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

Indefinite block review: Colofac

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

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 [1], 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[2] 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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) - Update: If he isn't interested then nor am I[5] - I won't go so far as to support the block, but I no longer oppose it. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:46, 27 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 [6] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [7]. 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 [8]:

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)
• Support Block Throughout this ordeal, Coloflac had ample opportunity to simply accept that his behavior was inappropriate and to make a statement assuring the community that his attitude would change and that he would work harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. Being that he hasn't done this, the block is appropriate. What matters here is not the extent of his offense, but that his attitude in general is not appropriate, and this block is preventing his contribution unless and until he shapes up a bit. I'm more than happy to AGF and change my block to an unblock if he makes an effort, but something that he has to accept (regarding his user boxes) is that this isn't a social networking site on which to share your extreme views. We accept anyone here regardless of their views, but if their views are deemed to be offensive by the larger community, we can and do curtail their advertisement. If someone is here to edit - as oppose to proselytize - they should not have a problem with this. N^oformation ^Talk 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block – Colofac does not appear to wish to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia; therefore, he/she should remain blocked. —mc10 (t/c) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Whilst we have WP:AGF as one of our solid tenets here on Wikipedia, we are not obliged to extend editing privileges to the ranks of the unproductively belligerant. This editor appears to be a net negative to the project and is likely to continue dramatising his various personal issues here rather than get on with articles. I really see no other course of action given discussion has been attempted to no success, as was escalated enforcement, and his response at every juncture is to continue being combative. Unless he has a very profound change of heart, there is nothing to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Nitpick: he was productive in his belligerence, just look at all the drama here. You probably mean "unproductive except in their belligerence". Uʔ (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefblock. I was actually going to close this, but esp. early in the thread there is a somewhat surprising number of editors supporting an unblock in various flavors of strength. I think my support for the block puts it at 8 unblock and 14 block or thereabouts. Not yet a crazy overwhelming consensus, but it's getting there. To get to the point: this editor is no benefit to the project, and I fully support the indefblock. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Both the user and the project would benefit from a separation. If, after a suitable period, Colofac would like to help build the encyclopedia, they are welcome to put a suitable message on their talk page (preferably with an explanation of how future issues will be avoided). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

View from afar

Why would the original poster block somebody if they weren't sure it was the right thing to do? If a block is questionable, better to review of the situation beforehand. If a block is clearly needed, we should avoid a long, needless discussion about the action. Our goal is to do what is necessary with minimal fuss so that people can concentrate on writing great articles. I recommend this discussion be shut down and we let the matter be worked out on the blocked user's talk page via the normal unblock request and review by an uninvolved administrator. If that process deadlocks, then come back here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Request formal closure

Would an admin assess the consensus in the discussion? A close as "keep blocked" or "unblock" is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 is met. Cunard (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap and disruption at Talk:Tooth fairy

Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is appearing to be purposefully disruptive at Talk:Tooth fairy. This pattern of edits/discussion has been on-going for the last month or so. He previously reported himself for disruption there. At that discussion, it was suggested he just walk away from the article with a self-imposed topic ban. He did not, however, disengage. He posted this earlier today, for example, to ANI. Further disruptive edits today include [9] [10]. He's mocking others who are "against" him on the article's talk page and mocking the discussion process in general. Further disruptive edits today include [11] [12]

He posted just a short while ago that he wanted a topic ban on himself previously but none of us fulfilled his wishes. Is there any chance we can now? His attitude and actions there are doing more harm than good. Similar issues were raised with regard to his comments at Talk:International Space Station a few months back at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Penyulap_and_the_International_Space_Station. only (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a topic ban Penyulap needs. It's a firm warning that either he starts interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project. There is no obvious reason that he cannot alter his behaviour to suit community norms. Mentorship would be very warmly appreciated given his enthusiasm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems User:Danger agreed to mentor/adopt him after the ISS discussion in late June. Don't know how much "work" was done there. I'll drop Danger a note to see if any insight can be given. only (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(inserting comment) This is how much work I've done there Penyulap _talk 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that either I'm not very good at mentoring (highly likely) or that Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I'm skeptical that mentorshop can be effective when the misbehaving party is blaming their actions on everyone but themselves. But, as I said, I'm not very good at this. Danger (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that for mentoring to be helpful, the person being mentored has to understand there is a problem with his or her behavior and be willing to accept help to change that. I'm not fmailiar with the ISS situation, but I am not seeing any evidence in the tooth fairy one that Penyulap has any desire to change. A polite request from me to stop the sarcasm was soundly rebuffed. LadyofShalott 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it that I am being accused of exactly, the complaint is not clear. What does a dismissed ANI complaint from a month ago have to do with anything ? I brought it up in GF, was told I could do as I wanted, I was not topic banned thank you very much, no recommendations were made. I can't see what you are saying here, would you please be specific. Are you suggesting it was frivolous, if that is the case, why is exactly the same proposal being considered now ? are you making a frivolous proposal on a subject that has already been rejected by ANI ? I think so.

You've diffed another GF request from earlier today where I suggested there was a problem with Sexual content on the Tooth Fairy (TF) talkpage. It was found not to be a concern, I considered the matter resolved, and it was closed. No recommendations were issued, nothing imposed, but now you are diffing this and saying there is some kind of problem, would you be specific, as it was found by ANI earlier today, and everyone involved that there was no problem with sexual content on the page, and the topic, brought up by SummerPhd was Ejaculation, which is precisely related.

What else ? am I not allowed to have second thoughts about a picture proposal ? I have uploaded it three times today and I'm still not satisfied, but 'pesky wiki process', if more people like the image than dislike it, my embarrassing attempts at visual arts are on wikipedia for all to see.

this edit is a simple response to this how else could I possibly deal with SummerPhd's suggestions whilst assuming good faith ?

this is the same, this is the pumpkin referred to, how can I possibly respond to these remarks from other editors in any other way except good faith ? I think you are wasting ANI's time, just as you seem to accuse me of. This is just pushing your POV into ANI, when it should be handled on the talkpage. So you don't like the proposed picture, you've had your say, and I am working with others who thinks the idea is good and are making constructive comments to improve the poor current situation. As far as I can see you are complaining about the wiki discussion process because your not getting your own way. Whilst I also have second thoughts about my embarrassing artistic attempts, I think it best to leave the proposal to other editors. This belongs on the talkpage not ANI. Penyulap _talk 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread is because you basically said "Hey, I should be topic banned" so everyone just said "Great, no need to great a formal ban, just go ban yourself." So rather than waste our own times in debating a topic ban, we figured we'd actually take you at your word. Topic banning you was never rejected, it was just never discussed because you said you'd ban yourself. THAT is why the topic is relevant now. It is especially relevant because even a few hours ago you said you thought a topic ban would be a good idea. only (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why the topics and comments you posted today are disruptive and with poor judgment, then you need to reevaulate how to contribute collaboratively within this environment. only (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just realize, I did not respond to the comment about the ISS, that was a similar case to the Tooth Fairy article, except that it was a FA status article, with more than one admin owning the article, sitting on it so I couldn't address it's multitude of problems, the editor who brought that complaint, I haven't heard from for a long time, since just after he accused me of taking away the FA status of the article single-handed. I did start off the FARC process, and it went down unanimously. I've been completely overhauling the article ever since, working with new editors who have real suggestions. I haven't had any trouble in the 17 other languages I contribute in (which is at least dozen more languages than I can speak). I have only encountered Tag-teams on the english wiki. Anyhow, if someone can at least point to a bright line I've crossed, or point out something less vague, I'd be HAPPY to modify my behavior. I've done it before. It is only fair, that if people want me to act differently they should at least have the decency to try to explain in clear terms what the problem is. Is there abusive language ? personal attacks ? foul language, please be specific. Penyulap _talk 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand your point here "The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread" are you saying I broke a ban that was not imposed ? Would you please be so kind as to diff any commitment I gave in relation to that request. I'd like to formally ask ANI if I have ever had any restriction of any kind imposed upon me to clarify what you are saying. Penyulap _talk 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Thumperward, when you say "interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project." I would like to ask, just how old do you think I am in real life ? secondly, can you please point to any clear concern you have such as personal attack or any 'bright line' ? Penyulap _talk 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with my mentor that ' Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior ' as I am having trouble understanding what it is I am being accused of, I think a very long time ago, I used the word troll, which is used elsewhere on the internet, but not on wiki, after someone mentioned that, I didn't use the word anymore. (except just then). As far as I can see, I have made some proposals about a better picture for the article, and am working with people to improve a proposed image. Some people do not like the idea of improving the image, they think it can't be done and are outraged that I continue to work with other editors, rather than accepting what I consider to be a ridiculous assertion, that is, that no improvement is possible. Plus I think thumperward has objections to my being humorous, but I think that's a good thing for collaboration like this. Anyhow, I think this whole complaint is tedious, and suggest that closing it should be considered. Unless someone can make any sense of the complaint, I would love to hear any ideas on what it is meant to be about. Penyulap _talk 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this: please explain, in your own words, why other editors are objecting to your image proposal at Talk:Tooth fairy. I certainly hope you can do better than "Some people do not like the idea of improving the image". – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap seems unable to discuss a subject on the talk page without constantly and sarcastically discussing other editors. Incredibly WP:TE. I would say that if we allow them to continue editing they should be admonished for speaking of other editors and essentially should agree not to as a condition of continued editing privileges. A trout for Penyulap and a barnstar to the editors who have very politely put up with it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The continued commentary about users being "clones," that the only way to deal with us is through sarcasm, and that we all need to "get over" ourselves doesn't help either. Clearly shows tendentious editing. only (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Santin, I think that people make too many inappropriate and cryptic remarks, like SummerPhd, refers to 'Please stop beating the straw man.' and invited me to view graphic sexual material, which I did not, I was very offended by that inappropriate behavior and requested that SummerPhd remove such a remark on her talkpage, which she wouldn't. Is Beating the straw man masturbation ? And wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article saying "So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. " I have no idea what she is trying to say there. Thumperward says 'Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop.' am I supposed to be breaking a rule by being a naturally humorous person, can I change that any more than the color of my skin ? Being funny is better than being a pervert. Am I supposed to stop the proposal because thumperward says 'In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway.' So thumperward is objecting because he feels excluded from the creative process ? but this image is improving according to suggestions by editors who have researched the appearance of the Tooth fairy. He suggests that no reliable sources exist, but google has 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, so how can that be.

I warned SummerPhd that the word 'fantasy' would attract vandals, and it did, it's not a necessary word, as 'Folklore' will do, but she teases the vandals in her writing style, and displays a scorecard on her userpage in a contentious manner and claims there is no connection between the state of the article and vandalism, despite so many editors saying otherwise and vandalising it too. She just keeps pushing her Pro-Vandalism stance.

She also claims or implies anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged. Penyulap _talk 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As the user is now blocked, I've responded to their comment on their user talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, NOW USER:ONLY IS COMPLAINING THAT I AM TALKING TO MY MENTOR ON A SUBSECTION OF MY TALKPAGE, A SECTION I CREATED MONTHS AGO SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE MYSELF AS AN EDITOR. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE MYSELF WITH STUPIDITY ON SUCH A MONUMENTAL SCALE INFLICTED UPON ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)

Yup...quite the hole being dug here. Any uninvolved admin like to step in here? only (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "beating the straw man", please read straw man argument. She's saying you are arguing against things she never said. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)"Beating the straw man" is not a reference to masturbation (though your reference immediately before that, to "Mrs Palmer and her five daughters" probably was). It was a reference to your debate style: Rather than addressing what I actually said, you attacked a mocking representation of me (claiming, repeatedly, that I believed the hand with teeth photo is a representation of the tooth fairy). I don't think thumperward feels excluded. Rather, it seems ze feels there is no consensus on what the tooth fairy looks like. Reliable sources are a specific type of sources that Wikipedia accepts as trustworthy, most of the 461,000 hits returned by a google search are not reliable sources. The list ("WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on") refers to various of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I believe your attempt to create an image for the article runs against. I did not claim or imply that "anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged". You inferred it. Had you asked about any of this, I would have explained it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After spending a good bit of time digging through the relevant posts, all I can do is shake my head - and, for disruptive editing and incivility, block Penyulap for 24 hours. Following that, I strongly recommend a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Propose that User:Penyulap be topic-banned from editing articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Just clicked "edit" to create a new subsection called "topic ban proposal" and here it was waiting for me! Penyulap essentially asked for this, though I'm not sure of the motivation. User:Only offered a topic ban but apparently Penyulap wants it to be official, so here it is. N^oformation ^Talk 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support--I had the same experience as Noformation. I also fully support Bushranger's block and was tempted to do the same thing. This editor is an utter waste of time, and I foresee a proposed broadening of the topic ban in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Agree with the assessment of all three above me. Thanks, The Bushranger, for starting the topic ban discussion and implementing a block. only (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support with some regret - this does seem a reasonable move at this point, and is essentially what Penyulap originally came to ANI to request. I'll note that Penulap has started a subpage at User talk:Penyulap/edit to request feedback on his/her editing style. Perhaps some good can come of that. I suggest the editor use the block time to become familiar with the policies linked above. LadyofShalott 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't have a (not)vote here. That said, in the hopes that Drmies is wrong, I hoping someone uninvolved will offer some very direct suggestions here. While some of the issue here seems to be about the editor's headlong, gunslinger editing style, I think there's a largish helping of not understanding our policies here. I seem to have been defensive at times and my comments, as a result, were not read. Wikipedia is sometimes perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as a lawless Western town. Some firm direction to our pillars might be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, you have an opinion worth listening to, and it's not really a vote anyway. And I also hope (against hope) that I'm wrong this time--it happens often enough. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support if only for temporary relief—while it might be ok to suggest putting a made-up image to illustrate tooth fairy, the lack of understanding and unhelpful responses at Talk:Tooth fairy show that a topic ban is the minimum required. Given the fuss surrounding this archived ANI discussion, a good case for an indefinite block could be made, with the block to be lifted after the user explains how they will avoid mistakes from the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If I'm being candid, I think an indefinite block until the user agrees to a list of requirements is in order, but I didn't want to suggest it since the topic ban discussion was already going. If it was proposed I would support it. Just to iterate the point though, I think that even a superficial promise would be acceptable as it would give grounds to further block the user if the behavior continues. Another alternative would be to find a mentor who would not mind going over some of the user's comments with them so they can understand exactly what the problem is. What ever the case is, if Penyulap does not stop this type of behavior then it's unfair to the editors of the pages they edit for them to have to engage in these long winded, pointless discussions. Hopefully the topic ban will give the desired results, but I cannot say that I am optimistic since I don't think that the Tooth Fairy is really something to get upset over, rather I think it's more just part of their personality to act this way. N^oformation ^Talk 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - ask and ye shall receive. Danger (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is addressing the wrong problem. There's been no evidence presented that there is a need for all "articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed" to be covered: just tooth fairy. However, Penyulap previously exhibited a very similar set of problems with collaboration on Internationa Space Station, a topic rather far removed from the tooth fairy. A more appropriate response would be to wait to see Penyulap's response to Luna Santin's comment on his talk page, see how he acts after that, and if necessary re-block him with lengthening durations until either he adopts a more regular interation style or he fully exhausts the community's patience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I thought I recognised Penyulap, linking to the ISS case brought back unfortunate memories (not involved, just saw the case on ANI). While I'm somewhat symphathetic to Chris Cunningham's POV, having seen the problem in Tooth fairy myself when I helped out with archiving (and from Penyulaps first complain a few weeks ago) I think something needs to be done. The editors at tooth fairy have been incredily patient but need to be given a break. Considering the comments, I don't think the sanctions are too wide although I'm not sure whether they'd really have the necessary effect. In other words I wouldn't oppose wider sanctions myself and as with CC and Noformation, I'm not sure whether this will work but it seems clear something needs to be done. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's behaviour is reminiscent of Jack Sebastian's in discussions about Santa Claus and alleged time travel connected to The Circus. I am not claiming the account is Jack Sebastian's sock. Edit times are all over the place, so the user might even be from a different time zone. But it looks like we are being trolled by the time-honoured technique of taking policies literally to the point of absurdity. The images currently on discussion at Talk:Tooth fairy also suggest sophisticated trolling to me. This behaviour needs to stop, and it will be no help if it just moves over to Easter Bunny. Hans Adler 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  After some googling I am now convinced that we are being trolled by a regular of 4chan. The image "Wikipe-tan as the tooth fairy" created by Penyulap gave it away. See Urban Dictionary on Wikipe-tan on why. IMO we have way too much tolerance for such idiots, to the point that we have become a troll asylum. Hans Adler 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  If that is indeed the case, I support an indefinite block, starting immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I read the Urban Dictionary entry, and I have no idea how that relates to this discussion or why it indicates a 4chan troll. LadyofShalott 02:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I briefly interacted with Penyulap back in June when they were brought to ANI with regards to their editing on the International Space Station. I'd left a suggestion on their talk page on their approach to interacting with other editorsm, but it looks like their hot headedness has got them into hot water again.. A topic ban at this point may seem the course to pursue, but I fear that Penyulap will simply move to another area outside their topic ban and begin anew. I saw that Penyulap has a pending unblock request on their talk page. I suggest that an unblock be granted only with the strictest condition of continuing with their mentor for a minimum 6 months. --Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Penyulap has said that he/she has some replies to make here, and has asked for me to review them before they are posted here. I have agreed to this. Presumably the replies will be forthcoming. LadyofShalott 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

response

On the ISS talkpage I have worked with an editor here and on his talkpage he has ten images of Wikipe tan, 5 here and 5 here in userboxes. When looking for a button for an idea here I typed "Site:wikipedia.org button" into google images, the first ones to come up were exactly what I wanted, but in file usage links they all look smaller and can't be clicked, see here where wikipe-tan comes up again with the smaller unclickable buttons. In dispute resolution, which I do my very best to try to understand, there is something called a Wikipedia:Third opinion, which suggests "You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta" wikipe-tan is featured on that page also. When looking for a free image of a tooth fairy, I thought of these images, and that a suitable one may exist or be modified, rather than searching from fairy, which in hindsight has that image would require less work, and a similar image to it may exist. (so readers don't see the same picture in both articles).

