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.

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

---

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)

As the editor who was supposedly impersonated, it's good to know that it's now clarified that I was quoted, not impersonated. With that being acknowledged, I thought it might be helpful to participants of this discussion to see the diff from the discussion in which my quoted comments originally appeared. Seeing them in context may be useful, as they were posted in a discussion quite relevent to this one.--JayJasper (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Bushranger: Your concern for wp:involved is commendable. But despite counting myself among that policy's strongest and most exacting advocates, my brief review of your history doesn't support your decision to recuse yourself here. On the contrary: Unless I've missed something, it's my impression that the encyclopedia would be better served if you'd implement whatever one-time administrative action you see as called for to resolve this immediate dispute, subject of course to post-hoc review by your fellow admins.

Disclaimer of partisan interest by requestor re qualification to judge admin Bushranger as uninvolved.

( Section collapsed by its author on original entry, just conserve the high-value real-estate here. ) To the best of my recollection, (1) I have no previous interaction with either party to this dispute, nor with admin Bushranger. (2) I've never edited the articles the dispute comprises; nor am I active in their topic area. (3) No one can reasonably suggest that my judgment of Bushranger as uninvolved represents an appeal to a like-minded political ally, since our respective views on national politics appear to be emphatically and mutually opposed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Admin action is needed to resolve this, and no other administrator I'm aware of has investigated as thoroughly. Unless something I missed in your contribution history clearly prohibits doing so, I'd ask that you consider this as a formal request from the community of mere mortals ( aka non-admin editors) for whatever admin action you deem necessary to resolve this dispute and close this corresponding thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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)
• NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.

I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".

I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.

In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.

I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.

If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.

Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.

Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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 [[4]] 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)

Nice try, but no. No threat has been made and the page clearly states how action is taken if any for this problem within Wikipedia. Why do you ask?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:59, 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.[5] 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 [6] 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 [7]. 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)

Note - BAMP is now topic banned from the Obama articles. It's looking more and more as if someone from the article's past is having a spin at sockpuppeting. Although the actual edits they were trying to achieve aren't earth shaking, the edit warring and manipulative attempts to sanction established editors ring familiar. No point engaging disruptive editors in debate as a reward for making trouble, best just WP:DENY and move on. Now that one of the proponents is blocked and the other is topic banned can we please close this discussion and move on? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 24 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: [8]
• History of Moroccan (disambiguation) now merged with the history of the page Moroccan: [9]

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)
    • I think it is possible; admins can see the history of deleted pages. Tachfin (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

[10], [11] 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 [12] (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 [13], 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.[14] (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.[15]   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 [16], 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[17].

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: [18][19][20][21] 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)

• 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)
  • The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same. In practically any other case of a ban being flouted in those conditions admins are not normally expected to stop to think twice before enforcing the community consensus with the tools provided for such a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Automated/Semi-Automated tool usage

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)

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)

You didn't look directly above that?

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate

I knew we'd decided that, and I don't recall a concensus reached discussion anywhere that overturned that and it certainly isn't recorded there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. But a script is not an automated program when every edit is manually reviewed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

He's prohibited from making edits that could appear automated either. And in the past he's admitted to not properly reviewing edits like in the case where he reverted someone over NFCC violation because he didn't properly notice they only linked to an image and didn't re-insert it because he was working on diffs and not actually looking at the page.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [22], 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: [23] & [24]. 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: [25] and [26] - 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)

