a bit controversial. If all else fails, try a request for comment regarding the content question. As others have said, admins here deal with technical issues and user misconduct but they don't have special authority about content. You're both apparently pretty new here and it takes a while to get the hang of this stuff, so relax, quit wikilawyering over intricate content policies, and just try to do what makes sense in presenting a complete and neutral article. My own (uninformed) take on the matter is that the arxiv paper should get a brief mention with a cite, but not too much coverage unless it starts getting significant attention from other physicists. Outlets like New Scientist count for something too, but not a big amount. This isn't really an occasion for an RS dispute since that's intended for when someone is trying to put nonsense or contentious stuff into an article (typically about politics or the like), or to try to present something questionable as fact. Here it sounds more like "here's this alternate take on the experiment" which (if the paper is not considered fringe) falls under WP:NPOV saying to present all significant points of view. Also, if either of you are connected with the paper's authors, you might want to mention that on the talk page or in any case take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). 71.141.89.0 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I don't see any administrative action to be taken here. There is discussion ongoing between the editors involved in the dispute. WP:ANI should not be the venue of first resort for any and all disputes; matters should be brought here only when there's a clear need for action by someone with the additional tools. Take a look at the big box at the top of the page. (No, the other one.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mewulwe (talk · contribs)

One of those cases where the edit-war is too slow to go and file a report, but too annoying to ignore. It's about Gaddafi's date of birth. There's a discussion on the talkpage, but the user won't wait for some outcome but instead keeps going. It's now about some WP:OR-based addition to the footnote. It's been going on for 2 days... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wait for some outcome"? Some people are reverting me without discussing at all. I suggest everyone weighs in on the actual talk page instead of playing childish wikigames. Mewulwe (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Muammar Gaddafi#Date of birth for the relevant discussion. -- Gigacephalus (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave Dial should be immediately blocked

Resolved

 – Boomerang complete N419BH 17:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave Dial is the classic example of bad behaviour in Wikipedia.

I suggested that some obscure laws unrelated to Obama's bio should be removed. Those laws may be important to those affected by the laws but Obama did not campaign much for them (unlike his signature issues, like closing Gitmo). We need to just have a good Obama bio, not a poorly written bunch of topics unrelated to the man.

Dave Dial just steps in an starts falsely accusing me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Version_2.2C_Getting_rid_of_obscure_parts_of_the_article_not_very_related_to_the_Obama_bio

Stop this. First of all, the user that started this thread has been indeffed, and it's not so strange that both Hi Balloon Boy and BAMP are disrupting this article once again, since they are socks of JB50000. Which someone will need to add to the SPI case. Irritating that the socks are not already blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I see the user who started the thread is Hood River. This shows how savage and bad Wikipedia is. I see that person is named after Hood River, a river in Oregon. Yet the blocker stupidly thinks it is a name that not permitted! Second, Dave Dial just starts accusing people falsely. What if I accused Dave Dial of being _____, an escaped murderer? Same thing.

I offered a good suggestion to improve the Obama article. Those that respond should either agree that the suggestions are good or to make alternate suggestions. That improves Wikipedia. People like Dave Dial just behave badly. For that, he should be blocked. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop throwing around false accusations for one. Two, PLEASE read the above thread on being civil and not attacking other edtiors. Three. don't throw boomerangs unless you're ready for them to come back to you... Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My accusations are not false. I discussed a genuine improvement of Obama's bio, neither pro or anti Obama. Dave Dial should make similar suggestions or keep quiet. Rather, he makes false accusations. That kind of bad behaviour should result in being blocked. Dave Dial attacked me. Bullying needs to stop. Listen to the hit song, Pumped Up Kicks. It is about bullying. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been a classic WP:BOOMERANG. I've blocked User:Hi Balloon Boy for edit warring with multiple editors on Barack Obama for 24 hours.--v/r - TP 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit, I love the "bullying" term being used when they weren't getting their way. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The implied threats of continued disruption in his unblock request do not inspire me with confidence that the 24 hour time-out is sufficient.--Atlan (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the user's second unblock request here. I, too, echo that a 24-hour block doesn't seem to be a deterrence to this user - if anything, they see it as some sort of bargaining chip with which to play and offer their inactivity for a month. Bizarre, but the threats indicate bad faith. m.o.p 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Dave Dial is the classic example of bad behaviour in Wikipedia."

This is such a classic example of a bad opening line for an AN/I topic, it is pretty much egging the boomerangs on.AerobicFox (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)