I have used a sockpuppet once only before, and I am not aware of anyone knowing about it. I made this edit where I had stated neutrality on that subject. I have also vandalised wikipedia here, Robonaut is used to make jokes, by people including the ISS crew, I did add to the article also, here, most of which remains.

I will disengage from the Tooth Fairy article and its talk page.

Comments like those from Hans Adler and The Bushranger especially make me feel quite like a black man in texas, where reason is absent and mob mentality prevails, as if a noose is being placed around my neck, and any hope is a futile dream, and most certianly making any comment whatsoever would be certian to inflame the mob, regardless of it's content. In that mood Jimbo himself or ghandi couldn't get a response to be recieved as intended. Whilst ANI is not the KKK, the song it sings in emotion in some parts is like that. I quite feel like Joan of Arc, where everyone has brought a flaming torch or at least a stick of wood along and these two are dousing the petrol and lighting the matches without any kind of regard for natural justice.

Luna Santin, I hope it doesn't bother you for me to say, but you remind me of your (partial) namesake, a character I much admire from HP, a calming gentle voice amongst the rabble. It was a relief to see the 'break glass' thing on your talkpage, (which I copied, sorry/thanks), it's brilliant and cheerful too, very big relief in a time of such pressure. Especially after the block, the purpose of the topic ban is understood, however the purpose of the block is not understood, It's like beating on someone with a stick, it's not simply pointless when they do not understand the lesson you are attempting to teach them, but because it lacks any lesson, it's degenerates from whatever blocks are supposed to do as an educational tool into simple abuse. If it is meant to be punitive, but lacks any further defining, it follows the same course. A qualifier, even a single word, such as 'sarcasm' or 'humor' or 'posting unwanted images outside your sandbox' would give it some purpose. The topic ban on the other hand I can understand, although it's form is a rather blunt instrument however as 'all mythology' appears illogical, but that's all good. Across the project can't be sensible at all, as I only ever have had any kind of problems here on english wiki. File:Russian Orbital Segment.png is a picture I made and inserted on over 50 pages in more than a dozen languages in a few hours the other day, I edit articles and work with other editors in languages I don't speak a word of. I never have any problems with this kind of work. So maybe it's a mute button that makes me more attractive, or maybe the different cultures enable a better understanding. Other cultures do approach conversations differently. Shows like the tv series survivor make sense to some cultures, and no sense to others.

The first request I had made at ANI was a serious request as I couldn't see a logical way to exit from the situation that I could foresee would occur on the TF talkpage. SummerPhd, I could see was problematic and unhelpful. After she had crossed a brightline and offended me (twice), I had asked her on her talkpage to review her(second offense) remarks, which she refused to do, and did not apologise. I don't actually care that she did not apologize, that is who she is, not anything to do with me.

I would like to make something very clear here before continuing. There is a difference between causing offense, and not meaning to cause offense. They are not the same thing. After reading the straw horse, I see that it applies to this, where offense was caused, that is, I was offended, some editors are denying she tried to cause offense, rather than noting that she did not apologise when it was brought to her attention on her talkpage. An apology now would mean less, as I have pointed it out long after the many opportunities for her to apologise have been ignored.

My attempts to be real-life civil were deleted here, whilst I now agree that this is policy, I have pointed out that it is hypocritical for SummerPhd to delete my remarks about her lecture, whilst at all times retaining her own on the talkpage. This complaint about hypocrisy is met with the straw-man argument that my own remarks violate policy.

I cannot logically work with SummerPhd as it is abundantly clear there is no GF there, but how am I supposed to deal with this ? She stated "That leaves us with a female humanoid" I can simply try to illistrate quickly in GF why that won't work. Some would call it sarcasm, even if that is the case, which is better, belittling the comment outright ? insulting the editor ? these are not proper. Ignoring the editor seems innappropriate, so illustrating why such suggestions will not work seemed a logical solution. People seem to complain that I have either tried to ignore this editors remarks, or not taken their remarks in GF. Serious suggestions are taken on board whether I agree with them or not, as it is important to incorporate all suggestions, but if no serious or constructive comment, what can be expected. When an editor is very clearly trying to antagonise, what do you do ? I don't know and I have not found out yet. Danger is I expect busy, but then I didn't ask him specifically I think. Eventually things all worked out on the ISS page, so I thought incorporating what I had learnt there would be appropriate. I did ask for help from ANI, however I could not ban myself from the tooth fairy just because someone there clearly dislikes me. That is not proper wikipedia policy at all. There must be a better solution and I was doing the best I could under difficult circumstances.

Luna Santin said "I'm sorry that you were offended" which demonstrates real life civility, even though Luna Santin is not the cause of the offense. I obviously will listen to Luna Santin's comments and advice, and LadyofShalott's comments and advice, as they both demonstrate they are civilised people. LadyofShalott does not agree with almost anything I propose editorially, however I take on board all her advice, it's very clear on the talkpage that anything LadyofShalott has said in disagreement, I have accepted, as I see she is not making deliberate attempts to sabotage me or my work. SummerPhd I must treat differently. Because this person clearly doesn't like me or act in a civil manner towards me I cannot take her advice. I have to consider her comments differently also, as clearly both would be intended to do harm. Strangers as well as friendly editors I can work with no problems. Every suggestion from them is incorporated. Clearly there are one or two editors who are not working in good faith. Claiming "Zero references", when google has close to half a million hits, this demonstrates quite clearly they are making no good faith attempt to work together. Today, it can be seen quite clearly that SummerPhd has gone and found references she claimed did not exist, as it now suits her purpose. Beefcake6412 had no problem making intelligent suggestions, which were incorporated quickly. LadyofShalott said she didn't like the image, which is fair enough, so I continued to alter the picture, as she might like a new picture which is thereby created, but she didn't offer remarks I could incorporate or a better image to work from, or suggest that a new starting image should be used. It's a shame about the TB, as I have since seen that the fairy article has a lovely pic, and there are no doubt others related to it, by the same painter I expect, or something like that. However this is all moot, as I do not care to work on the TF now.

Hi Luna Santin you have asked "If you invited Thumperward to create their own image, how do you think they would react?" I think that the purpose of wikipedia and it's editors is to expand the content of the project. I think we are meant to encourage other people to create new content. I'm not certain what you mean, it's as if it was meant to be intended to be some kind of insult, I think the 'spirit' of the TF talkpage is very dark, and so the question you ask becomes ambiguous, as if it would be insulting to ask him to make content, and how would I feel if someone insulted me by asking me to create new content. I think one of those is what your asking, but I can't work out which. It does give me some ideas as to an essay that might be written on how editors can be more sensitive to the differences between editors who contribute with new content, editors who contribute to the formatting of that content, editors who contribute the mechs or bots, and so forth. I guess the question how do I think they would react opens up many thought dynamics. Looking at his contributions now, they are to do with improving formatting of the information. So I guess if you were asking the question as if I was insulting him by asking him to make an image, then I'd say he'd react in a similar fashion to when you demand an artist define what the final picture would look like at the beginning of the journey, the journey to find the final picture, the same way asking a composer how many notes will be used, for a yet to be written melody. It's a thought provoking dynamic question, all the more for the ambiguity. In retrospective reflection, that question, why don't you make an image, may be insulting and I'd like to apologize to thumperward for my remark.

I request an interaction ban from user:SummerPhd, user:only, user:thumperward, and user:Drmies.

There is a cultural divide here that cannot be bridged. I apologise also, for what has become a long reply, I should try to write an essay to help different editors on wiki to overcome these cultural differences between different kinds of contributors, so this doesn't happen as often elsewhere. Penyulap _talk 15:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have notified SummerPhD, Only, Thumperward, and Drmies of this new sub-section. LadyofShalott 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not, in general, see bad faith in Penyulap's edits (I see very little to support the idea expressed above re wiki-tan and 4chan). To my mind, it seems clear that ze feels persecuted (requesting an interaction ban involving four other editors (three of them admins), for example). Also at work, it seems is relative unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, at times feeding the persecution ideation (see the discussion above re the proposed tooth fairy image: every link from me is avoided as an invitation to view graphic sexual material, ghits vs. RSs, OTHERSTUFF, sources we don't have vs. sources that don't exist, etc.). I am unsure what "cultural" divide exists and how an interaction ban on four editors would begin to address this. Unless Drmies, only, thumperward and I represent something unlikely to be encountered elsewhere on WP, this would seem to be a bare beginning to a list that would necessarily grow. Penyulap seems to believe I aim to antagonize hir, edit and/or comment in bad faith, etc. I disagree (but I would, wouldn't I?). I don't know that the proposed topic ban (fictional characters, IIRC) is particularly productive, unless the idea revolves around Penyulap's possible feelings about what should/should not be clearly spelled out about the tooth fairy and other fantasy figures of early childhood. If there is nothing in particular about these articles, I would think either a narrower ban (Tooth fairy and whatever related articles there are) or a broader ban, based on whatever degree of hope the minds assembled here have that whatever needs to change will change. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SummerPhD's assessment here. If we placed interaction bans on everyone who was involved with disputes with each other on Wikipedia, we'd never get anything done. It's clear a more structured mentorship and/or monitoring of Penyulap is needed or else we'll continue to see conflicts like this. I, too, am confused on what this "cultural divide" is and how this situation is representative of said divide. Penyulap's inability to see the edits being made as disruptive shows that a change is needed. only (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And as a side note, analogies such as this "Whilst ANI is not the KKK, the song it sings in emotion in some parts is like that" are highly inappropriate, especially for someone who claims to be upset by "explicitly sexual material" being linked to. only (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing elsewhere?

Penyulap's tone at Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Media_coverage_overseas_needs_improvement_in_the_article and Talk:"Occupy"_protests#Media_coverage_overseas_needs_improvement_in_the_article is already looking like it needs to be nipped in the bud. The tone and "lol" type nonsense are exactly what contributed to the issues at tooth fairy. only (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed both sections. Good call, Only. If this persists, I think it warrants a temporary block. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this version any better ? Penyulap _talk 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Here is the previous version for those who want to compare. only (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the second version any better ? Penyulap _talk 20:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there is no objection to the second version in my sandbox, I'll return it to that talkpage in a few minutes. Penyulap _talk 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no comment on the second version in my sandbox, may I ask what problem exists with the first ? would you kindly expand on the 'Nope". Penyulap _talk 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Occupy Wall Street talk material (see "Here is the previous version" link above) shows that a topic ban on mythical figures is not adequate since inappropriate editing or talk page usage will only occur elsewhere. My thinking has been influenced by WT:Disruptive editing where several editors are lamenting the way the community interprets "fair" to mean fair to the misguided individual with no concern for what is fair for content creators. This case is not at the level of disruption that people have in mind at that discussion, but why is so much time being spent over such obviously misguided activity? Perhaps the discussion could be closed after agreeing that it is up to Penyulap to work out how to avoid problems, and after there is an understanding that an admin should interpret this discussion to mean that blocking should be swiftly applied if needed to avoid any future disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely why I should simply retire. Please, tell me, how many times should you hit someone with a stick before they are educated ? I can ask all day long what is wrong with the versions in my sandbox, I removed any kind of humor from them, and still they fail. I ask why, I can't see why, I suspect it is because of the signature, and if the signature was different and it went on the talkpage it would be fine, but ask as I may, whatsoever the problem is, it's never to be revealed. I simply need to play some perverse guessing game whilst I am struck like a child with blocks to aid understanding ? And this is supposed to be some kind of mature interaction ? As for the original, it seems to me by reading the article and the differing press coverage for the tea party Vs the occupy movement that the people over there could use some assistance with pointers to information outlets about the articles content. Plus, people at the protest are not working, they are occupying, all sitting down with laptops and mobiles that have cameras, uploading images onto the internet all day long. They also have materials to make signs, that is what they are doing all day long. we can use images on wikipages, so why not request the pics at the same time as giving them a motherload of information, and letting people know i am not any kind of expert or interested party to that article. 3 birds, one stone. but it's taken out, sure ok, something must be wrong 'lol' so the humor is removed, and still a fail, cut it to the bone in the sandbox still a fail. why a fail ? oh, well, you can't tell me as that would help me understand. I ask for mentorship, I ask for assistance, I actually do no think it is in any way polite for me to burden some other editor such as LadyofShallot by asking her, as she has already done so much. But to ask my stalkers who watch my every move, comment on every move, ask them to take a 10 seconds from their busy concentrate on penyulap efforts to ask what they mean by nope, and no, no answer from anyone. Well keep your games to yourself. find someone else to torment and tease. find some other fetish to beat into understanding. Penyulap _talk 03:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

How much more obvious can a troll become than arguing for being 'NPOV' on the physical existence or otherwise of characters such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? We really need a strategy for not feeding such trolls. Hans Adler 13:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here, Hans. There's nothing here which can't be adequately explained by a combination of youth and a language barrier. Nevertheless, we're not obliged to entertain editors who can't or won't recognise why others find their interaction methods unproductive on an indefinite basis, so if Penyulap is retiring then this has pretty much resolved itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is the result of a password being posted to 4chan, they have become much more focused, restrained and subtle than anything they've ever done before. This seems unlikely in the extreme. In any case, given the previous topic ban that died when Penyulap promised to essentially ban hirself and the similar occurrence at Tooth fairy, are we now taking this user's retirement notice at face value? (I do not mean to imply that there should/should not be a ban of any particular scope, I'm just getting the question "out there".) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is evidence that this account has been compromised through password sharing, then it should be blocked indefinitely. only (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but we don't seem to have any evidence that this is the case, only speculation. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An admin has redacted my 13:47 comment dramatically after the above responses, making some later comments look like non sequiturs. I am waiting for an explanation from that admin by email. My speculation that there might have been password sharing on 4chan was clearly marked as such and I explained what makes me think in that direction. For some other things I have mentioned there is clear evidence, so I don't understand why they have been removed. Nor can I agree with Chris Cunningham, who appears to blame youth or a language barrier for what is a clear case of trolling. How much trolling is acceptable from young users? Hans Adler 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For full transparency: diff of the redaction. The admin in question promptly notified me of the redaction. In so doing he appeared to imply that but for technical issues he would have used suppression. In our ensuing discussion he was unable to convince me that the redaction was justified. Hans Adler 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in youth or language here, and I also think that this has gone on way too long. This has taken a year out of SummerPhD's young and beautiful life--time she could have spent reverting unverified edits to Glee-related articles. I do think this was trolling, and I do think we need to block sooner. Why we didn't? Maybe AGF. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction: iCarly-related articles. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I share Thumperward's concern that despite whatever history the user may have these two talkpage entries are fairly innocuous.Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that are subject to closely border AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Copying across from talk page) I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Debresser was advised more than once to leave Chesdovi alone, and an interaction ban should have been implemented the last time this was at ANI. Debresser knew he would be blocked if further conflict between the 2 of them occurred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• There are 343 articles (not including talkpages, categories, etc) that both have edited - someone is clearly following someone - indeed, probably both are following each other, which they were both told to stop (hence the blocks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (Copying across from Debresser's talk page)Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Debresser, if you're trying to paint yourself as the "defender" in your point 3 above, contrary to even a cursory look at your edits and your interaction with other editors, good luck getting anyone to swallow it. pablo 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Cool though the intersect tool is, since both editors are active in the same area, assuming that "following" is going in is a slight leap. Moreover we know that historically (WP timeframe, not South Levant) category deletions were involved in this dispute, so we should not be surprised to see this overlap per se. Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
    
• I've been involved here before as well. Whilst both editors are productive and a block is unfortunate, we do need to sort the issue out. The problem is that you can't have an interaction ban without a topic ban, as mentioned above that would just give the first person to edit an IP (or any other) article the immediate advantage; also it's too messy and vague - what would be the delay between both editors editing an article that would be acceptable? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Can't this be resolved by them agreeing to refer disagreements to WikiProject Judaism? Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC).
  