• Why are people making this so bloody difficult. I simplify some, but Delta is in this situation because Delta wrote number of scripts with some controversy, ran them through a few hundred or few thousand articles, did not answer the resulting criticism well, and kept repeating that loop. Sometimes things were exacerbated by claims that hundreds of edits an hour were "manual" rather than "semi-automated" and so not subject to bot approval. So now, just about any repetitive task Delta does is treated as de facto semi-automated, and limited to 25 articles without prior review. Ordinary, manual article editing is rarely "repetitive" for more than a few articles, and doesn't have long "patterns". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on whether they are modified by WP:VPP consensus further to Hammersoft's excellent work on the subject, enforcement blocks could escalate -- but blocking a productive editor is not something that should be taken lightly and I really couldn't have felt justified blocking for any longer. If of course this situation continues he may then be blocked for longer, but I think we should stay away from any medium or long-term block unless it becomes clear that efforts made in this discussion haven't worked later on. I sincerely hope this will not be the case and positive developments in collaboration between Hammersoft and Delta may well ensure it is not, provided Delta becomes more responsive to communication in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem seems to be that Beta desperately wants to make large numbers of edits automatically or semi-automatically, and just isn't good enough at programming to do it without frequently breaking something. What he really needs is outside code review. It might improve his programming skills. Given the communication issues, though... --John Nagle (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had little involvement in this, but my impression is that Δ's main problem is not a lack of programming competency, but rather one of [temporary] obstinacy, and perhaps one of lacking knowledge of editing standards outside Wikipedia. See the archived discussions about dates of book publishing: User talk:Δ/20110901; AN thread. He usually changes his script when enough people complain about a particular aspect of it. That talk archive page has some genuine bug reports, but also at least four design complaints: (1) switching articles to WP:LDR, (2) switching non-temlpated book citation to {{cite book}}, (3) the publishing date issue, and (4) linking to main google book page [not page preview]. However his first reaction seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature". The main communication problem seems to be that his semi-automated clean-up tasks aren't documented anywhere as far as I can tell, and his scripts seem to get enriched with new features that don't seem to be discussed with anyone prior to their implementation. I don't know if that's a violation of some Wikipedia policies or of his restrictions or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Δ/Proposed tasks was created yesterday by a friend of his. Perhaps there's hope of a more cooperative approach here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you've got contributions going back to 2005. Unless you've spent your wiki career under the proverbial rock you should know this isn't the community's first kick at the can with Delta. No one takes blocking Delta lightly and outside of possibly Giano, jimbo and that on wheels guy I doubt anyone else has ever received this much attention and/or community effort to work with him and shape him into an editor that is here to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Fram - it is not my intention to muddy the water, it is my intention to show that 'pattern' can be turned into anything positive or negative, and then Δ gets the block as soon as someone defines a pattern as being negative - or even when all edits in the pattern are in fact 'positive'.