• (copied from usertalk) I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
  • I think Debresser has made a very good suggestion here. As far as I can tell, the entire dispute stems from a single issue. Chesdovi's previous attempt to solve the problem was an RfC at Talk:Palestine, which I believe was undertaken in good faith. I agree with Debresser that this issue needs a centralized discussion. (I offer no opinion about lifting the block.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entire dispute runs for months (if not years) ... a simple search above for Debresser or Chesdovi on either AN or ANI provides a wide range of issues, accusations, concerns, problems, poor interactions all brought forward by both sides. I'm not saying that any of the editors is worse or better than the other, it has to be resolved so that future BS does not occur. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from user talk page) BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) copied by Jab7842 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your unblock request was declined two days ago by a wholly uninvolved admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, in general, (ie not just in relation to Chesdovi), you probably do see yourself as defending articles. The problem is, that you appear to be displaying ownership of these articles. pablo 12:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think unblocks with broad six month AI topic bans along with an interaction ban for both of them would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interaction bans—by all means. But the problem isn't related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It has to do with whether to refer to ancient and medieval rabbis as Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't ancient rabbis just be Israelites? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they'd have haggled over this for so long if not for the IP/AI conflict. Only as an aside, Jewish and Palestinian folks lived side by side and mostly peacefully in Palestine for more than two thousand years. I understand why someone might want to call the rabbis Palestinians and I understand why someone might want to call them Israelites, let the sources have sway and if there are sources which say either or, let the editorial content echo that too, it's not hard. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with letting the sources have sway is that the word "Palestinian" changed meaning considerably in 1948. Before that time, it was frequently used to refer to Jews who lived in Palestine. Today the word is used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Arabs.

The only topic ban that would make a dent here would be one that prohibits either editor from adding or removing the words "Palestine"/"Palestinian" or "Land of Israel", pending a centralized discussion. I think that's the only thing, short of banning one editor or the other, that's going to put an end to this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so let editorial content echo that too. A narrower ban on them making edits carrying any form of the words Palestinian or Israel, broadly construed, along with an indef interaction ban, may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• (copied from user's talk by User:Bwilkins) Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs)

  Well, as far as I can see, within certain temporal boundaries, there may be synonyms (Palestine and Land of Israel, Palestinian and Israelite) which would be invalid outside those temporal boundaries. That doesn't mean that the choice of terms is arbitrary. If one term is clearer than the other then that should be used. If one term is more accurate than the other then that should be use. If those two edicts are in significant conflict then accuracy should be followed with appropriate explanatory text. We are not writing WP primarily for the historical scholars who will have their own sources, but for a far more general readership. This is not so hard to resolve, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

  Reading through Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis it appears that terms both more accurate and more clear exist. I also think that discussion will inform anyone trying to take a view on this situation, although of course it is only part of the wider context which is very TLDR. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

Non-admin closure of an AfD discussion by Rcsprinter123

Resolved

 – AfD has been reclosed by an admin. Initial closer has agreed to modify his behavior. All is now well. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This AfD discussion [13] was closed as a "Snowball Keep" by someone who is not an administrator. However, there were Delete and Merge votes in the discussion, so I am not certain if it was proper for someone who is not an administrator to close the discussion. Can someone tell me if the closure was in accordance with this website's rules? Thank you.And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Although it was the decision that would've been reached by any admin, it probably wasn't best for a non-admin to close it as WP:SNOW given that there wasn't by any means unanimity. I have re-opened it, closed it again, and left a note on the editor's page. Black Kite (t) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Ford should've been no consensus, too. Updated the note left. And informed the editor of this discussion, which wasn't done. Black Kite (t) 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 again? A month ago I asked him to consider NACs on AfDs which weren't wholly uncontroversial after he's made a string of poor closes. Time for a stronger request to step back until he has more experience? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not inform the editor in question about this discussion. And thank you for addressing my question. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

While WP:SNOW was quoted here, the discussion had run the full 168 hours and some change. This was one I probably would have punched back in my NAC days as the consensus was clear that this was more then a routine event. I really don't think it was necessary to admin reclose this but what's done is done. I do question why we need two articles on this subject as it seems that the farm itself is only notable for this event but that's a discussion for the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Whilst I closed it as keep, quite a few of the Keep votes were weak (WP:ITSNOTABLE) so I don't think it was straightforward, and certainly not SNOW. Black Kite (t) 12:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I do agree that Rcsprinter used a poor closing rationale and I corrected him on that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Rcsprinter has been at DRV a couple of times recently and his closes have been mentioned here and I see from his contributions that he is now closing CFD and Files for deletion as well. In a recent file for deletion he snow deleted a file that an admin had deleted without any mention of frozen water. This is dangerous and is going to cause problems. This user has to stop and not get ahead of themselves. Should we be considering a formal restriction given they seem oblivious to being asked nicely? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  I suggested to Rcsprinter (off-wiki) at approx 6pm UTC on 28 October that he should "stop doing non-admin closes" (I didn't specify what of), and he agreed to this. From what I can see, his last non-admin close (of anything) was 19:55 UTC on 27th October. So possibly a formal restriction is unnecessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  His judgement in general is rather questionable as he was recently fooled by a vandal at WP:AFC/R into adding a bogus category to a bunch of articles. [14] [15] etc. He needs to slow down. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that was a totally routine thing and could have easily been real. Am I supposed to have heard of this category vandal? None of this is really relavent to AfD closures anyway. Rcsprinter (deliver) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) Bottom line, this particular closure was clearly in accordance with WP:NAC and is nothing to get worked up about (although they completely miscited WP:SNOW). If there's truly a problem with their closures overall, can someone provide some links? Swarm ^X 19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo slow editwarring on Adolf Hitler's religious views

• Adolf Hitler's religious views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Mamalujo has repeatedly an unilaterally reinserted his favourite version of the article over the last couple of days. His only participation in the discussion on the talkpage has been to state his disagreement with those editors who are against his insertion. He has been repeatedly told that a strong belief that you are right and everybody else is wrong does not justify editwarring. I do not consider myself to be involved, but since I have offered my own arguments in the discussion section I think it is reasonable to let other admins take action - otherwise I would have blocked him for editwarring myself. I am not taking this to the 3rr notice board because more than the editwarring it is the behavioral problem of not respecting consensus or engage in meaningful discussion that is the problem here, the editwarring seems to be a symptom of that. I hope that when informed about the correct interpretation of policy by multiple administrators he may change his conduct. I also note that his userpage, talkpage and edit history suggests a possible pattern of tendentious editing that may also underlie the unwillingness to dialogue with other users. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully protected the page to put a stop to further edit warring until user conduct issues can be sorted out. causa sui (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick review of the talk page and edit history appears to confirm Maunus' version of events. Specifically, it seems that (1) Mamalujo (talk · contribs) has the minority view that the eradication of Christianity was a goal of the German National Socialist movement or of Hitler himself, and (2) has edit warred on the article to pursue including that view in the article instead of following dispute resolution, and (3) has argued explicitly that other users' disagreement with the interpretation of his sources is not relevant because he's right and they're wrong.

The protection policy suggests that it is better to block disruptive users rather than protect a page, because protection prevents constructive edits from non-disruptive editors. If others agree with that assessment, I'd suggest blocking Mamalujo (talk · contribs) and removing my protection. I also give leave to any administrator to lengthen, shorten, or remove the protection I set according to their own best judgment. causa sui (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've recently observed an edit war a couple months ago involving an ip. Perhaps sockpuppetry is afoot here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You would have to provide a little more context for that part of the issue to become actionable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is, in fact, Mamalujo's modus operandi - he adopts a unique or extreme minority view regarding a topic (typically that some individual or group is or was attacking the Catholic church), and then slow-editwars his version of events into an article, sometimes over periods of many months, hoping to wear down his opponents. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Edit Conflict Then it is a completely diffent subject then the Ip, who was try to add unsourced matiriel into the article. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo's edits generally have one purpose - to promote and defend the reputation of the Catholic church as he perceives it. On William Shakespeare's religion he edit-warred to promote the idea that Shakespeare was a Catholic, on Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs he edit-warred to claim that Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity. The pattern is to include "asssets" like Shakespeare (creative genius was a Catholic) and exclude "liabilities" like Hitler (he was nominally Catholic but really he wanted to destroy the faith). The edit warring is, unfortunately, sometimes accompanied by twisting and misrepresenting of sources to push for the desired outcome. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would endorse this assessment of the situation. He has also done the same thing on the War in the Vendée article, repeatedly deleting sourced text by claiming it is "factually inaccurate" without coming to the talk page or addressing any of the disagreement with his version of history, coming back every couple of months to push this view. Perhaps a user RFC is warranted? eldamorie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mamalujo hasn't edited at all in almost three days, so for now I don't think a block would be fitting, but I've left a strong warning that he's already been warned about this before and if he does it again, a block will most likely be forthcoming. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this constitutes vandalism but the user created a page called Other Stuff with just a link to Sand box. They seem to be making other edits now as well. I think the situation should be looked at by those in the know to determine if their recent edits constitute vandalism or not. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that was quite clearly just a botched attempt to make a subpage to his talkpage. I've made the same mistake myself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

An RfC was opened here on October 5 to ask whether "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" should be removed. As this is contentious, it was understood that the RfC would be wiki-wide, would remain open for the full 30 days, and would be carefully closed by more than one uninvolved admin (who would read the comments) before being implemented.

[insert begins here]

Note: the link above should read that the RfC can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[insert ends here]

Sarek has just attempted to close it prematurely, and implemented the change himself. I have reverted this, in part because it was an early closure, and in part because I spoke to him not long ago about acting as an admin in situations in which he was involved. As I've been centrally involved in the discussion leading to the RfC, I would prefer that another admin, and preferably more than one, close this when the 30 days is up.

Is anyone willing to supervise this situation from now until November 5, read all the comments, then interpret consensus? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• By way of context, please see also WP:AN#Request uninvolved admin to close large scale rfc at wp:ver, which makes this a lot less like Sarek taking this on unilaterally. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm quite happy to take this on if no-one else does; I haven't taken part in the discussion, and am neutral on the proposal itself. Black Kite (t) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. If a couple of admins could volunteer, that would be great. Also, I just noticed that no one had added the RfC tags for the bot (I have just added them), so it's not clear this was advertised properly. If it could be given some extra time to account for that, that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The tags were removed by Sarek when he made the close, but they were there all along before that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it was added only to the RfC policy page. A key change to a core policy affects all kinds of articles. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the tag for the RfC-policy page was there all along. One can make a subjective argument that this could have been spammed advertised on all the other RfC categories too, but to go from that to the conclusion that no one had opened the RfC is just ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I could take a look at it if there's any need for a second opinion. However, I'm not completely neutral on the issue as I tended to support the WP:ATT proposal and at some points suggested that I approved of the status quo, but I don't recall taking part in the RFC and don't have strong feelings about it either way. Aside from that, I wonder why it's necessary for more than one admin to do this? causa sui (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• My thinking is it would be easier for more than one admin to read the comments, and then discuss what they mean, rather than relying on numbers.

We had agreed (I thought) to have an RfC with two sections: (a) do you want this change? and (b) is the first sentence fine as it is? (See this exchange, for instance). The reason we agreed to this is that, during the long discussions that preceded the RfC, people were saying things like "I prefer the status quo, but if it will end this discussion, then I support the compromise." Even the editor who opened the RfC (Blueboar) said he felt this way. So I feel there has been considerable railroading, and I'm hoping the admins who close it will carefully read the comments to see how, or whether, that factors in. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Weren't you one of the minority opposing the change? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The very recent sudden flood of "opposes" into an RFC that, ever since October 5, has looked like a straight pass for the compromise proposal, is making me feel very suspicious about what's going on. I do not recall a discussion in which it was agreed that this RFC would stay open for 30 days, and would be grateful for a link to it. Since October 5, there has been plenty of opportunity for any editors who were concerned it was not widely advertised to raise the matter. Starting on 26 October, with contributions tailing off, there was a discussion at the RFC about whether it would be appropriate to ask an uninvolved admin to close. Several editors agreed that this would be appropriate, and none opposed, so on 27 October, User:North8000 put a neutrally-worded message on the administrator's noticeboard asking for a close. SarekOfVulcan replied. If SarekOfVulcan was involved, please explain how.

  I believe that SV's revert and her sudden rush of procedural objections three weeks into an RFC that wasn't going her way, followed by a demand that she be allowed to post notices to bring in new editors who were previously uninvolved, is nothing more than an attempt to derail a discussion that wasn't going her way, and I am feeling rather cynical about it.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The "sudden rush" could be a consequence of the RfC finally being properly advertised today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

See Blueboar's reply below. It was well advertised, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of editors found it. Look, Maunus, we don't do this. If the discussion hadn't gone my way and it got closed against my wishes, I wouldn't be allowed to unilaterally revert the close and put notices all over the place to ask my wikibuddies to come and support me! If I tried it, my talk page would go red with warnings within minutes, and I'd be summarily reverted. But SlimVirgin appears to be not just getting away with it scot free but also getting away with accusing Sarek of bad faith in the process! I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've seen an awful lot of discussions, but I'd never previously seen such a blatant double standard.—S Marshall T/C 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SV and I think Sarek was involved. S Marshall, you may want to review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. It is hardly a bad faith accusation. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• S Marshall, I'm in your corner and I agree with the tenor of your comments. However, if we put aside our strong feelings, I think we'll find that SlimVirgin's position is fairly well supported. In other words, Sarek did previously comment on the RfC and express his POV earlier in October, and this makes him less than suited for closing a contentious RfC. I would like people to extend more good faith to SlimVirgin in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• But, Viriditas, there are all kinds of ways of dealing with it. If SV was concerned about Sarek's prior involvement, she could have raised it with him, or discussed it here. That would have been appropriate. But to revert his close without speaking to him is a quite different kind of behaviour. Also note the sudden rush of "oppose" !votes: where has this been advertised, and by whom?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• We are in agreement. But I strongly believe, based on this evidence alone, that SV is acting in good faith, and we should honor her request for the RfC to remain open and for more voices to be heard. In response, we should also inform the closing admin that there was a rush of opposes after discussion had wound down, making canvassing of one POV more than likely, but unproven. Keep in mind, if the arguments are strong and the judgment of the closing admin wise, we should not concern ourselves with such things. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I haven't canvassed at all about this RfC. I've been posting neutral notices letting people know it is likely to close in a few days, e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• A message that amounts to "Hey, everybody, they're trying to rip the guts out of WP:V" isn't exactly neutral notification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin is also edit warring to prevent Sarek's close being restored. Please will someone genuinely neutral step in and restore order.—S Marshall T/C 01:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like some uninvolved admin to review Slim'sViriditas' claim that I "expressed my POV" on the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm neither uninvolved nor an admin, but I can look at the edit history just like anyone else and see that you previously expressed your opinion on this topic on October 7.[16] Not sure why you closed this. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Viriditas, I got the signatures confused -- I was quoting you there, not Slim. However, I disagree that the diff you supplied shows involvement -- it's a comment on the differences between the versions. Really, I was personally leaning toward oppose, but that didn't affect my ability to read the discussion and see what it said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this. Do you object to leaving the RfC open for 30 days and finding a more uninvolved admin than yourself? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Sarek, you expressed a view directly on the issue at hand during the RfC, came down on one side ("I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things"), [17] then three weeks later closed the RfC early and inserted the new version! That is what it means to be "involved." SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel this has to be the last straw in terms of Sarek's tendency to act as an admin when involved. He does it constantly, and his last reconfirmation warned him about it. But he has continued to do it, and not just here. I'm sorry, Sarek, I like you, but you seem to have no understanding or respect for the idea of an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I've posted on WT:V [18] [19] asking everyone to start to AGF about people's motivations regarding the RfC, so I want to practice what I preach by withdrawing the implication that Sarek realized he was involved when he closed it. I do believe his comment made him involved, but I fully accept that he had reason not to see it that way, or didn't recall that he'd left the comment. Either way, I want to make clear that I'm assuming good faith, and I apologize to him for having done otherwise. I'm really sorry, Sarek. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat material which is covered there, but this was a very unrushed process....several months to develop the proposal, a long period for comments with extensive participation, advertised extensively (including centralized discussion) floating the idea to close (without opposition) for several days, comments trailing off to less tha one per day over the last several days. A request for closure that stayed a few days with no opposition, and the propoerly closed. Also it had what most would consider to have a very strong if not overwhelming consensus. Now one or two people are trying to undo the results by inventing new non-existent rules because they did not like the results. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on this RfC is diametrically opposed to SV. However, we should, as good Wikipedians, make every effort to insure processes are fair and reasonable to all involved. SV has observed that the RfC was not allowed to run for its recommended length, was not widely advertised, and was not closed by a neutral admin. Her request for reopening the close and advertising the RfC is entirely reasonable, and we should accept it at face value. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It was widely advertised, and had in fact attracted more than 90 separate contributors before Sarek closed it. And it's yet to be established whether Sarek was neutral, see his denial above.—S Marshall T/C 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Answered above. He previously commented on the RfC on October 7 and put forward a POV that would later support the close.[20] Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In context, that diff shows Sarek asking a question of Quadell. Why do you see it as "putting forward a POV"?—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things." That disqualifies him from closing the RfC. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that assertion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So then you maintain that you were uninvolved? I see, so an admin can comment in an RfC discussion in favor of one side and then close it, favoring that side? Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'd actually read what I said, you'd see that I was indicating that I was worried about the amount of weight the new wording seemed to be putting on "a Reliable Source published it, so we can pass it on".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Totally opposed to that. Totally. We've been discussing this for nearly nine months now and, until a couple of hours ago, we had finally reached a consensus. Suddenly SV decides that even though she's massively involved, it's appropriate for her to unilaterally revert another admin's close without speaking to him, and add neutrally-worded notifications made in selected places, which are somehow leading to a major influx of !voters supporting SlimVirgin's preferred wording, while she edit-wars to keep the discussion open so her chums can !vote. It's all quite inappropriate and needs to stop. What I think would be appropriate would be for someone to re-close the debate as Sarek found it, on the basis of the 90-odd !votes from the self-selected participants; I think that no account at all should be taken of the sudden rush of opposers who've appeared since SV started this behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not only am I completely neutral admin, who doesn't really care if the proposal succeeds or not, but I wasn't even aware that the RfC was ongoing until I saw this thread on my watchlist. Thus, I have avoided forming an opinion on the issue itself. However (as a completely uninvolved, neutral admin who doesn't have an opinion), I've reached two conclusions: first, that if Viriditas' diff is the extent of Sarek's involvement, that he was not nearly sufficiently involved that he couldn't close it and second, that (based on a quick read through), his close seemed to be in line with consensus.

  That said, though, I would suggest leaving it a day or two now to let the fallout from this drama to subside, and to see what effect it has on the consensus, and then closing it when it appears everybody who wants to has given their opinion. I'm willing to take a look and close it then if a closer is needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess nobody even glances at WP:CENT anymore. I'm thinking of MfD-ing that as useless. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that this is a controversial change to a core policy and that the level of consensus is currently about 1 to 2 (wouldn't pass in a RFA). I think that this suggests that it is important to make sure that the wider community has time to comment and voice their opinions. As SlimVirgin notes the RfC has not been very widely advertised untill today. I think a hasty closure can only create problems for both sides.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's been widely advertised and had attracted 97 !votes at the time Sarek closed it. At that time there were 66 supporters and 31 opposers. At the time of typing, two more supporters and seven (!) more opposers have shown up, presumably attracted by this thread and SV's very neutrally-worded advertisements in carefully selected places. This has muddied the waters considerably, but the discussion as Sarek closed it was clear.—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If it was widely advertised as you say, why is SV advertising the RfC? Can you demonstrate that it widely advertised? Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • • I left a Notice at the Village Pump when the RfC was opened... I also left similar notices on the talk pages of the other core policies (WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV). Sorry you missed them. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not talking about "me", but I understand your confusion. The facts show that the discussion has been advertised at {{cent}} since October 6.[21] Does this or does this not qualify as widely advertised? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I can demonstrate that before all this interference, 97 people found it! Not exactly carefully-hidden, was it?—S Marshall T/C 01:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not really an answer. I can demonstrate that 1,347 editors have Wikipedia:Verifiability on their watchlist.[22] Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

While many RfCs are left open for a full 30 days, just as many are closed earlier. 30 days seems to be a rule that is ignored as often as it is observed. Also, there is no requirement that an RfC be closed by someone who did not express an opinion. Nor is there even a requirement that RfCs be closed by an admin.

Now... perhaps this particular RfC should go 30 days, and perhaps it should be closed by someone who is completely uninvolved (has not commented in the RfC or in any of the talk page discussions that preceded it) and perhaps that person should be an admin, but let's be clear that all of that isn't a requirement. Sarek acted in good faith, whether you agree with his actions or not.

That said... as the author of the RfC in question, I have no problem with keeping it open a few more days. And given that this is a core policy we are talking about, I think having this particular RfC closed by a completely uninvolved admin (or group of admins) is a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek expressed an opinion on the key issue during the RfC, BB. That is what it means to be an involved admin. We need widespread notification of this RfC (you guaranteed that before you opened it), time for people to arrive and form a view, and then closure by at least two 'completely uninvolved and experienced admins (uninvolved in the discussion, no disputes with key participants, etc), so that everyone feels the closure is objective and informed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, considering you've been edit warring and canvassing non-neutrally, I'm not sure I buy your definition of "involved admin". And considering you're involved, why do you get to revert my close instead of going to an "uninvolved admin" to do it? A little consistency would be nice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was Slrubenstein who undid your close[23] which was followed by an edit war involving S Marshall and yourself,[24][25], then later by SV and myself. Anyone with unclean hands here? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec, to Sarek) I reverted because it shouldn't have been closed today, and it shouldn't have been closed by you. Sarek, how many times in your career as an admin have people complained about you being involved, even if you think they were all wrong? You promised during your reconfirmation (as I recall) not to do this anymore. Look at the person-hours now being spent discussing the meta issue. It isn't fair or reasonable to cause this expenditure of time and energy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So if it isn't fair or reasonable, why are you doing it, Slim? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"I am closing this discussion as successful—as I believe the consensus is sufficiently in that corner—but with very strong counsel to SarekOfVulcan toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than he has used in the past. The overwhelming reason for those opposing (far above any other) was due to concerns that he has regularly become involved as an administrator in areas where he was already involved to one degree or another as an editor; WP:INVOLVED cautions very strongly against this."[26] Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's accepted that there may have been times, in the past, when Sarek didn't strictly follow WP:INVOLVED. But the past isn't at issue here. The question is whether he was WP:INVOLVED today, in this particular matter. And HJ Mitchell's already answered this one for you, above. Sarek was uninvolved. SlimVirgin, by her own admission, was involved. Therefore, she as an involved admin should not have reverted Sarek's close without discussing it with him first. I really don't know how I can make it any clearer for you than this, Viriditas.—S Marshall T/C 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because you and HJ Mitchell do not get to decide who is or isn't involved. If there is any reasonable doubt about involvement he shouldn't close. Sarek was bold - but there was doubt and he was reverted. Sarek should be less bold and dedicate more attention to when he might reasonably be perceived to be involved.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell does get to decide, because he's a genuinely uninvolved person (and we need more of those in this discussion).—S Marshall T/C 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, no? Consensus decides. In this case whether or not HJ Mictehll agrees there is resonable doubt about whether he[Sarek] was involved and that requires discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that's something to discuss then? Something to move on to? Instead of driving in circles over that piece of horse flesh? It's been undone, SoV has turned in his bit, and HJ has offered to step in. That's just my opinion, from following this since it's started. That would bring us to, "Does anyone have any reason for believing that HJ should be considered involved?" Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support the decision to revert the close. One more week to go... what's the harm in keeping it open for the recommended time? I was mildly sickened by the ambiguous language of the "Truth vs. Untruth" section once I saw it "live", and I hope that at least if the "verifiability, not truth" phrase is judged to be eliminated from the lead that this mess of a paragraph is not substituted for it as some sort of compromise. Doc talk 05:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarek has an extremely poor sense of what "involvement" means — and one would think that he of all people would be cautious in this area after the multiple criticisms of him for this sort of behavior at his recent reconfirmation debate. Handy dandy guideline: If one participates in a debate AT ALL, they are involved and should not be closing a contentious matter. This seems very simple. Drama has been quadrupled here for no good reason. Per usual. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

An interpretation of Sarek's general administrative abilities should not be any issue at all: any lone admin's decision to close this particular thread early should be judged on the decision alone considering the weight of the change. I don't fault Sarek or any other admin that would have potentially closed this: but that's just me. Doc talk 06:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I rather think that an "interpretation of Sarek's general administrative abilities" was the whole point. It is not helpful to the project for a particular admin to so frequently and casually act against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No comment on that issue. The RfC has generated additional "votes"/comments on both sides since its reopening, so until November 5th it should remain open. Doc talk 08:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment: [27]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the facts, ma'am

The facts of the matter, as I see them, are:-

• SlimVirgin is the primary author of WP:V in its current form. She has opposed every substantial edit to WP:V for at least the past eighteen months, and the way it currently reads is clearly her preferred wording.
• "Not truth" has been under discussion for more than eight months now. It's probably nine.
• Blueboar came up with a compromise and began a RFC on 5th October. Contrary to the allegations above, he advertised it widely, posting notes on major policy talk pages. Diffs of this have been provided above. Also, Cunard added it to {{cent}} on 6th October (diff), so it has been linked from all centralised discussion pages since then.
• Since 5th October there has been plenty of opportunity for anyone concerned about the advertising of this RFC, or the process used, to raise those concerns.
• There was a consensus on the talk page to ask for a close, and on 27th October North8000 made a neutrally-worded post on AN to ask for an uninvolved closer.
• Later on 27th October, Sarek closed it in favour of the compromise proposal.
• Slrubenstein reverted Sarek's close, citing WP:BRD.
• I reverted Slrubenstein, asking him to stop this behaviour and finally accept the result of the RFC.
• Slrubenstein reverted me again.
• Sarek reverted Slrubenstein, restoring Sarek's close.
• SlimVirgin, an involved administrator, summarily reverted Sarek's close again without discussion.
• North8000 reverted SlimVirgin, restoring Sarek's close.
• Viriditas reverted North8000 and re-opened the discussion.
• Now users are flooding in with a very different !voting pattern. At the time of Sarek's close, before all these shenanigans, there was a 32% "oppose" rate. Since then, the "oppose" rate has exceeded 50%, indicating that the message is now reaching an entirely different audience. In my opinion this is a WP:DUCK for off-wiki canvassing of some kind.
• Shall we all start to behave like SlimVirgin? When a discussion I've been involved in doesn't go my way and has been closed, should I summarily revert the closer and post all over the place asking my WikiBuddies to come and !vote as quickly as possible? How would you lot react if I did?

I'm amazed and disappointed that she appears to be getting away with this.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I understand it, such shenanigans are SOP for our policy pages whenever there is an issue for which there is no real consensus. My view is that the Foundation should determine our core policies as they are essentially our terms of reference. They would then be a given and we would just have questions of interpretation to settle. Warden (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A "duck" for off-wiki canvassing "of some kind". Are you serious about that half-baked accusation? Doc talk 11:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a Fyi - if you have a look at the discussion page you will notice that the most heavy-duty influx of editors of editors on the 28th came after this section was started on the noticeboard. Perhaps it shook a few so far unaware editors awake, or perhaps there are simply more or different people here then the people who read WP:COIN? Please be a bit more considerate with those duck claims unless you have at least some evidence. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I just knew you'd agree after my clandestine e-mail to you regarding clandestine e-mail accusations at AN/I. So, what we need to do is... oh, wait! I said that out loud, didn't I? Nevermind... ;P Doc talk 12:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Darn it Doc! Your are giving us away again! It will now take us weeks of wikilawyering to ensure that the masses remain blinded to the might of the cabal. Wait... why is this thing recording? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As the author of the RfC, I don't think there was any canvasing. I think Excirial has it right... the change in voting pattern reflects the fact that a bunch of admins have only just now become aware of the RfC, and are rushing in to opine on it. Of course, that raises different issue... why is it that so many admins didn't know about this RfC before now? Why are so many admins only now becoming aware of an issue that has been under discussion (for months) at one of our core policies? I would think that an admin (who routinely has to make make decisions based on our policies and guidelines) would have the core policies on his or her watch list, and would keep abreast of any potential changes. And I would think they would follow what is posted on the Village Pump. I respectfully suggest that doing so in the future would be a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's important, but so is WP:WHEEL. 1 is quickly fixable, the other not so much. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, it's because that talk page has become unusable for the last eight months because of two people (not you) going on about this, to the point where people had stopped reading the page, or paying it any attention. I've been commenting on WT:V since 2005, and even I was driven away from it in September by this situation, which is why I only recently noticed that the RfC had not been widely advertised. This is why I requested in September that, if there was to be an RfC, that it be a wiki-wide one (i.e. not one on that talk page, but on a special RfC page), with very wide notification to make sure that the entire community knew what was being proposed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment As an outspoken critic of Sarek's when it comes to taking admin action when he's already involved, I really don't see it in this case at all. In fact it looks very much like this accusation is being made to gain advantage by SlimVirgin, which makes it extremely unfortunate. I wholeheartedly oppose any action based on that accusation and think SlimVirgin deserves a TROUT slap if not more for using this tactic. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Disclaimers: I generally find myself on the opposite side of the discussion from SV and I generally find myself on the same side as Sarek and S. Marshall. In this case I don't support this change and feel pretty darn strongly about it. Sarek wasn't the ideal person to close this as he had commented on the discussion in a way that can reasonably be read as supporting the side he closed for. I honestly think the discussion was really (unfortunately) very clearly in favor of changing the language and so no matter who closed it the closure was obvious. SV's revert as an involved editor was bogus and troubling. Her new notifications were fairly biased and IMO were therefore a form of canvassing. I'm tempted to change my !vote just because this type of behavior shouldn't be permitted to be successful, but that seems like a WP:POINT violation on my part (and morally questionable to boot). Given other behavioral problems SV has had with attacking other editors and related violations of policy, I think an RFCU is due. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hobit, while I can see how a reasonable person can read that as supporting the way I closed it, I actually was expressing concern about the wording of the new version (as I noted upthread).--20:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I understand entirely. But ideally the closing admin wouldn't have been involved at all. I don't see how it could have been closed any other way (even though it wasn't the way I wanted it to go), so I'm not seeing how anyone can really object. It certainly doesn't justify SV's revert as she was certainly involved even at that time. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• While I have not commented in the RfC, I have been seeing it listed on CENT. I find the claim that something that has been listed on CENT for that long not to have been widely advertised to be quite ridiculous. LadyofShalott 21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• When I look at the fact that Sarek resigned, I'm highly tempted to say that he isn't the only one who should have. Of course, the RfC was widely advertised. People who weren't aware of it weren't paying attention. Swanning over the claim that it was some kind of secret ploy to put something over on the community is utter nonsense. I think SlimVirgin's conduct (and I stipulate to the fact that she and I have a history of disagreements) smells very bad here. I'm saying this as someone who has never been convinced that V needed to be changed, who tepidly supported the proposal in a spirit of good will rather than enthusiasm, who very much expected the proposal to fail, who was impressed by the number of editors who supported the proposal more enthusiastically than I did, and who has no objection to continuing the RfC longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • By "widely advertised" SlimVirgin is referring to the use of a MediaWiki "site notice", which this RfC did not have. I only just discovered that this is what she meant. It would have been helpful if she had said this earlier. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's utter nonsense to say that this proposal was widely advertised. This whole process reminds me of Arthur Dent's protests about the proposals for the new bypass being on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard". New users aren't told of WP:CENT via the standard template, there's no mention of it in any other location that people might happen to look, so it seems to be a central discussion point for people "In The Know". Certainly here the unfounded accusations of off-wiki canvassing on behalf of the "Oppose" vote is risible given that so many of these votes came after this pseudo RFC was advertised in a location that people might actually read. It's far more probable that the prevalence of early "Yay" votes is down to the vote being posted on a dark and dusty corner of the site where only certain people might find it. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has been tried: in the relatively short time I've been on WP I've seen several attempts to change policy by posting on some obscure page and canvassing: the whole debacle about diacritics in article titles is the biggest such case. To my mind, for all the strident proclamations about consensus, it seems that WP is too often about working out how to circumvent it. The burying of an incredibly important discussion on an obscure talk page is simply the latest example. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• If the discussion doesn't go my way this time, am I as an involved user entitled to unilaterally revert the close and post in different places asking for further input?—S Marshall T/C 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • S Marshall, I appreciate your concerns, but I think you (and others) misunderstand the purpose of a request for comment. We want more users to comment, not less. We want the discussion to be open for more time, not closed. In other words, even if you could revert the close, there are enough editors who have expressed the concern that there was not enough input, and we are seeing them comment on the talk page at this time. We aren't in any hurry to close an RfC, rather quite the opposite in fact. For more information, see consensus-building by soliciting outside opinions. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Please would you answer the question, Viriditas? Do you think that it is appropriate for an involved user to revert a close, make posts inviting new editors to comment, and indeed rename the whole RFC partway through? Or do you think that it is inappropriate?—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Your comment reminds me of a man who complained about his feet getting wet as his town was flooding and his house was being swept down the river. Please try to see the big picture here, S Marshall. I know you are trying to make this about editors but it is actually about process. There was a disagreement about an allegedly involved admin closing an RfC and his close was reverted by multiple editors. When that happens, it's a good indicator that it is not a good time to close an RfC. There's also a disagreement about whether the RfC was closed prematurely and whether it was widely advertised. Please notice how I was able to frame this issue without naming a single editor. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your commentary. The fact that you don't wish to discuss a conduct issue doesn't mean that no conduct issue exists. Just in case you feel like answering the question, I'll ask it one last time. Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate for an involved user to revert a close, advertise the discussion on different fora and rename the RFC, thereby reframing the discussion in such a way as to achieve her desired result? Or would you think that she should have done this during the three weeks when the discussion was unclosed?—S Marshall T/C 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
          • The RfC should not have been closed, and the reverts demonstrate that the discussion wasn't over. This doesn't require another five months of discussion. It requires widely advertising the RfC and letting it run its natural course. You don't appear to understand this, and think that getting your way is more important than getting consensus. Consensus is attained when discussion has ended. You, nor any other editor, doesn't get to say "it has ended". That is for the community to decide. Judging by the increasing number of editors participating since the premature close was reverted, the community has decided. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
            • • For the record, *I* wouldn't be getting my way if the close by Sarek stood and I see a huge problem here. The renaming of the RfC after 3 weeks, the biased notices and the undo of a close by an involved admin (without discussion) are all troubling. Can't you see the reason for concern here? Hobit (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
                • Your reasons for concern have been recently discussed on the policy talk page and found to be without merit. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the editors in the discussion. You may want to contribute in that thread. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
                  • We seem to have a very different view on that discussion. I'd say it's split at best and doesn't cover all the topics I mentioned. But I added my 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Something that seems to me to be getting lost in all the hyperventilating about whether or not this was sufficiently widely advertised is that this wasn't even a proposal to change policy, just a proposal about how to word an explanation of how the policy works. I rather suspect that if most editors were to show up on ANI complaining bitterly that an RfC was being closed contrary to their wishes, they would have been told to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're adding a lot of emotional content to an issue that doesn't need any more drama. Notice your choice of words—"hyperventilating, complaining bitterly, closed contrary to their wishes"—that isn't at all helpful. I am completely opposed to SV's desire to keep the policy as it is, but if our positions were switched, and I felt that that an important policy RfC was not receiving wide attention, and I thought it could benefit from a so-called "relisting", I would do the same thing she is doing now. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to know that anyone who speaks truth to power on this matter will find that they will be made "the issue". So be it; I'm not surprised. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