@all: OK, there is a restriction that should stop patterns. That is all fine, it has been lengthy discussed etc. I can see the necessity of it. I do however think that the risk with the broadness of the term 'pattern' is that things evolve to being a pattern, and that anything - positive and negative - can be construed as a pattern (which I tried to show with my reductio ad absurdum). One removes an image left, and an image right, and there is no pattern yet, but when it approaches - even over 5000 edits spread over months - 25 times a removed image, it can be, and obviously is, construed as a pattern - especially when it then comes in longer bursts where that is happening. For more, see suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a case of "take the first letters of every article Beta edits, turn them into numbers and divide by three and you get the Fibonacci sequence". It's BetaCommand carrying out a series of small, rapid cleanup tasks with generic summaries which closely approximate the sort of things that bots and scripts are written to do. This is why most bans include the words "broadly construed". We do not want banned editors to test the waters of their bans. We want them to stop doing what they were banned for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, Chris. And I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern, but I do think on the other hand, that if you take out the obvious patterns, there will be less obvious patterns (but which are still not as absurd as I, Hammersoft or now you put them). I am not excusing Delta from not seeing the obvious patterns and not asking permission for it, but I do think that when first there is an AN/I thread saying that there is not really a pattern, Δ editing on with that thought and then a month later after hardly any discussion someone comes, construes something/it as a pattern (which it now apparently is, while first it was ot) and blocks Δ is not the way forward. I've been on Wikipedia a long time - and I do know how effective WP:BEANS really is - even if it is not a suggestion, but just as a practice that works. Δ now asks permission for 30 patterns (and may get all 41 granted), starts editing, and one 'Beta-blocker' (I know, 'Δ-blocker) goes through the edits, and finds obvious pattern 42 and we have another AN/I thread and another (and then probably lengthy) block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way Chris, I hope we want banned editors to become productive editors again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The onus is on BetaCommand to be careful to stay within his editing restrictions as they may be construed by the admin corps; if he is, after all this time, unable to wrap his brain around what is construed as an automated edit and what isn't then that is not the fault of the admin corps, nor anyone except Beta. If he chooses to skirt close to the edge of the defined restrictions, or otherwise to test them, then he has little recourse when a member of the admin corps (who is likely not perfect, but is almost certainly better-trusted by the community than Beta is) opts to interpret said action as flouting his restrictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I know .. but as I said, first an AN/I thread states something is not a pattern, and then it is interpreted by another admin as 'flouting his restrictions'. Again, the WP:BEANS have now been planted to find the pattern that Δ is flouting after this block is expired. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe at this point since there is no definition of "pattern" that Δ's edits in general are a pattern (i.e., 25 edits in mainspace = pattern) which there are attempts to suppress. That's the source of this most recent block; no definition of pattern. Indeed, chaos = pattern [27]. It's hopeless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion: If someone finds that something is a pattern in Δ's edits (however obvious or absurd), then that editor is a) bringing that to an AN or AN/I thread and b) obviously notifies Δ of the thread. Δ is at that point to stop with performing edits that were construed as being part of a 'pattern' (disable it in a script, whatever, just stop it). Either the community answer is 'this looks like a pattern indeed, Δ needs to go through VPP' (note: Δ can do that immediately when notified, even when community is not yet certain if it is a pattern, if it is not really a pattern, if the pattern is absurd, if it is necessary, whatever, going to get it is wise anyway - that can also be done when an editor notifies Δ privately (also wise), but then is not sanctionable if Δ would not), or the community dismisses the pattern as not being a pattern. There will be no blocks applied, even if it is deemed that over the last thousands of edits there were way over 25 of said pattern and the community does notice that Δ did not ask for permission for that pattern (blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern). Note, that if Δ himself thinks certain edits can be construed as a pattern, then he should go to VPP as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do admire the refuge in audacity that is repeatedly suggesting BetaCommand's editing restrictions should be enforced by not enforcing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the 'blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern'? All I try to prevent here, is that less obvious patterns are resulting in immediate lengthy (and technically correct) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not miss that you graciously offered to allow for BetaCommand's current editing restrictions to be enforced using the standard method after a new series of hoops are jumped through. I also did not miss your new blanket retroactive immunity for any edits made up until this new "warning" phase, which suggests that Beta could simply work in 10,000-edit bursts so long as he could complete each run in time to halt it when the VPP thread inevitably turned up. What I perhaps missed is whom exactly you think you're likely to persuade here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got me there, did not think about that loophole. Though there is still a restriction on edit-speed (so 10,000 edits is difficult to attain), and I am sure 50 in a row would be impossible due to the monitoring that is applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We still have the issue with the current restriction above against edits which are automated or appear automated. Delta needs to just stay away from scripts full stop. That's the suggestion. Frankly, I seem to recall more than one person thinking Delta is running automatic scripts or a bot on his main account the way he edits sometimes. There has been a lot of that going on, and it has been causing issues on top of that. Pretending he didn't make those edits or ignoring it won't make the issue go away.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no restriction on Δ using a script. Given that, there's no point to your opposition here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Delta listing edits as vandalism when they are not

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

---

I just came across this revert that Delta has made. He identified an edit on his userpage as vandalism when it was in fact not vandalism. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit that you linked to, way back in June, shows him reverting what was at best a misplaced talkpage notice that ended up on his userpage instead of his user talk; at worst it was also one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" type messages that arguably shouldn't have been placed for him anyway as per WP:DTR and was intended to annoy, or else was the accidental result of an automatic process. I hardly therefore see why it matters whether he clicked the "vandalism" button in TW or not. And, lest this become a forum for generalised whacking of Delta, this is a discussion specifically about his sanctions and recent enforcement, not dredging up every single potentially questionable edit he has ever made to drag him through the mud with. --Tristessa (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I did not know there was a statute of limitations when it came to reporting objectionable activity. Second, Delta is one of the most controversial figured in Wikipedia, so a "generalized whacking" (as you put it) it not occuring spontaneously but as a result of careful examination of his actions. Third, one generally apologizes when they have done something in error or incorrectly. That does not seem to have occured in this case, indicating that it was an action that was not in error. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it appears to have been mistaken. But it's not actionable. Even in the midst of an investigation into other behavior we're responding to, this is not something anyone is going to act upon.

A pattern of calling other people's edits vandalism would be another thing. But one own user page reversion using an automated tool which leaves a borderline "vandalism" edit summary is not a pattern nor an issue.