editors changing the title of the WP:V RfC, and the description of the RfC at Template:Centralized discussion

Editors are altering the title of the WP:V RfC.  This affects links placed elsewhere.  There was a new rfcid tag issued today for the WP:V RfC, so another problem with changing the title of the RfC is that it technically creates a new RfC.  Likewise, there is edit warring at Template:Centralized discussion to change both the link and the description that has been stable since October 6.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever they end up being, let's just make sure they match. Frankly, I think the new RFC name is more accurate and informational, but really....they must match. Dreadstar ☥ 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, people, pack it in. Concentrate on discussing the matter at hand or find something constructive to do. I'm sorely tempted to block the next person who does anything to the RfC that is not unambiguously constructive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• I've requested full page protection for Template:Centralized discussion and WP:V through November 3.  I've posted at three places the text from WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."  Unscintillating (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin supervision

In the last two days, what had been a very orderly RfC has suddenly descended into utter chaos. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it is increasingly hard to do so. I am especially concerned with people changing titles and language three weeks after the RfC went live. This is highly improper. More importantly, the changes often seriously mischaracterize the proposal, which was very carefully worked out by consensus and discussion before we went live with the RfC. I won't go as far as accusing anyone of deliberate misconduct... but there sure is an appearance of gamesmanship... a last ditch attempt to influence !Votes and comments. I must therefore request that a neutral and uninvolved admin supervise the page for the remainder of the time the RfC is open, and bring some order back to the process. (note... I also request that this admin NOT be the one designated to close the RfC when the time comes... the supervisor will, of necessity, become "involved".) Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this considered acceptable?

Just now, after 2 days of a drama fest (and I'm fully aware of my own participation), after many of us think the RfC has been seriously damaged, after User:SarekOfVulcan has given up his admin tools, User:Slimvirgin wants to go on record that she's willing to AGF about Sarek. In my mind her actions sit at the bottom of all of this, and to date she hasn't received as much as a stern word from any uninvolved admins. Why is that? In my mind she needs to apologize to Sarek at the very least, not retroactively claim to be assuming good faith. This is absurd, and yet another example of how certain people get away with murder in this place when others are shown the door for breathing in the wrong direction.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do is make sure you have admins that will always back you and you can get away with pretty much anything, as long as you're not too blatant about it. Misuse of tools, canvassing, sockpuppeting, pretty much anything. Silverseren^C 23:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's grave dancing, disgusting. --Blackmane (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm indeed disappointed that so many of the Wikipedians I should be looking up to for guidance and calm are engaging in such hot-headed and in some cases transparently manipulative campaigns against each other. It erodes confidence that they're going to be careful and even-handed in their encounters with us civilians, and thereby undermines the respect someone like me would accord their opinions elsewhere, or my adherence to their actions. I can see that more than one person is in the wrong here but for the life of me I can't easily figure out who, and I shouldn't have to. Frankly, it doesn't matter if there's been a flood of new votes or campaigning, who's edit warred, or anything else, and it shouldn't matter whether the RfC was closed too early or stays open. The strength of the arguments has not changed, and is unlikely to change however many "me too" !votes appear. Neutral uninvolved administrators can take stock of the proposals in light of consensus and render their opinion. The proposal itself lacks the gravitas that some people seem to read into it, but given the extent of discussion, best that it's one or more truly respected admins who are beyond any accusation of involvement or taint of dispute here. Sound good? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't fully reviewed this discussion, and I have no plans to—I have better things to do with my time than get involved with a dramafest of this magnitude. But suppose I did, and I determined that SV was guilty of WP:OWN / WP:CANVASS violations and dramamongering. What exactly would you want me to do that is "useful"? Give SV a stern talking-to? File a request for arbitration which won't be accepted or result in anything besides wasted electrons? Open a RFC/U? None of those seem like they are going to be useful. Implement a block? Fat chance of that sticking. NW (Talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, had most users acted like this it is likely they would have been blocked at the time. They certainly would have been warned sternly on their talk page to cease the disruptive activity or else be blocked. That didn't happen, and when certain well known admins behave like this I'd say it's par for the course, unfortunately. So what could have been done when blocking time was passed? Well someone could still make it clear to SlimVirin that this is unacceptable, and that reverting RfC closes and edit warring to get her way will result in a block in the future. When editors act with impunity there is nothing stopping them from doing it again. What happens is that arguments like yours (that there is no practical value in acting) are made again and again, every time an editor like SV pushes past acceptable behavioral boundaries, and so the behavior goes unchecked from here till eternity. How on earth is that a good thing? Especially when it reinforces the notion that some editors have special privileges that they should not have. So yes, I do think "a stern talking-to" could be done and would be productive. At least then when someone pulls this kind of crap others can say, "hey you've been warned about this in the past," and admins looking at the situation can take that into account and do something productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a reprimand and warning from / after deliberation by a group of admins would be VERY useful. She wrecked months of diligent hard work put in by many people, and that place will be a train wreck if she (and supporters) manages to stop the compromise proposal which has clear support. Such would certainly help create the proper perspective going forward. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still happening by others. Some are saying that it fails if it doesn't get a 3:1 majority. (75%) North8000 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to get something VERY, VERY clear. I speak for myself here - I hope like the vast majority of contributors. The notion that I support a particular individual, in this case Slim Virgin, is a reprehensible slur. I oppose the proposal having come across the matter purely by chance, not because I support the stance taken by a particular side. The fact is this RfC has been badly managed, poorly communicated and is now a source of embarrassment. I'm not bothered either about how long you've spent pontificating over it at WP:CENT, which I'd never even heard of until I looked it up. Next time around try to do it properly and get comprehensive community support because I'll tell you now, and I would say this even if I supported the change, this looks like a case of WP:OWN to me. Leaky Caldron 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved admin in this situation, I think SlimVirgin's behavior in reverting the close was unacceptable and is wheel-warring. She should have discussed the matter with Sarek. Then brought it to ANI with the request that someone else look at the matter. She should not have taken action herself. I do not think that Sarek's comment was enough to put him over the line into involved, but I do not fault anyone for bringing it up as a potential concern - it just should have been done with Sarek first. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am coming to this issue belatedly, I didn't weigh in on the RFC (and probably won't), but I am concerned that we are seeing the similar behaviors here from SlimVirgin that were in evidence in past arbcom cases. Under "Further review and sanctions", the arb findings state: "In the event that any of the parties, contrary to our hope and expectations, continues to engage in misconduct such as that identified in this decision, a request for a reopening of this case may be submitted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration." I hope this will be revisited; it's time for an end to editing of policy pages to advance one's own goals or POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to closing the RfC

I've just returned to the wiki after a weekend away, and reviewed the above discussion, and would like to state (1) that the level of drama in this thread is absurd and is damaging, and (2) that I'll be glad to collaborate with the other uninvolved administrators who have offered to close the RfC next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but after this disaster, it probably needs to stay open longer. Like at least 2 more weeks? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a corrupted lame duck and should be closed and opened again with better communication and management to prevent the nonsense we've seen of people changing the proposal half way through. Leaky Caldron 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist options notification

OK... I am coming under a lot of criticism for not advertising the RfC widely enough. Apparently, posting a notice at the VPP, at NOR and NPOV, at WP:CENT, and at the normal RfC notice page is no longer sufficient. We now have a new standard (at least it is new to me) as to what constitutes "widely advertising" an RfC ... apparently, for an RfC to be considered "widely advertised" we now need to put a notice on the Watchlist options. I did not even realize that this was possible (and I suspect that most other non-admins would not know it was possible either), but I have been informed that this is what I should have done... so, OK... now I know. I can live with this new standard. But it raises a practical question... non-admin regular editors (like me) need guidance to tell them a) when an RfC rises to the level that it needs such "wide advertisement" and b) some instruction on how to do so. Is this something should be mentioned at WP:RFC, or what? Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a reply from another non-admin, the true answer to your question is that what constitutes "sufficient" notification is a function of who it is that is complaining about there not having been enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Interface Designer

Interface Designer (talk · contribs), who registered on 5 October, has recently become involved in multiple incidents of spamming; see the deleted User:Interface Designer/hosting, World Hosting Provider, and (same as "World Hosting Provider") User:Interface Designer/World Hosting Provider for a start, and observe that two different admins (including me) deleted those pages. He's also created World Marketplace, which is at AFD — it's not such blatant spam, but it's definitely a nonnotable company. Lastly, check his talk page before he blanked many of the sections.

These incidents aren't enough for sanctions; the problem is that he's now going well past our policies in his comments on other users and in his attempts to save World Marketplace. Finding that Andyjsmith tagged a bunch of these pages for speedy (or PROD, in the case of World Marketplace), he's now determined that Andy is a vandal, and he's discovered collusion between Andy and Yunshui and me. He's also included a very confusing group of paragraphs that I'll not attempt to paraphrase, since I can't understand it:

All those who destroy, remove, and does not create, support or help people - is causing harm to himself a thousand times bigger than that which they have caused to the person offended or insulted by their destructive actions. This is an energy law. And it works everywhere 100%. The more you'll destroy the worse it will be to you on all levels, that's for sure and certain. One of your friends, by whom I was attacked User:Nyttend, is engaged in Aikido and he knows all these laws.[paragraph break]An interesting point: if a man or a destroyer in your case the vandal (this is the one who destroys without thinking about the consequences and doing it without any warning) - if the vandal will learn over time to reflect negative energy attacks, destroying all his life (health, life, strength, brains, and so etc.), it is completely unknown why all negative energy somehow spreads to his relatives.[paragraph break]A very strange fact. A sad example: physicians surgeons. Look at them and their families. 90% of unhappy people - although they do seem quite good things. My advice: until you have at least some chance to get away from vandal way - get out and start helping people, do not try to kill them!

I'm surprised that I know all the laws of Aikido, since I've never heard of it before! Finally: after he removed the PROD on World Marketplace with the edit summary of "vandalism", Andy took it to AFD, and now Interface Designer has taken to spamming talk pages of users such as 青云道长, Euglyco, and Karatekzn with pleas to help stop either Andy or Yunshui because they're vandals.

I'm sorry if this statement is TLDR — I simply want to make sure that this user's comments are understood in their proper context. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've found zh:World Hosting Provider, zh:World Marketplace, ru:World Hosting Provider, ru:World Marketplace, vi:World Hosting Provider, and vi:World Marketplace, all of which were created by Interface Designer. I'm about to try to leave Google Translate-provided messages at those languages' ANI pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, see User:Interface Designer/drufts/World Marketplace, User:Interface Designer/drufts/mydrufts, and User:Interface Designer/drufts/Hosting; if I weren't already involved, I'd delete mydrufts as an attack and Hosting as spam. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This user promises to "put on the Wikipedia a couple of dozen different sources as well as where you can earn money in Wikipedia and on Wikipedia with whom and how." It's a spammer who doesn't get it. Second opinions? Doc talk 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the links used in these articles (so we can blacklist them)? MER-C 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the interwikis above, the domains are worldhostingprovider.com, universalmarkets.com, universalmarkets.com, netscape-navigator.info, and cpanelweb.com. Goodvac (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If they're on the iws, why not request at meta rather than here? It's a crosswiki issue. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've filed a blacklist request at meta. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Delinked domains above to prevent problems when archiving this thread). MER-C 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Given Doc's analysis above, can't we block this guy indef for spamming, and leave an unambiguous block notice to that effect? He's obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear this user has no other purpose but to spam/advertise. I've blocked the account. Nyttend, I think translating some messages to those language ANI's is a great idea.--v/r - TP 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be useful; I figured that spamming over here indicated that similar articles in other WPs were also spam. Turns out that I didn't need to translate: a Chinese administrator dumped my Google translation and remarked that the English original comments were sufficient, and people at the other two pages re-translated from my original comments. Nothing has been done at vi:wp yet, and the only comment at ru:wp makes me think that I went to the wrong page, but one of the Chinese articles is tagged for speedy, and the other is at their version of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All links have been globally blacklisted. EdBever (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User seems to have registered a new username: Webservice provider (talk · contribs), see his crosswiki edits. EdBever (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've warned the Vietnamese ANI page. Since when has that tool been available? I've never heard of it before. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a link "Global contributions" at the bottom of any "User contributions" page. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any new URLs in the vi.wp edits? (I can't check for myself because of what appears to be a bug; I can't load up those pages.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I get the same bug, but I hit "stop" on the browser before it follows through. There are no spam links in the Vietnamese page, just two innocuous refs of general marketing-topic books. Goodvac (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This vi.wp bug sounds like Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 October 13#Cannot view Wikipedia in Vietnamese --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The exact same. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no new links. He wasn't paying attention and added a couple of templates from the Russian Wikipedia to the Vietnamese article in his first edit, and his second edit was a revert of his first. I'm trying to figure out if he's registered at ru:wp; any ideas? I haven't yet found how to get the user registration log in Russian. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has registered at ru.wp but hasn't made any edits, according to the SUL Info. The account creation log says that the account was registered automatically. Goodvac (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As does the English one - for Interface Designer, not Webservice provider. [28] WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was of any significance. It just means that in the case of Webservice provider. he created the account on his homewiki (en.wp) and then logged into the account on ru.wp. For Interface Designer, his homewiki was ru.wp, and then he logged into the SUL account at en.wp, automatically creating the account. Goodvac (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Even so, I find it suspicious that he did it one way for the Interface Designer account, then reversed it for the other account. It sounds like he could be trying to slip under the radar... WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's a sock, so... Goodvac (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New user repeatedly analyzes primary sources

User Gyanvigyan1 insists repeatedly on examination of primary sources despite being told by two separate and much more experienced editors that this is WP:OR. He is displaying a serious case of WP:IDHT. This is in the context of one of the many Indian caste disputes.

Gyanvigyan1 asserts that the secondary sources misrepresent the primary sources. Links: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Gyanvigyan1 insists on analyzing primary sources. Links: [35] [36] [37] [38]

Gyanvigyan1 is told repeatedly by both Sitush and Qwyrxian that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and that if he wants to pursue the matter, to take it to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN, as appropriate. Links: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Gyanvigyan1 has not taken this matter to any of those boards but continues to argue the point on the article talk page. He is a fairly new use and has edited almost exclusively on Kayastha and Talk:Kayastha. Can he either get a mentor, or perhaps a short vacation in which he will not be distracted from reading policies? JanetteDoe (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have said that I am not going to respond further to the thread in question, and I intend to stick to that in the hope that Gyanvigyan1 will either escalate the matter as an appropriate part of the dispute resolution process or else comes to realise that their arguments in fact are for the most part WP:OR etc. They have been asking around about policy - eg: at User_talk:MangoWong#Can_you_advise_me_on_where_I.27m_going_wrong - but there certainly does seem to be a big chunk of IDHT going on. I could of course escalate the matter myself, but it would be quite difficult for me to even summarise Gyanvigyan1's points because they have become pretty convoluted & self-referencing/self-supporting - best that they do it themselves in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see one comment about a High Court decision. I don't know the specifics, but such decisions are often interpreted in a way that fits best one's opinion. The rule about primary sources is not absolute, I believe; when there is disagreement about a courts verdict, maybe the ruling itself should be quoted verbatim. Not saying that's practical in all or most cases, but a claim that secondary sources misrepresent a judicial decision shouldn't be discarded a priori on the basis of WP:NOR; again I stress that this is my personal opinion. This does not mean that his objections necessarily have any merit of course.DS Belgium (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to, in a better suited venue (such as his talk page), go into detail about the specific policies and guidelines and how they interact? It may seem a little less confrontational, minimize or eliminate the IDHT issues, be a bit more educational and point a very new editor in the correct direction. Or perhaps suggest mentorship so he's got someone to turn to with questions about what's going wrong? May not work, but it's a thought. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's hoping no one minds my taking an interest: I won't claim to have read even 1/2 the talk page and have read none of the article or the sources. What I have seen is what I think might be a good example of the problem. See: User:Gyanvigyan1 say "I don't want to come down to any specifics, right now. What I do want is an agreement in principle that..." and User:Qwyrxian say "You will never get an agreement on such principle from me. Anyone who agreed to that would be, frankly, irrelevant, because they would be violating Wikipedia's most important policies. Why can't you understand that?". The former seems to enjoy the discussion too much to want to resolve it and the later reacts quite sharply (is there a something that would equate to WP:DTFOTF (Don't throw fuel on the fire)? Perhaps something in WP:DIVA about not encouraging them). I'll mind my own business if told to do so. fg^t_c 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that was an atypical message from Qwyrxian, born out of frustration. I wouldn't read too much into one comment without reading the entire discussion which, as you intimate, is lengthy. I stand far more likely to be accused of inappropriate comments than Qwyrxian, and in some instances the accusations would be correct. As much as the "regulars" try to deal reasonably with newcomers to this sort of article, the scale of the abuse received, the certain knowledge of off-wiki campaigning, the constant socking etc does tend to wear them down from time to time. Gyanvigyan1 has receivedd many explanations of policy, many explanations of where they are not compliant with those policies, and many offers to reinvestigate the points being made by them. And still, the mantra goes on. That is why WP:DRN or similar is to my mind the most appropriate forum if they wish to pursue the matter further. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Almost all of his edits are on the talk page. There's no rule against discussing primary sources, or their interpretation, and in fact it sounds like a good idea, as long as controversial interpretations aren't put into the article. Is there a behavior problem that needs attention? Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem, per se. They can raise the issue on the talk page and discuss for as long as they wish, provided that any edits to the article itself are compliant. Whether they will continue to get a response on the TP to their raised points is moot, and that has now become a part of the problem. I suppose that if the talk page situation persists then it might move into the sphere of WP:TE, and especially so if it effectively becomes a repetitious monologue. But I think that the point being raised by the originator of this thread was that things are not moving on and the reason for this is that Gyanvigyan1 is unwilling to progress the matter via the dispute resolution process and that others (including myself) are of the opinion that the DR process, in one form or another, is the only way to move forward. I certainly cannot adequately summarise the points that Gyanvigyan1 is raising: they have become so complex etc that starting over in a forum that has most likely a more broad range of input seems to be the most sensible thing to do. Stalemate, I suppose, but I am concerned that a fairly new contributor is becoming frustrated, and it seems only right that the issue is examined on a wider basis. I do thank JanetteDoe for raising this issue here because it does need extra eyes from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what admin action is requested here. For my part, my position in that discussion is already stated: Gyanvigan1 is engaging in OR. Yes, OR is allowed on talk pages, but Gyanvigan1 wants to take the results of that OR and thereby rule out certain sources as not reliable, because they do not agree with one other source which he considers definitive, despite that article being a primary source, and only an incomplete summary of a relatively involved event (a court case). Xe says that because another source says something about the trial that is not contained in the final judgment (despite the judgment clearly stating that there was a lot of evidence that is not explicitly covered/reported in the judgment), that other source is necessarily suspect and likely non-RS. Now, if Gyanvigan1 merely wants to push that idea on the talk page, I have no problem ignoring it. If xe edits the article in accordance with that agenda, I'll revert it. If xe disagrees, it's xyr problem to take it to the relevant noticeboard or RfC, since currently a consensus does not support xyr position. In other words, as with so so many of the editors on these caste pages, they can make whatever statements of bias and unfairness they want on the talk pages (though if they're particularly egregious, we remove them per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM), but editing against policy is where the line is drawn. JanetteDoe, do you think any particular admin action is needed here? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am mind-reading, but it seems to be that admin attention might be necessary with regard to either seeking a mentorship solution or a short-term block to give some space for reading of policy. Gyanvigyan1 seems to me to be an intelligent person and one whom, despite their relatively new status as a registered contributor, has spent some time familiarising themself with procedural issues etc. A block would probably not be the solution, but some sort of guidance might be appropriate or, as I said above, just some uninvolved/additional eyes on the specific points in question. Whatever the outcome, there is an issue here that has the potential to run and run, or to cause frustration to a new contributor because those whom are already involved basically give up responding to what is perceived as repetition. This is quite a narrow field of contributions & comments: it should hopefully not be too difficult to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor either mentorship, or a short term block, or both. Sitush has summarized my concerns very well. I'd add that Gyanvigyan1 has tried at least once to claim a variation of silence equaling consent [44] which is also not going to end well, and probably lead to a cycle of reverts and more frustration on each side at perceived obtuseness. Is there something we can do to get him on the right track, given that we are trying to attract and retain new editors, especially for less covered subject areas? JanetteDoe (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dicklyon has it wrong. There is something wrong with discussing novel interpretations of original sources on article talk pages, and that is WP:NOTFORUM. causa sui (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what's going on here - research into bias on Wikipedia?

See the recent edits to Boudica and the comments on the talk page of Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk · contribs) (and mine). Does any of this ring a bell? I'm not saying Admin action is needed here, but it seems vaguely familiar and this is the most likely place to ask. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this is "the most likely place to ask", please remember that all contributions to wikipedia are logged, and so can be downloaded and stored. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does that include the intimidating speech you're using above? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain Dougweller is aware of that. Your point, Boo? LadyofShalott 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I warned him against posts that can be very easily read as attempts to stifle discussion. He responded thus. This isn't a serious researcher; it's a troll. (Note that I have no interest in Scottish/English history and have no foreknowledge of the troubles at Boudica.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The prompt rattling off of WP:POLICY, WP:POLICY and WP:POLICY, along with his edit summaries, has me smelling sock. In addition, as has been mentioned before, we're building an encyclopedia here, we're not rats in a cage for researchers to study. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The three links in the beginning of the post I quoted are the exact same ones I cited in the warning to him, links and all. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock, but, per WP:AGF, I will give some leeway to the user who did that so, hopefully, that user will not do it again. –MuZemike 07:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an editor who was blocked (or perhaps banned?) for exactly the same type behavior. Actually, I think there were two instances in the last 14 months or so. That would probably be why Doug thinks it familiar. Sorry, I cannot place the names, but if anyone is really interested, I could probably dig through AN/I over the next couple days and find the instances. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going crazy after all. :) Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly you are both thinking of User:Marshallsumter, who was using a combination of Wikipedia and Wikversity to do some sort of nebuluous research (i.e., determining what was "true" based on what articles got kept on Wikipedia). The whole mess, including ban discussion, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.. This seems like a slightly different modus operandi, more like the way some long term users claim to do "research" by editing as IPs or new editors to "see how the other side is treated". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief, that guy. He was banned and for good cause, he was causing even more of a headache than the usual disruptive person because he wasn't quite so blatant about it. If this is the same person we should definitely try to keep him off of this site. -- Atama頭 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A research project into "bias"? Really? That smells like WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Any chance we could show this editor the door? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That was not the editor I was thinking of (well, except of course as a possible sock of each other). The editor was one who was going on rants on Jimbo's talk page, as well as here, their own talk page (and possibly elsewhere). Seems a recurring theme... :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User BigzMMA (again)

As soon as his 96 hour ban ended, user BigzMMA recreated all of the articles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA. He recreated the UCMMA article as Cage Rage UK and the articles on UCMMA individual events were recreated by adding a number. For example, Ultimate Challenge MMA – Fists of Fire became UCMMA 20 – Fists of Fire, Ultimate Challenge MMA - Warrior Creed became UCMMA 22 - Warrior Creed, etc. All of the just deleted articles were recreated just as he said he would during the deletion discussion. Papaursa (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm checking the articles and deleting them as appropriate. I'll see how he responds to that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This was expected, given he said he was going to do it. It's also rather pointy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And he hasn't been blocked because ... ? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, good question. C.Fred? Bushranger? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My first instinct was to block, but I thought I recalled a comment when he was brought up before about giving him more time (to either mature as an editor, or as WP:ROPE), so I wanted whoever had commented to comment here first. However, looking back at the disucssion in question, it seems I was remembering a discussion about some other editor. Given that, a block is in order; I've given him two weeks, but wouldn't be opposed if anybody else believes it's indef time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you've handed him rope right now, in a very good faith manner. Advise him quite carefully that in 2 weeks, if his behaviour continues, it will be indef. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Myself and another admin have both declined unblock requests, and there's some pretty clear indication that BigzMMA isn't getting what the real problem is--xe's specifically asked us to tell xyr what xe needs to say in order to be unblocked, rather than, oh, trying to figure out what was wrong with the behavior in the first place. We'll need to be watching xyr contributions after the block expires. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's another unblock request, and quite the lengthy one. Let's just say, if I were playing bad-AFD-argument bingo this morning, I'd win. I've attempted to lay out precisely where this editor is doing it wrong, as I'd feel bad (for a few minutes, at least) if this editor went to indef without at least the attempt at helping them to climb down off the reichstag. I'm not optimistic, but (per WP:ROPE) I don't think it's indef time yet. Though watch for threats, as he reiterates several in the unblock request. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Thornburgh

Resolved

 – AfD closed. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin close this and appropriately deal with the nominator? I'm pretty sure nominating a former State Governor and US Attorney General on grounds of notability is both baseless and disruptive. Thanks. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as "speedy keep", but I'm not sure what the nominator's motivation for the nomination was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hard telling, but it's interesting that the editor (under the name Hhhter (talk · contribs) at least) had a handful of edits 4 years ago and then suddenly reappeared. Sounds like a political thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Also sounds like a "hater". They're gonna hate... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bigdelete needed

Resolved

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux (3rd nomination) as "delete", but cannot delete Comparison of Windows and Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because it has more than 5000 revisions. Can somebody who has the required permission please press the button? And is there a standard process for making such requests so that we can mention it at WP:Deletion process? Thanks,  Sandstein  08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The directions on the deletion page (admin only link) said to take it to meta:Steward requests/Speedy deletions, so I did. Someone'll notice either here or there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I used an AfD closing script and so did not see the actual deletion prompt. I've added this information to the deletion process page.  Sandstein  13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting side-issue. Looking in the now-deleted history shows that the page has only 4,106 edits. Still a lot, but it's shy of the 5,000 that is supposedly the threshold for needing BigDelete permission. This makes me wonder if the threshold is actually lower than we think, and what is the actual threshold? - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Poked around for a bit, and mw:Manual:User rights says it's based on the value of $wgDeleteRevisionsLimit. I'm not sure how to look at the php code to get the actual value, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

IP address vandalism

User:193.253.141.64 and User:193.253.141.65 have been using the IP addresses for vandalism only. Please help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This appear to be run-of-the-mill minor vandalism from a shared IP account. I would post escalating warnings, and if it continues, take it to WP:AVI. I see no reason to bring it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

String of unhelpful edits by user Apoorvmehta9

This guy has been making either blank edits or vandalizing the article on the Tokyo earthquake.I request that he be banned from editing this article for at least a week. --Sam 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Userpage link[45] (above link incorrect)
• UserStats: Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.I had no idea how to link anything :| --Sam 02:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:7arazred - disruptive editing

7arazred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user persists in adding GA and/or FA status to Revolution Software even though the article has failed twice at WP:GAN; Talk:Revolution Software/GA1, Talk:Revolution Software/GA2. Several edits by 193.111.221.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follow the same pattern. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 Efforts have been made by several editors to communicate with User:7arazred on this and other issues as can be seen at Revision history of User talk:7arazred, The only response has been the user blanking their talk page and no change in behaviour. There appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing so I am bringing this here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User has also recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Revolution Software and the corresponding Template:WikiProject Revolution Software without, as far as I can tell, having gone through WP:COUNCIL/P first. I suspect a conflict of interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am this User, and I want to tell You a few things - First of all, every time I renominated Revolution Software as GA, I always improve the Article, and fixed the problems that the reviewer stated. For example: The Reviever of the first GA nomination said that a few sources weren't reliable - I replaced it with reliable ones. He said that the source of the image has to be provided - I provided it. He said Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted - I fixed that too. He said that Wikipedia can't be used a source - I fixed too. I also presented the info more logically, which he said I needed to do. He said I should add sales figures, and I added many. I even added Average Review Scores. But, even if I improved the Article and the issues it had (almost all of the issues), they kept saying that nothing was fixed, which made me furious. I made WikiProject: Revolution Software so others could help me improve the Revolution Software-related Articles.--7arazred (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out on the second GAN, you made it look like the problems were all fixed, by evaluating it yourself. That seems like poor judgment at best, and down-right deceptive at worst. Relisting a second GAN only 10 days after the first failed is a bit fast. Second, a Wikiproject for a single company is very rarely necessary; in fact, I was just guessing and trying some of the biggest companies in the world, and I can't find any Wikiprojects for individual companies outside of WP:WikiProject Disney. Revolution Software has, what, less than 20 pages in total associated with it? I'm inclined to agree with Redrose64, and worry that there may be a conflict of interest here.

We may want to consider deletion of the second GAN page, given that from the beginning it wasn't a nomination so much as it was an attempt to declare by fiat that the article had met all of the previous concerns; then, if someone wants to renominate again, in maybe a month or two, and ideally a different editor, then a second GAN could be opened. Alternatively, if any regular GA reviewers think the article may be on the right track, we could just blank that page and move forward with an actual second GAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not just about the GA nomination. The problem is that you don't discuss your edits, make big changes, and simply blank your talk page after someone tries to communicate with you. You have not followed community guidelines, you ignored other editor messages, and afterwards repeated the same edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, :D ! --7arazred (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Syjytg's return to Disruptive Editing

User:Syjytg was indef blocked in late March of 2009, after a history of disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and proven cases of sockpuppeteering. Per discussions between Syjytg and Users Frank and LessHeard vanU, the indef block was lifted in November that same year.