We have bigger issues to review, and tiny infractions aren't worth bringing up here. We have to keep things in perspective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Either the IP is actually user Alucardbarnivous, or he's trying to speak for him, neither of which would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither true, actually. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft

I was going to just carry on when I made my comments at VPP earlier, but I've noticed that since I've commented there, he's added a whole pile of extremely trivial requests of no specific direction which don't really seem in-line with the intention of Delta's restriction. It seems like Hammersoft is fishing to add all kinds of blanket "Exceptions" to Delta's editing restrictions rather than propose that delta is about to undertake a specific task as would seem to be indicated by the restriction. These edits come across as pointy, WP:BEAN, WP:GAME, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the community, and basically boil down to being disruptive. Despite the fact that out of the first 12 or so he proposed, only 1 or 2 really had any traction, including the blanket "oppose all"s at the top, he's gone and proposed several more. As someone pointed out, it would seem the intention behind this restriction is in a scenario like this: Delta seems an issue with a series of articles. Perhaps all the articles in a project need pictures, but only 5 out of 200 have them. He wants to add a picture request template to the articles. So he goes to VPP and says "I want to make 195 additions of this template to the articles in this scope, what do you think? much as one might propose a bot task. Instead Hammersoft is attempting to add indefinite exceptions of no scope and no time frame to the list of restrictions we already have. And in fact, despite doing that, all Hammersoft is really asking is that Delta be allowed to perform these tasks. He's already allowed to perform, but if he's going to make similar changes to a large group of articles he should just propose it first to make sure there are no preemptive objections. This entire situation reminds me of the mess we have sometimes when someone decides to AfD 50 articles from a single project (like that transformers thing) this is just entirely unmanageable and disruptive per the above cited policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Every requested task are edits that Δ has previously done and someone might construe as constituting a pattern. It is a good faith effort. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. Am I asking for indefinite exceptions? No, but if I were you need only look as far as the first bullet item in his restrictions, which also has no time frame. 20 edits from 2009 and 20 from 2011 can be construed as a pattern underneath that restriction. Perhaps you might suggest a re-wording of the restriction to clarify the issue? What I am hoping to achieve is to avoid situations where an editor looks through a few months of his editing history and demands linking to a thread at WP:VPR showing where he had approval to do edits of a particular type. That's happened several times already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason it has happened is because Beta has refused to follow his restriction, not because the restriction was too vague for him to understand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I understand you oppose Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't oppose him editing. I oppose efforts to enable the particular sorts of editing that he has proven unable to perform productively. Ironically, proposals such as yours to allow him to edit more freely will only result in him coming under stronger sanctions later, because he has shown time and time again that he is unable or unwilling to perform certain types of tasks without controversy. The solution is to find things that he is able to do, not to allow him to dig a deeper hole for himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You oppose him doing maintenance tasks because you believe he's unsuited to them. I believe he is. My opinion is worthless, yours is gold. I am not making ANY proposal for him to edit more freely. You (if I recall) and others have demanded he provide evidence he made requests at WP:VPR for various editing he has done. Now the requests are being made and you cry foul? What the hell is he supposed to do? You are not giving him any way out except to quit the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You are indeed making proposals on the village pump to allow him to perform various tasks in an automated or semi-automated manner without further review. Ironically, if I did want to see Beta banned (which I do not), the best way to accomplish it would be to convince everyone to allow him to go back to the sorts of edits that led to the restrictions in the first place. That seems to be what you are seeking in your proposals. The only way to prevent Beta from being banned is to break the cycle of chronically disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't seem to work. He is doing semi-automated editing whether you like it or not. That is certainly the bulk of his edits for the past 3 months. The only alternative to a full site ban is to let him do those tasks that he can code correctly and that are uncontroversial. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If he continues the way he has been, it is clear he will eventually be banned again. Experience shows that he is not able (or not willing) to limit his maintenance work to correctly coded uncontroversial tasks. So I think we mostly agree. But I think there is a chance he could continue to edit if he were willing to change to a different sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is completely counterproductive for Hammersoft to continue to act as Delta's spokesperson and uncritical apologist. How is Delta going to show that he has learned how to express and explain himself and to respond to community concerns and complaints, if someone else is constantly doing it for him? The implicit statement is that not even Hammersoft trusts him to speak for himself. Is there a way we can put an end to this? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. When the last round of problems with Beta's non-free image work came up, Hammersoft argued vehemently that tere was no problem at all. Beta ended up topic-banned from non-free images. When Tristessa attemtped to discuss concerns with pattern editing, HS took over and argued the case right into the ground. A little later, Tristessa blocks Beta for pattern editing. Now HS is once more tenaciously leading the fight to get all these tasks approved and it looks like at least half are being rejected. And that's better than Beta could do himself? Franamax (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So what's next, you're going to ban me from something? I frequently am an advocate for people who are being unjustly treated here. Δ isn't isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• So you would suggest Δ receive no help, no input, no assistance...that whatever his faults, nobody can help him? He has to prove he's perfect by all the various insane measures being applied to him, and do so on his own under pain of banishment from the site? Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, Hammersoft, your recent edits say that NFCC#10c content "MUST be removed". The actual quote from the policy is "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Please change your edit summary to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to take up issues with my editing elsewhere. This isn't the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're going to get very little sympathy if you continue misstating policy just because you were warned in the wrong forum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've started discussion on your talk page regarding the edits. Feel free to contribute to that conversation or not. This entire thread is about Δ, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• My talk page isn't the right place to discuss your edits. An AN/I thread about disruptive editing on your part will do nicely, I think.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then feel free to do so, rather than co-opting this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is completely counterproductive is for certain editors to attack the few, like Hammersoft, who try to address greater wrongs, and help editors who are slammed by badly constructed, too broad restrictions. Unfortunately, like in the real world, few get popular by trying to help the downtrodden, while piling in and kicking those who are down - and the few who try to help them - is a much more popular sport. Recommended reading #1 and #2 come to mind, although I recognize well they are just a voice crying in the wild... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. You're saying that after Δ wrote [28]:

This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you find his civility restriction pointless as well, but not because it doesn't get enforced. And perhaps the WP:BOTPOL is useless too. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the language, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. It is absurd that one month a set of edits is not viewed as a pattern, and a month later without discussion he is blocked for the same type of edits. THAT is a facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• It was immediately clear to me he was doing semi-automated edits just by sampling a few around the one that intersected my watch list. I just had no idea he was under community restrictions. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• He is not prohibited from performing such edits. The issue isn't using a script. It's the definition of "pattern". There's some efforts under way to more tightly define what "pattern" is to avoid situations like this in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• You have argued to death here that his repetitive tasks are not a pattern. Nobody is buying this theory but you and Dirk Beetstra. Please desist with this nonsense. See for instance how he volunteers that he is "standardizing references"; his edits in that series triggered more than one editor to comment on his talk page. User talk:Δ/20110901#Google Books links, and subsequent threads. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, I've argued to death that the definition of pattern needs to be clarified. There is a huge difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Well in that case wouldn't it be optimal to actually define what a "pattern" is, rather than having a huge and pointless circular argument where everyone makes up their own definition and then claims it to be "obvious"? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I agree with Hammersoft, there is no clear definition of what a pattern is. Until there is a definition, Δ should not be blocked again for "violating" editing restriction #1. I stated my points over at WP:VPP, I believe the restriction is quite ridiculous. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think making it clear is perfectly reasonable behaviour - a large number of people seem to have an issue with clarity - clarity is always good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What folks may mean is where use of automated tools looks probable, without the near-impossible burden of proving it. And most likely the issue is those that are not low key maintenance types, i.e. edits where someone would expect a genuine edit summary of substance, (and the related case-by-case deliberation which that indicates) written for the specific edit. Which may be the answer. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since I wasn't around when the restriction were drafted, so I use the Webster to interpret "pattern" as:

a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution <a behavior pattern> <spending patterns>

a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts <foreign policy patterns>

frequent or widespread incidence <a pattern of dissent> <a pattern of violence>

What Δ was doing "standardizing references" seems to fit these definitions for example. And so was removing deleted images. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 25 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)

There are Commons issues in this. At least one image (File:Sephardic temple.jpg) was uploaded directly to Commons by User:Charlottean jew, who doesn't exist on Wikipedia. I'm hardly active on COmmons so I'm not up on procedures there. Mangoe (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on the OPERA neutrino anomaly page

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

---

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.<ref>G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Freidel, J. Kowalski-Glikman, L. Smolin, ''OPERA neutrinos and relativity'', [http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0521 arXiv:1110.0521].</ref> 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)

I have placed "nowiki" tags around the reference because there is not references section on this page. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:16, 25 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)

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

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)

I had a look at the article's history. I see Mewulwe making his original edit, another editor reverting, and then Mewulwe reverting the revert. Mewulwe, WP:BRD is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, discuss. After your original change (Bold), it was undone (Revert), at that point it is up to you to go to the talk page (Discuss) and say why you believe your disputed edit should be included in the article, with nothing further being done with the disputed content until consensus is achieved. You don't edit-war to keep the 'facts' (factual or not) in the article while the Discuss part of BRD is taking place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