Since October of this year, it has appeared that Syjytg has returned to his previous behaviour of tendentious and disruptive editing. Discussions and reminders in that user's talkpage have done nothing to stop it. Given the user's past behavior, I would like to recommend that Syjytg be indef blocked again, this time with extreme prejudice. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see a ton of small edits (see UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying Group G) that, apparently, no one is taking offense to. We can't block him for not providing edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Drmies, please take a look at the user's talkpage. There were complaints made, and warnings issued. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• While the editor was previously indef blocked for much the same issues, I feel that the near two years of block free editing should mean that past issues should not be brought into any current dispute - that any decisions should be based on the current concerns only. Under the circumstances, I feel that the full range of dispute resolution processes need to be exhausted before "re instatement" of the indef block need be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I guess I pretty much said the same thing on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I believe we need to see this from the perspective of his past sockpuppeteering. This user has seriously breached an important tenet of Wikipedia rules before, with reckless disregard for the rules that he already knows. Also, it should be noted that the user only returned to active editing in late 2010, so it is not 2 years of block-free editing, but 1 year, and another year (more or less) of absence (and absence means you can do no wrong, because you did nothing that will get you in hot water to begin with). These things alone means that the leash should always be short, at least for a few more years. If he has shown proof that he has reformed, I would agree with LessHeard VanU and Frank, but has Sykytg shown such proof? Not by a long shot. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, it has come to my attention that Syjytg attempted to apply for rollback rights a mere 10 days after his unblock request was granted, with the reason "to fight vandalism" ([46]). Fortunately, the rights were not granted. This is yet another proof that Syjytg never had any intention to play nice after his unblock, and had he received rollback rights, he would have reverted edits that he did not like in a very, very efficient manner. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Message from GoldenGlory84

Hello, this is GoldenGlory84, it has recently come to my notice that you accused me of being a sockpuppet of Grawp which is not true, I am also not Wiki brah which was slightly discouraging and discruntleling as a new comer to be accused of being a sockpuppet of. I have since then created around 60 sockpuppets which you all seemed to miss on the same ip adress. I am currently editing not from a proxy but from a different computor. The main reason I am here is to clarify is that none of this would have started if I was allowed to edit from my talk page from my GoldenGlory account, I also blame this on user HelloAnnyong who had originally accused me of being a sockpuppet of Wiki brah, and had helped block my primary account GoldenGlory84. I also find it very troubling the amount of people accused of being a false sockpuppet and abused by wikipedia, such as user American Brit, User Altenmann and User MascotGuy just to name a few, I still love this website but I think it should be run better. From --GoldinallitsGlory74 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, this account is now also blocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed and blocked:

• Lidpser (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sortstan22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting reversal of topic ban against User:Wikid77

Moved to WP:AN

User:Wikid77 here, requesting an admin to reverse the indef topic ban against me (issued 4 June 2011: here), while I was on wikibreak and blocked for 1 month (by User:Fram), regarding the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" affair. Now that the appeal trials of Knox and Sollecito have found them "innocent" (on 3 October 2011), and the re-created article "Amanda Knox" has survived the 2nd WP:AfD nomination, I feel that I can return to editing, or discussing, the topic after the contentious appeal trials and WP:AfD of the Knox article have ended. I have waited these 5 months, to delay reversing the topic ban, while editing hundreds of other articles (contribs), to allow other users to debate the issues without posting messages to influence their decisions. The jury in Italy ruled on the murder charges as "innocente" and other WP editors discussed the AfD of "Amanda Knox" and concluded the article should remain, as I had noted when I created the prior version in June 2010. As I had stated in June this year, the next time I think that people are mounting extreme personal attacks against me, I will take the matter to WP:WQ (or another notice-board), rather than directly reply to attacks which would likely escalate the conflict into a further disruptive mode. I apologize that I did not report the prior attacks to WP:WQ and realize that my replies caused additional anger, where going on wikibreak to escape attacks was too late in the prior matter. Thanks for taking time to review this topic ban. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose. I'm afraid I can't see much in your request other than "the Italian courts have decided I was right all along, so I should be un-banned", and feel that if you were to resume editing in this area further disputes would ensue. Perhaps it would be better for you to look for other topics to contribute on? Better than risking becoming involved in further conflicts. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Support. I'm assuming that Wikid77 hasn't caused trouble editing other subjects during the topic ban. The fact that Knox has been acquitted is relevant. The issue of what weight to give to sources that argue that she is innocent obviously isn't the hugely contentious issue that it used to be. You could say that after the acquittal, this isn't the same topic anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. In fact, far from "allowing other users to debate the issues without posting messages to influence their decisions", I'd argue that with edits such as this, you've come pretty close to breaking the conditions of your topic ban more than once already (it was supposed to be broadly construed, applying across namespaces on Wikipedia, as far as I can remember). You mention the recently recreated Amanda Knox article - it reminds me of a certain older version (written by you, as it happens) that was swiftly redirected (again, for reasons that should be quite obvious - WP:SYNTH and bizarre illustration using an obscure German painting being just two of many apparent problems). For reference, here is a link to the ANI discussion documenting the events that led to the indefinite topic ban. Since most of the arguments presented in that discussion would seem to be just as applicable now, I recommend that other editors set aside some time to read through that first and then consider whether the statement above demonstrates any clear commitment to keeping that kind of behaviour in check from now on. Personally, I don't see it. SuperMarioMan 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, considering some of the insults that this user directed at others just before the block and topic ban were imposed, any talk of "the next time I think that people are mounting extreme personal attacks against me" is rather disingenuous. SuperMarioMan 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose per SuperMarioMan. --John (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Users who have not only expressed a vested interest in a particular side of a conflict, but also edited disruptively, aggressively, and tendentiously in said topic to support that interest provide a double-barreled reason as to why they should be kept at arm's length away from it. Note, beware of SPAs showing up here to "vote"; this topic area has been infested with them over the years, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Procedural Note These sorts of proposals are supposed to be discussed on WP:AN, not this board. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Please, no. Per SuperMarioMan. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Question - The case is effectively over. What vital information does the OP need to post to the article that someone else won't be able to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Furthermore - Wikid77's topic ban had nothing to do with the outcome of the recent successful appeal, and everything to do with xys editing. It is difficult to see the relevance of any verdict in the case. pablo 22:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Basalisk. Sorry, but unless you can prove that you've learned from your mistakes, I see no reason to support. Action, not rhetoric is what's needed. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Support - since his topic ban I have found him to be quite level headed - there are so many SPA and POV editors in relation to Knox that his re-entry to the topic won't even be noticed. Under those circumstances and considering her innocence now which has totally altered the environment in regard to the topic, imo it's unfair and unnecessary to single him out any more. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Once Knox skipped outta town and back home, I had also assumed that the shitstorm surrounding this topic would die down. Alas, it seems to have ramped up even more as they go into "I told you so" mode. One long-time WP:SPA, CodyJoeBibby has just been indef'ed for harassment while a "new" face, Overagainst, has recently been ramping up the heat and rancor, well on his way to a similar fate. This is a terrible topic area to edit in, and I see no reason to let a former miscreant tap in and return the ring. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Comment. I'd just like to point out that the fact that Amanda Knox has been acquitted makes no difference to this issue. The OP wasn't banned because the community thought he had a stupid opinion on Amanda Knox which has since been proved correct, he was banned because of the way he conducted himself in regards to the topic. Knox's acquittal changes nothing about Wikid's previous behaviour; he'd be better off himself to find something else to do that he feels less emotional about. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Oppose - The fact that the real world has suddenly reversed course and aligned with the editor's opinion is irrelevant, the topic ban was not imposed because of his beliefs, but because of his behavior. The reversal of the Knox verdict does nothing whatsoever to change that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

The film Dazed and Confused was located at Dazed and Confused with a disambiguation page at Dazed and Confused (disambiguation). The film article was moved today to Dazed and Confused (film), and Dazed and Confused was converted into a disambiguation page. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Dazed and Confused page move, there is some dissent about this move, and considering that there was a requested move a couple of years ago at Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), I think that the move should be reverted and for there to be an official request to move. A neutral admin can determine if there is a consensus to make a move or not. After all, per WP:RM, potentially controversial moves should not be unilateral. There was a similar situation where Caché (film) was moved unilaterally, but it was reverted and went through a request and stayed put. Can we go ahead and have it done here? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps wait until consensus is reached, about whether to revert or keep title "Dazed and Confused" as the dab-page listing all 3 articles (the 1993 film, the magazine, and 1967/1969 song). The recent move might be upheld by consensus, because since the song was on Led Zeppelin's first album, perhaps there is no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case, even though the 1993 film Dazed and Confused (film) has become somewhat of a cult film about Austin, TX and starring the Texan actor Matthew McConaughey (I had edited the film article a while ago). -Wikid77 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  The problem is that if there is a request to move and the outcome is no consensus, then the normal step is to leave the setup as-is. That's why I think the move should be reverted back to the status quo. If the outcome is no consensus, then the status quo will be kept. It shouldn't happen the other way around. Any admins willing to undo the move? I'll set up the request myself. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert to the status quo, per Erik, until consensus one way or the other has been reached. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just done so now. Note that at the WikiProject Film discussion, Timeshifter (the person who made the move) said, "I agree with Lugnuts. But I don't want to argue about it. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is another idiotic Wikipedia rule. As if making titles clearer is a bad thing. Dumb, dumb, dumb. " Luckily, Timeshifter's opinion about what rules are "dumb" or "smart" has no bearing on how we edit Wikipedia. As was stated above, we have to first revert to the long-standing version until such time as a discussion shows consensus to change how the set of related articles are organized, due to the way that no-consensus defaults in move discussions. I'll open a discussion on both places about whether or not a move should take place (I have no personal opinion myself, beyond the fact that I happen to like one of the artistic works more than the other :) ). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, Erik, you should have notified Timeshifter of this discussion when you opened it, per the big orange box at the top of this page. I've done so now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not perceive it as an editor-related issue, so I did not mention him here. If I could revert the move myself, I would have done so and started a move request myself to get a fuller consensus. So this was just a request to set that up. Thanks for making the moves. The discussion can be seen here: Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) - Requested move. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Wrontast

Resolved

Wrontast (talk · contribs)'s first two edits have been to vandalize the User Talk pages of other users. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. They've been blocked already. The Mark of the Beast (talk)

Hey, it's the nowiki vandal. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeat offender making personal attacks

Resolved

Apparently User: Hermanator1, who has been blocked once before for making personal attacks, hasn't learned his lesson. Here he is up to his tricks again... Difluoroethene (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post about this user as well. He refuses to get that not all presidential candidates need to file with the FEC. Now he's making personal attacks, acting disruptively by adding the non-notable candidate Ken Grammer (who is possibly him) and making threats. It seems obvious that he made these edits. He needs to be blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week given the NPA violations as well as the edit warring. I'm sure there will be some sort of response on their talk page; whether it is something constructive or not is up to them. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

... and as soon as I posted, this gem. Extended to an indefinite block. I'm sensing some serious WP:COMPETENCE issues here. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This user has continued trolling and violating NPA on their talk page, so I've revoked their access and WP:DENYed the page. I see no evidence that they are here to contribute constructively. Behavioral evidence also suggests possible IPsocks; one was already tagged and one was already blocked not too long ago. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any other users contributuiong to these attacks? There may be a sock situation were not hearing about. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Olaf, not all vandals and serial violators are socks. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but many are. Never take any chances. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• LOL. Well, that was amusing. causa sui (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential Problems on Voskhod Spacecraft "Globus" IMP navigation instrument

Resolved

 – no admin intervention required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Voskhod Spacecraft "Globus" IMP navigation instrument, an article on Soviet Soyuz Rocket navigation systems, could have potential problems in my eyes and other editors eyes. The article may seem a bit promotional, but considering the amount of effort gone into the article, as well as the pictures dedicated to it, it may have too much material and relevance to delete. It seems like a very tough decision, as I see the creator, User:Francoisguay, has put a lot of effort into the article, which is seen everyday on my watchlist. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you're asking for here--what is an admin supposed to do about these potential problems? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't an issue for AN/I. It should be discussed on the article's talk page, at WT:SPACEFLIGHT, or at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Krishna Hates Fags

Resolved

 – Already blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Krishna Hates Fags (talk · contribs) is the latest incarnation of a serial sockpuppet. Please block it. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems Jayron took care of this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet_Archaeologist (talk · contribs) seems to be relevant to deal with.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. Yo, Jayron, if you're up for it, he's got a bunch of similarly-named socks, some of which I think are currently unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been busy blocking and deleting and cleaning up. If you have a list, I'll take care of them. --Jayron32 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you got all the ones he had created and updated today. Jolly good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to get a list of users containing a particular character string. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The UAA reporting bot already has the "fags" string (and variations) in its dictionary, so most of these should show up at UAA pretty quickly. --Jayron32 04:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Groan) This creep again. I'll tag the new accounts if someone else doesn't (fair warning) ;> Doc talk 04:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that he isn't easy to spot, but feel free to go ahead and tag them. I'm heading to bed myself. --Jayron32 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I used the {{blockedsock}} template, since CU was not involved enough to mark it as confirmed via CU per {{CheckedSockpuppet}}. That confirmation would be nice, of course :> A "Suspected" sockpuppet category could be created, but it's awfully "ducky". Doc talk 04:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't need to tag them as "suspected"; it's quite obvious. –MuZemike 05:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Are they all blocked without access to email? Part of this guy's MO is sending nastygrams via the email system. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Maunus pushing POV on Race related articles

Maunus, an American based social anthropologist who ascribes to the minority position in international biology and anthropology that race is a meaningless concept, is attempting to censor factual information from impeccable sources from race and genetics articles, and describing the addition of said facts as "vandalism".[47][48][49] (In Soviet Russia it would be "wrecking" and I would be starved in Siberia, so perhaps I should be grateful for small mercies).

A common argument parroted by the quasi political AAA and editors like Maunus is that "there is more genetic variation within races than between them, therefore race is of no taxonomic significance".

This argument has been discredited in several ways, one by the eminent British geneticist AWF Edwards who argued that this over simplification ignores correlations in the variation, and recently and perhaps more forcefully by Long (2010), who found that there is more variation within chimpanzees and humans than between them, in fact a very similar ratio (0.12 for human races vs. 0.18 for human races and chimpanzees).[50] It is this second, rug pulling fact, that Maunus wants swept under.

My simple request is that user Maunus is warned to stop his partisan censorship of facts which expose the fraudulence of his and his ilk's POV.

In addition Maunus is adding material by a philosopher, Kaplan, who entirely misses the point and argues that perhaps variation does not structure into races (he does not and cannot know whether this is the case). This, however, is entirely irrelevant to the section, which is simply about the argument "there is more genetic variation within races than between them, therefore race is of no taxonomic significance", which the chimpanzee finding proves to be nonsense. Clearly a case of shifting the goalposts and trying to claim "Lewontin was right all along". 94.116.120.5 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not suitable for ANI. You should look into the possibilities listed in WP:Dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I think that perhaps he wants to report me for abusing the admin tools: I have semiprotected the two pages where the above IP has been repeatedly removing sourced material without having attempted to establish a consensus to do so on the talkpage. I am clearly an involved admin so perhaps I shouldn't have done that. On the other hand the IP is very likely a block evading sockpuppet - his fourth edit was stalking me to an unrelated talkpage an wherre he accused me of being a "wikipedia Jew". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: Maunus has now abused his admin tools by locking the article so IPs cannot edit. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks like Maunus is trying to exercise ownership of the article, and using his admin authority to do it. That is not appropriate, and that makes it an ANI issue. Maunus should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to force the IP to use the talkpage instead of editwar his preferred version into existence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the edit-war? I can see you two fighting *across* articles but on article I just looked at, he makes an edit, you revert and then Indef protect the article - isn't that a text-book case of using admin tools in a dispute? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. I have given my reasons for why I did it. Unprotect if you wish. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Heat > light causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you're serious about "dialogue", you should restore it to the version of probably October 16th, before the current debate began. What you've repeatedly added is nothing more than an essay trying to push a minority viewpoint, and the fact that it's "sourced" is a weak argument, a typical POV-pushing argument. Also, you chopped "races" off a sentence, leaving it as "Also other factors such as endogamy for cultural reasons may give rise to genetically differentiated." That sentence makes no sense. In short, your changes are not an improvement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That is nonsense. It is not an essay pushing a minority viewpoint. You apparently know little about the topic otherwise you wouldn't suggest that a viewpoint advanced by the forempst specialists on the biology of "race" and an entry in Wiley's encyclopedia of the social sciences is a minority view and summarising it in the article is an "essay". I have unptrotected the articles - there seems to be enough eyes on them now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Scientists can argue their wishful-thinking viewpoint all they want, but they don't rule the world. The reality is that the concept of race is alive and well. Also, the revert will have to go back farther than October 16th to remove your POV-pushing essay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks for offering your opinion on the issue of race, I am sure you feel better now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, I would feel better if race really didn't matter. But in the real world, it does. And no amount of wishful thinking by scientists and a few blinders-on editors here will make it otherwise. Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy. You should know that already, yet you insist on doing it. Not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Are you going to back up your personal attacks with evidence?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What "personal attack"? That you should know better? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC) That I am pushing a POV in order to give it more weight than reliable sources require. I am not going to speculate about what you should know, because by now it is obvious to everyone that you don't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems both sides are at fault here: a censring admin and a fanatical Ip editwarring. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 15:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• ANIs filed by obviously logged-out and/or block-evading IPs aren't worth the pixels the complaint is printed on, honestly. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, I would agree. But that does not justify an admin exerting ownership of an article and screwing up its intelligibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would beg any admin (or any editor who considers herself mature and gets involved in these things) to read over the talk history of the article before judging Maunus. Maunus is very clearly not a single-purpose account, and has a well-established reputation for contributing good content to articles consistent with our core content policies and consistent with sober, thorough research. I have never seen her add content without reliable sources, and I have seen her make constructive edits to a wide range of articles, "Race" being only one of a great many.