User:BigzMMA

Resolved: User blocked for 4 days. m.o.p 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but user BigzMMA has been behaving badly. He removed the AfD notices from all the articles he thought should be kept, voted multiple times (including reinstating votes after they'd been stricken), removed other editor's votes, changed the link to the AfD discussion on UCMMA to a non-existent page, bad-mouthed editors who disagreed with him on both their talk pages and the AfD discussion page, ignored consensus at WP:MMANOT, called everyone who disagreed with him "a lynch mob" (as well as threatening action against them), and guaranteed he'd happily and immediatly replace any deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA and user Osubuckeyeguy's talk page (talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudent0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was considering bringing this behavior up earlier today. I'm somewhat involved as I recommended merging a bunch of MMA events into the parent, disavowing an opinion on that article's notability due to lack of subject experience. Various of us have since gotten nastygrams from him:

• so why not do yourself a favour, drop this lynching now for this page before I decide to take action against anyone who is still willing to look to delete UCMMA related pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA, one of a whole series of such edits
• I think you should keep opinion like this to yourself if you offer nothing to the conversation. on my talk page
• Seriously go get a life mate on User talk:Papaursa
• you clearly show that you are not the right person to be making decisions on MMA related topics on User talk:Osubuckeyeguy after the latter remonstrated with him over his behavior on the above AFD

He also changed the MMA notability guideline for MMA out of process [29] and from what I can see he has marked every edit of his as minor, except maybe two or three he missed by accident. I can understand he feels a bit persecuted now, as the same few people have seen fit to try to point out to him how the processes go, but right now he's being a WP:SPA who won't play by the rules and is rude about it. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that first diff linked above, but for anyone not willing drop your case, then expect action made against you has the distinct smell of a legal threat to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very ambiguous legal threat, so I'll assume good faith and say the user was just being aggressive. m.o.p 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for four days for the impressive amount of personal attacks they managed to make in the last while. m.o.p 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiki00756

Resolved: Blocked for two weeks. m.o.p 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor has been disruptive since starting to edit just a few weeks ago. Talk:Jat people is littered with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of bias against other editors, a refusal to engage in substantive discussion, a failure to read what others have wrote, and general disruption. This and this cross over into personal attacks. The first diff also clearly shows that the user is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia through consensus and a reliance on sources, but merely to promote the glory and wealth of his caste. While, at one point, xe did try to introduce sources, after those sources were generally rejected as non-RS (web forums, publisher who just copy wikipedia mirrors, or articles that didn't actually say what he claimed), xe gave that up. I don't see how this editor can ever be a positive contributor to Wikipedia, and so it's time for them to be blocked. Note: I am involved in this article, as well as other articles on Indian castes/tribes with the other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support block I consider Wiki00756 (talk · contribs) to be disruptive. Among other things, he has been inserting less than relevant images into the infobox of Jat people. One of these is a BBC (copyvio) picture of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who is both a controversial and polarizing figure, even among the Jat people. Although he is admired by some, he is seen as a terrorist by others. In the picture, Bhindranwale and his compatriots are shown armed with machine guns. I can't see how this is a representative picture of the people, but user:Wiki0076 doesn't seem to get it, for he has repeatedly inserted it. (Note: I am involved in this article as well.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support block. Yes, I am here again - setting some sort of record this week, surely. Put simply, the issues are (a) unwillingness to discuss in any meaningful manner; and (b) POV pushing. There are numerous problems with the article but there are ways to resolve those, and ways which never will resolve them. The very fact that on several occasions, including here and here, the contributor has pretty much invited a block demonstrates that they have no intention to work in a collaborative manner. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the user's last few days of public activity, I don't think they're grasping the notion of teamwork or consensus, but seem to be intent on imposing their will and insulting anyone who gets in the way. Luckily, we have ways of dealing with this. Blocked for two weeks. m.o.p 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Problematic IP

74.237.193.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to edit sporadically, but has been editing highly unconstructively each and every time. It appears that for the past 3 years, this IP address has added the final results to articles on reality television competitions that are in the middle of their seasonal run. I attempted to report the IP to WP:AIV, but I guess due to the nature of the vandalism and the fact that the IP only edits once every six months, it is not actionable there. But is it actionable here?—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful? Doc talk 03:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the information being added true and reliably sourced? Wasn't the result of the spoiler fracas a few years back that we don't label information so as to not spoil things for our readers? If so, then how much less acceptable would it be to withhold factual sourced information (if that's what it is) from them? Of course, if the IP is getting their (true) information from an inside source, than it won't be reliably sourced, and what they're doing is essentially OR, even if it's correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this particular IP's last edit prior to this one was over a year ago. There's a pattern... but a really slow pattern. Unless there are other IPs or named accounts suspected to be the same user that can be evidenced (which would for SPI most likely anyway): if AIV wouldn't touch it, why would it be an AN/I issue? Doc talk 04:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A year between edits, given they're being handily reverted, is too slow to do much about. Even a year-long block wouldn't stop them and another year from now, they may be gone from that IP. An indef block of the IP could wind up causing an even bigger waste of volunteer time, so I see nothing for an admin to do here unless another unhelpful edit pops up within, say, a few months. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

At least in the case of their last edit, a year ago, their result was wrong. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 25 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 [30], openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, andadded aggressive/disruptive user boxesto 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)

I'd urge caution about putting material in quotes when that material wasn't stated by the user. Some may think the statement " I've been slighted on this site far too many times for me to want to build it" expresses exactly the same as "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" but I see a difference. The actual statement made sounds like an expression of frustration, an underlying desire to build an encyclopedia that has been beaten down, and a hope that someone will address the issues so the user can return to the real purpose. The second sounds more definitive, and an explicit statement that one's goals are in opposition to the WP goals. I don't want to debate whether some see the two as close enough, but the user didn't say what was in quotes. We would not allow a paraphrased statement in an article in quotes, why should we allow it here?--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 25 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 agrudge 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[31] 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 [32] 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 [33]. 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 tothis 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. - SudoGhost08:04, 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) (See below for why I no longer support unblocking) - SudoGhost 08:09, 25 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 [34] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [35]. 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)

• Support block. The fact that the blocking admin chose to phrase it in terms of "lack of productivity" makes me squirmy, but the fact is that Colofac appears to be here to fight, and pretty much only to fight. He has repeatedly failed to engage in a constructive manner, as evidenced by the history of his talk page for the past month or so - calling other editors namesoh bugger, that wasn't him in that diff. I'm off to find the right one, sorry about that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC), making discriminatory nationalistic and sexist comments, and generally refusing to get the point when other editors ask him to stop doing these things. Block for not being productive enough? No, we don't really do that. Block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and in fact appearing to be here to help tear one down? Yep. Amend the block reason to reflect that and let's turn our energy to editors who show some sign of wanting to work collaboratively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct diff for "calling other editors names" was intended to be this one. 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous block & warning

Blocking admin noted in [36]:

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)

• Relisting as it was prematurely archived, without resolution. Unless there is further input on this - it would appear the consensus is to unblock and for Colofac to ensure he will refrain from reproducing the objectionable material. Final or further thoughts? Srobak (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, we seem to have a hung jury. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• There's definitely not a clear consensus to unblock here, at least at this point. Srobak, please keep in mind that because you're friendly with Colofac, you may be interpreting what's said in this thread in a different manner than other editors might. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

* date tag here +1 week to prevent premature archiving - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think that simply unblocking Colofac merely because the particular userbox in question has been removed is a particularly good idea. The fundamental problem with Colofac's behavior—which Colofac has yet to acknowledge—is that deliberately trying to make one's fellow editors (whether they happen to be gay or Chinese, or some other group) feel unwelcome is simply not in keeping with the standards of collegial behavior that Wikipedians are expected to follow. The fact that Colofac has chosen, in this particular instance, to do this via userboxes is not particularly important; so long as Colofac refuses to recognize and correct the underlying problem, we are going to continue having incidents of this sort.