However, the "Race" article has attracted a great many SPA's, including one or two SPA banned users who have returned several times as sock-puppets. The reason they were banned had to do with edit-warring characterized by a lack of reliable sources or demonstrable misuse of sources, as well as outright racist edits. All of this is in the edit history of various articles including the Race article.

Shakinglord is right that we have a fanatical IP edit warring, and I would add that this IP is trying to include views that have been discussed ad nauseum by registered non-banned/not-sockpuppet editors and have been removed from the article. And removed. And removed. And removed. And removed. And removed. Are you getting bored of my repetition yet? Well, I got bored, which is why I hardly watch the Race article anymore. I would have to repeat "And removed" a hundred times before you begin to reach the level of boredom that anyone actively participating in the development of the Race article experiences.

And you accuse Maunus of "censorship?" This boggles my mind. What else do you expect a responsible editor to do, when a "fanatical IP" &mdash: Shaking Lord's words, not mine — keeps restoring material that well-informed, policy adhering editors have discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed (sorry i am doing it again again again) and keep concluding that it is not-notable and misrepresents the scholarly research? What else should Maunus do? If you truly believe the anon. IP is fanatically edit warring, Maunus has no choice but to raise the protection of the article. It is the only responsible thing to do. Maunus is not censoring the article and is not asserting ownership — ownership? what a ludicrous accusation when this article is the result of dozens of very knowledgable and skilled researchers collaborating over many years to produce a stable and credible article!!!! — Maunus is protecting it. That is the only responsible thing to do. You should all be giving her barnstars. And someone with checkuser or other privileges might consider investigating the possibility that the IP is another sock-puppet. Maybe I am wrong, but that is far more likely than Maunus claiming ownership and censoring other good-faith editors! But at least take the time to read through all the archived talk. You will see that Maunus is only protecting a well-established consensus version from changes that a host of anonymous IPs have tried to force on the article over many years. Read the archives; then you can judge Maunus. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would to express my condolences to Slubenstein because he gets bored trying to censor facts he doesn't like. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming causa sui (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, at least Maunus fixed the unintelligible sentence that he caused. Now all he has to do is remove his POV-pushing essay, and he'll be good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) ...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Bugs... please READ the sources involved before you throw accusations like "POV-pushing essay" around. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not backed up by reliable sources. eldamorie (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC) What the Hell are you even talking about? Do you even understand the article/s? There is a difference between social perceptions and scientific reality. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Bugs, put a cork in it. You clearly know nothing of the subject, and we don't need your facile off-topic commentary here. This is a serious matter. Go watch your cartoons... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Race is a serious matter in the real world. Wishful thinking won't make it otherwise. Put your own cork in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a long-running attempt by endless IP/sockpuppets to spin 'race' related articles to suit a minority POV - often accompanied by personal attacks and innuendo. Maunus was clearly doing what any responsible admin would - which is to prevent such POV-pushing by individuals unwilling to either work within Wikipedia policy, nor engage in meaningful dialogue. Give the complaining IP a clip round the ear with a boomerang, and send him/her on their way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Flaming causa sui (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Scientists can argue their wishful-thinking viewpoint all they want, but they don't rule the world" — must be one of the dumbest things I have ever read, in relation to writing an encyclopedia. Andy, I think it's pretty clear that the bunny actually does not want to be taken seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Maybe the next time there's an ANI filing about an editor being "racist", I should send the offender your way so you can scientifically prove that race doesn't exist. Good luck with that! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Who is right in this content dispute is not relevant to AN/I, as difficult as it may be for any of us to detach from it, given its emotionally charged content and context. Maunus should not have used sysop tools to enforce his own position in the content dispute, no matter what. Using semi-protection to favor registered over unregistered editors is already bad when you're uninvolved; when involved it's a serious problem. Do it like everyone else does it and work through WP:RFPP: if you're as right as you think you are, it shouldn't be hard to find an uninvolved admin who can agree with you. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  I see that Maunus self-reverted the semi-protection. A good call. I fully protected Race and genetics for 3 days to give the parties time to follow WP:DR. "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper) is another locus of dispute but the edit warring doesn't yet seem severe enough to justify protection. causa sui (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  And by your fully-protecting Maunus's version, he gets to continue to own the article. Good for you. (At least his unintelligble sentence got fixed first.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not my version you obnoxious *****.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's a copyvio, BLP matter, or the like, the version shouldn't matter. Everybody agrees that admins shouldn't use tools when they're involved in a content dispute - or in Manus' case, when they can't keep their cool - but they are allowed to deal with suspicious or disruptive IPs, and that the line between the two is sometimes fuzzy. The rest of the stuff about race, particularly the long-running sideshow of mutual disparagement among the "race does not exist" cast and crew, belongs on NPOV or some talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, please cease your attacks on Maunus, or raise a proper complaint (though expect a boomerang if you do). You clearly have no knowledge of the subject matter, and your comments have achieved nothing beyond making this discussion more heated than it need be. This isn't a forum for uninformed opinion on article content. Or if you think you actually do know what you are talking about, find some relevant WP:RS and contribute to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. I live in America. I know plenty about race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has Maunus not been warned for his intemperate language? Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think everybody is waiting for you to do the honors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The heat death of the Universe is some way off yet. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out which is the most commonly-used obscenity that has 5 letters instead of 4. Maybe I'm better off not knowing. We wouldn't want Maunus to erupt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I use neither obscenities nor four letter words.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• As we all know, protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current revision. The purpose of protection is to encourage dispute resolution by closing the door to edit warring. I'll do the honors and suggest that editors who continue to engage in personal attacks and flaming (on AN/I of all places) may find themselves blocked, whoever they are. The article is protected and it's now time to resolve the dispute on the relevant talk pages. causa sui (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Maunus has been constructive contributor to the R&I article arena. I don't always agree, so I'm not here as a supporter. What is clear, however, is that there was a disruptive IP that needed to be dealt with. There's a conflict here on Maunus' part only iff there were some genuine attempt to control content; clearly, Maunus' involvement in this topic area has not taken that form—although the behavior of some others certainly has. Much ado about nothing. Nothing to see here, move on. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all of Maunus's buddies for jumping in to give me a kicking. I'm sorry for being a "disruptive" IP. Obviously the fact that I am right is of little importance. 94.116.120.5 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruption at AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellator 55

Bit of an odd one this; a number of SPAs turning up to !vote "Keep" (with no decent rationale) on an AfD I started a while back. At least one of them (the interestingly named User:WR Reader), has only ever edited before to !vote Keep on ... an AfD that I started. Now we also have User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive with phrasing interestingly similar to WR Reader. All this just as we were starting to develop a well-discussed consensus that the articles should be redirected to the season articles - even good-faith Keep !voters such as User:Thesteve agreeing on this one. Thing is, what to do? SPI isn't for fishing, as we get repeatedly told, so are we just dependent on the competence of the closing admin? Black Kite (t) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this have anything to do with the section about User:BigzMMA above? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark em as SPAs and let the closing admin sort it.--v/r - TP 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Already done; my Spideysense is tingling though and I don't think it's User:BigzMMA. Black Kite (t) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Call the Checkusers, we obviously seem to have sock/meat problem. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

NLP

Anyone fancy taking a look at Neuro-linguistic programming? There is an edit war over the use of the word "controversial" [51], possible outing [52] and accusations of socks of User:HeadleyDown William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fully protected 3 days for the content dispute. The outing diffs should probably be revdeleted. I'm going to do a quick review and probably delete them. causa sui (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Further review has only left me with more questions than answers. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown suggests that the article has been the subject of long-term and severe abuse by a sophisticated and determined sockmaster. The quoted diff appears to be an effort by an IP who, while loading the narrative with unhelpful histrionics, is making some sincere effort to identify sockpuppets of HeadlyDown. The question may be whether we think WP:OUTING is a protection also enjoyed by long-term abusers like HeadlyDown, and whether protecting the privacy of returning community banned vandals is a priority over using available means to protect the project. By the way I worded that loaded question, it's obvious what my inclination is. Further, we should expect that an article being the subject of such determined and complex abuse (reaching RFArb twice, and without any complete resolution) would give rise to an atmosphere of witch-hunts. This bears closer examination. causa sui (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This summary seems fair. We don't engage in outing, even of our worst abusers. If someone is that bad then in the event of legal action the information should perhaps be available to WMF if reliable, and if a few seasoned trusted users (such as Checkusers, Arbitrators and a few admins) who directly work on the case are aware of the relevant background it could possibly help them to detect or prevent abuse better, but it should not be put on the public wiki, and if posted by anyone on-site it should where practical be removed per WP:OUTING. That goes even for long term abusers.

In HeadleyDown's case there doesn't seem to be any kind of overriding urgent issue of harm to others. The stakes are just the project, frustrated editors, and him. The sole exception is if he attacks and defames users off-site, which he's done more than once, in that case the users concerned may legitimately wish to defend themselves in real-life too (in their private capacity). But that's WP:BATTLE, it's not something we want to be part of in any way, nor is it our place to provide support to the extent of allowing the posting of alleged personal details all over the wiki. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. Another counter-argument to what I said is that we don't actually know that the accused user is a sock of HeadlyDown and so we ought not allow personal information to be revealed publicly on account of a presumption of guilt. The upshot of this is that people familiar with HeadlyDown should evaluate the situation, block the ducks (if any), revdelete the outed information, and submit anything worthy to en-Arbcom-l. causa sui (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Stoshu

I'm not sure if this page constitutes an attack page or not. I think it falls foul of WP:UPNOT though. NtheP (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, obviously, an attack page, and a possible copyvio, judging from the amount of text. Just wipe the attack off and warn Stoshu. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleared and watchlisted. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:AbsoluteGleek92 and copyvios

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

---

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644 § User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

Can someone be blocked just for being a serial copyvio offender? AbsoluteGleek92 (talk · contribs) does not understand the harmfulness of cut-and-paste plot summaries. It is very easy to find them, because he maintains his own list on his user page, and with that on my watchlist, I just check the new entries and find fresh copyvios every couple of weeks. He has been repeatedly notified and warned, and recently a CCI was opened in his name: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/AbsoluteGleek92, but he's got a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and his constructive edits are of negligible value, so I recommend he be blocked for refusal to cooperate and to prevent further legal damage to the project. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

-Has anyone noticed that not ALL of what I do on these pages are stolen? Like the Youth in Revolt film page, when I made the summary for that, it all came directly out of my head; and for the record, I'm aware that I copy/pasted the Lucker summary, and yes, I edited it a bit to escape being noticed, but NOTHING ever gets past you, doesn't it Elizium23? - AbsoluteGleek92 (and people say I'm a "silent editor") — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteGleek92 (talk • contribs)

Yes, we can indef in such scenarios, and based on the response above, we probably should in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the easy question here for you, AbsoluteGleek92, is do you "steal" material and print it on Wikipedia pages? And if so, why would you do that? Dayewalker (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? Is it not obvious? Despite numerous warnings over a very long period, and a CCI, they've copy/pasted text into Wikipedia as recently as just now, and they admittedly tried to edit it to avoid detection. In other words, they know they shouldn't be doing this, yet they're doing it anyway. The only thing that baffles me is how the hell this user hasn't been blocked yet— and if there's any reason we should not do so right now. Swarm ^X 05:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's obvious, Swarm, it's admitted above. I was just interested in hearing how they were going to justify what they did. AG's comment above certainly seemed to have a "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy" tone to it. Just curious as to what his rationale was. And now that he's made his comment/threat below, nothing left to do but end all of this with a well-deserved block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do block me, fine. I'll be back eventually. I have my ways. Always remember AshTFrankFurter and his many sockpuppets ;) BUT I should get a LITTLE credit, I did start using edit summaries. - AbsoluteGleek92

(edit conflict)This user never engages in discussion, unless it's in ANI. Please see his talk page of the many times, I and others have tried to guide him to editing within guidelines and policy. His copyright violations have been going on for almost a year now. —Mike Allen 05:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know what? I don't need this, if it'll shut you all up, I'll keep my edits to a minimum and I'll think up my own summaries. Happy, you vultures? - AbsoluteGleek92 (by thew way, Mike Allen, you have been helpful, so I give you props, the rest of you can suck it)

• (edit conflict)I would suspect it is time for an indef. I would also ask if above is an admission to already socking or having done so in the past (plus the promise to do so in the future) to continue such behavior? If so, it almost seems like AbsoluteGleek92 is asking for a permanent ban as opposed to an indef block - though I could be wrong in that interpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside (while I'm pondering whether or not I can "suck it" as above), should AG92 have some kind of link in his signature to his user or talk page, as per WP:SIG? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As per the second one, I suspect so. I'm still pondering the first one too... though while pondering both, I came up with the idea that besides some indication of an understanding of WP:COPYVIO (yet forthcoming), that perhaps AG92 could provide a list of the other articles he's violated copyvio on. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow I'm ashamed for wasting a whole year trying to help you. It's now obvious you may be a sock and want to disrupt Wikipedia with your childish behavior. If you are blocked and come back I can guarantee from your editing partern I will catch and tag you each time. —Mike Allen 06:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering the long history of the issue, the repeated unsuccessful warnings and attempts to deal with this to no avail, the refusal to communicate and the blatantly malicious comments in this ANI thread, I'm blocking this user indefinitely. Copyvios cannot be tolerated and this has gone on for too long. Swarm ^X 06:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@AG, I didn't know I was helpful, since you never talk back. That's another main problem, other than the copyright issues. I don't understand anyone on Wikipedia, a collaborative project, that does not communicate. —Mike Allen 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to warm up the mallets for a game of Whac-A-Sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI updated. MER-C 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

Given his persistent copyvios, serious lack of collegial communication, generous helpings of WP:IDHT, disruption and threats of socking I think we should take RobertMfromLI's suggestion and formally consider banning him. Blackmane (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Support - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Support ban. Swarm ^X 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a sockpuppet invesitgation should be launched as well. Fanatical editors such as this usually create socks. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Support a checkuser determining the validity of the need for a sock investigation. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet The editor appears on the road to a ban, but I don't think the conduct justifies one yet. Until they follow through with a string of socks, or get unblocked and return to misbehaving, an indef block seems like enough. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Not Yet He certainly deserves this block, but he seems to be a young user and he's only been blocked twice before. An indef seems premature, although if he starts socking and being disruptive, we can certainly revisit this. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty845 and Dayewalker. I would be fine with a sockpuppet investigation, considering the comments made about creating them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• CheckUser comment: I don't see any need for an SPI at the moment, but if accounts pop up that look like socks, by all means file one. The behaviour is pretty distinct and should be easy to notice and easy to whack. WilliamH (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. After only two blocks, I would normally say not yet. But looking deeper into this, it's obvious that this user is either incapable or unwilling to "play nice" with other editors. I do not see enough positive contributions to displace the amount of disruption he causes. Trusilver 06:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support my biggest concern is it seems clear from their comments that the user does not respect our copyright policy and has no desire to follow it, instead simply trying to hide copyright violations so they aren't spotted. I consider persistent copyright violations without any desire for reform one of the worse forms of behaviour since it wastes time not only of those tracking down said violations, but potentially of everyone who edited the article in the meantime. Combined with the indicated desire to create sockpuppets, I think a community ban is merited. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Copyvios are a serious problem that are difficult to handle, and if someone has not understand the proper procedures by now they need to try another website. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the concerns by Blackmane and Johnuniq. Copyright violations are a very serious matter. Also, the user has failed to communicate in a collegiate manner. With that said, it's game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Obvious support - Furthermore, their lack of talk page usage was briefly interrupted by their few posts to ANI, where they proceeded to attack others, typical WP:NOTTHEM behaviour. Banning them will make it easy to deal with any copyvio mess that arises from socks. --Blackmane (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After thinking about it, I'm going to have to support a ban also. They clearly understand they are infringing on copyright and obviously don't care. Just because they do perform some "good" edits shouldn't excuse them from the bigger picture here. He simply doesn't use Wikipedia for what it's designed for anyway (communicating, editing within guidelines/policy, etc), so a ban from this site is appropriate. —Mike Allen 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This was archived without being closed resolved, so bringing it back. Would an admin please review? --Blackmane (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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