  Having said that, if the community feels that he must be given yet another chance, then so be it. My only hope is that the cost of doing so does not become too high; we should not forget, after all, that the editors whom Colofac so blithely attacks may choose to find a more welcoming project rather than continuing to contribute to ours. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps admins with experience in mentoring like User:Worm That Turned, who support(ed) this unblock, should mentor or monitor Colofac? (I'm still not sure how that stuff works.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think my style of mentoring wouldn't really help here, as someone needs to encourage Colofac to start participating in the encyclopedia in general, whilst I generally work on increasing understanding and helping the "young hotheads" understand the dispute resolution process. I'd happily help out, but I think that Colofac wouldn't be amenable to that. As I mentioned, I was the one who told him of for gravedancing, and I've already helped out ChristianAndJericho quite a bit, two factors which would mean he'd find me difficult to work with. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Given Colofac's behavior on his talk page after supporting an unblock, I'm hesitant to continue to support unblocking the user. He seems to have a battleground mentality concerning Wikipedia, and without any evidence that his behavior will change (which he has not given in the slightest), I think unblocking the user at this point would be a mistake, as his behavior towards other editors is extremely likely to driver other editors away. Given that he has already demonstrated this behavior multiple times and shown no intention of changing this behavior, I think that the very likely cost of unblocking the user by far outweighs what would be gained by unblocking the user at this time. - SudoGhost 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what changed my mind too. I tried to be frank with him and told him what behaviors he needs to avoid regardless of whether he thinks he is right (e.g. provocative user boxes), but alas the message didn't get through. Someone else should point him to WP:Free speech, as I'm apparently not welcome on his talk page anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block- Does not seem to be a positive to the project, still assuming WP:AGF, but he does in fact state that he has no intentions of positively contributing--SKATER ^{Is Back} 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Though he's been unproductive in the past, the editor hasn't actually caused too much trouble recently (apart from an offensive userbox on his user page). Deserves a fair chance to choose the straight and narrow with input from the community. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block. Colofac's attitude toward other editors and the project is directly (and possibly intentionally) damaging, with almost no positive contributions to weigh against. Any attempts to help him have been abruptly turned away, often with an equally harsh tone. He's made no indication he understands there's a problem, and as such there's no reason to believe he'll begin acting differently if given the chance. Even if he's acting in good faith, he's only serving to harm the project as a whole, by intentionally discouraging other editors based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors he personally finds actionable. His presence here serves only to dampen our collegial atmosphere, and drive away positive contributions, and as such I strongly disagree with unblocking, unless he directly and clearly represents that he understands his behavior is problematic, promises not to continue, and seeks help to achieve that goal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support block per Mann jess. --John (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. When an editor states that they have no intention of contributing productively here, why are we even having this discussion? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:DeeperQA

DeeperQA (talk · contribs) has somehow managed to upload an illustration, even though he's blocked. I recommend (1) deleting the illustration; (2) removing his talk-page privilege; (3) blocking the sock that uploaded the illustration. He's already been indef'd, and I've been trying not to respond to him, so someone else can notify him if they think it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to File:Sock-pupper upload.jpg. It was uploaded through Commons. ;) Goodvac (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've asked for help over there also. His absurd rants are one thing. But uploading that stupid illustration is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

His talk page access has been revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Google blacklisted

Tried to edit an AFD page, but couldn't because it contained links to Google, which triggered a spam blacklist

Now, I can see including that as an article blacklist, but that's just insane to include more generally. Looking at google's various sources is considered a key part of showing something as unnotable at AFD. Please fix this ASAP. As it stands, you can't even save changes if someone else at some point included google in their comments. 86.** IP (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A link to the AfD would help. Goodvac (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_W._Moss_(writer) is uneditable because of DGG's comment. DGG's comment may well be valid, however, analysing it would require adding a >references /< tag, which we can't, because of a bad spam blacklist entry for google. 86.** IP (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Now editable. I replaced the google.com/url? links with direct links to the sources. Goodvac (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good temporary fix, but it's still a pretty bad blacklist item, that should probably be removed or made article-space only. 86.** IP (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can reproduce the issue, but as far as I can tell www.google.com isn't on the spam list and has never been there. My best guess is that there is a bug of some sort. That url shouldn't be causing problems. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's on meta[37]. This is being discussed at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Google_redirect_spam, as well as Wikipedia_talk:EL#Google_redirection_URLs. I confess I haven't been following it though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought I checked Meta too, but I guess I missed it somehow. Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Hope they don't blacklist Wikipedia in return. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at AfC

Resolved

 – Article submission accepted. Not that Articles for Creation couldn't use more reviewers, but until we do, AfC will always be backlogged. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a considerable backlog at AfC (yeah yeah, not an admin issue, but this is exposure). Whoever tackles it first gets to take Havenzangers to DYK. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The backlog isn't too bad yet (135 submissions). I accepted your submission, and I'll try to do some more reviews later today. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)