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

Thomas Jefferson

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

---

Without initially naming names, the Thomas Jefferson talk page has, in my opinion, been difficult concerning the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Discussion has often turned into caustic argumentation and bullying of opinions on dissenting or differing opinions. Personal attacks seems to be the norm rather then respectful discussion on the subject matter. Editors team up on other editors and appear to be in collusion of opinion with each other. What can be done to stop the bullying, sarcastic argumentation, and Ad hominem insults? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Probably nothing short of empaneling several experienced editors who don't particularly care about the subject to come up with a consensus on some of these phrasings. Ravenswing 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ravenswing. This has been attempted many times without any conclusions. Certain editors accuse the article is biased and will not compromise until their views are in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best remedy is having an administrator or administrators monitor the Thomas Jefferson talk page and control the situation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the job of administrators to be arbitrators of peace. Admins are only equipped with tools to enforce policy and consensus. Yes the situation has gotten out a bit heated on that talk page, but if policies such as WP:Civil or WP:3RR have been breached, then perhaps those situations should be dealt with individuality. Until then just keep up the discussion and eventually a compromise should be reached.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If administrators are not the arbitrators of peace then who can be? If Wikipedia asks people to be nice in the discussion page without enforcing the policy that would be an open door to bullying and teaming up on other editors. Yes, things would be nice if editors obey Wikipedia rules, however, without enforcement rational conversations are impossible. Editors who do not listen to reason and act without kindess are not going to change on their own. What then is the point of being an administrator, if other editors are allowed to control the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any Administrators who can enforce Wikipedia policies that forbids personal attacks and ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's with the bickering. Jefferson's having a child with Hemmings, isn't an impossibilty. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The issue is control of the article and personal attacks. I believe there needs to be a referee to monitor the article. At least an administrator could ask people to be polite. I can't edit in the article, since I believe editors are ganging up on other editors. I believe there needs to be some support from administrators to get the talk page under control. Jefferson having children by Sally Hemings is a huge controversy in the U.S. among historians and Wikipedia editors. Enforcing Wikipedia policy would be extremely helpful for the article discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Are any Wikipedia administrators going to enforce ownership prohibition and or stop personal attacks on the Thomas Jefferson talk page? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not. This. Again. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the personal attack. Could you link to a diff of the personal attack that violates guidelines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Cmguy777, if you have specific examples of WP:OWN or specific examples of personal attacks, those can be dealt with here on an individual basis. If you want sanctions against such behavior in general, that would be an ArbCom matter, but only if you've already exhausted the dispute resolution process. Admins can't really just hover over an article to jump on every PA that happens there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is when cmguy's sourcing or wording is questioned he considers them personal attacks and article ownership, but never answers the questions. In some cases he's posted things that I've asked him to clarify because they're confusing to me. Those are ignored too. He recently stormed off the talk page because of these perceived policy violations. Brad (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at a couple weeks' worth of commentary and find nothing extreme or actionable. It seems to me that the complainant filed this thread as a consequence of not getting this way; they are encouraged to accept whatever consensus is reached there and to drop the stick. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

problem in the online ambassador program

Since Summer 2011 the WMF has been expanding a program to connect the Wikipedia community with university professors, who in turn would ask each of their students to contribute to Wikipedia. To make this work, the WMF set up a system of "campus ambassadors" who physically go to classrooms and "online ambassadors" who support the students online. There is not much screening or oversight for this; people just volunteer.

It seems to me that being an ambassador is similar to having a Wikipedia community endorsement, much in the same way that being an admin is. I think it would be especially problematic if there were trouble with an ambassador, but I am making no judgement about the situation to which I am about to link. Recently someone made a serious complaint about an online ambassador. We in the ambassador program got into this program expecting to help professors and students and did not establish the system with an internal complaint review process. It seems like we need one, and I thought ANI could help me find people to comment on this. Here is the problem stated on the outreach wiki; that page links back to some English Wikipedia articles.

Thoughts? I notified no one about this post because I do not think discussion ought to be here on this board and because I am not sure who all is involved. I am not involved in this other than by trying to get others to comment on it. Could I request input, please? What should this person with a complaint do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I and others have unsuccessfully searched for a chain of command in both the IEP and general GEP. Repeated requests for said chain have been met with vague dismissals and general gnashing of teeth by staff members. I'm not sure even they know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at here, this is definitely not something that the English Wikipedia can resolve. I understand your frustration. The Foundation should have had a complaints procedure in place, but people always forget this. They need to put something in place now to deal with this - I can't see anyone else who has the authority. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I've posted a bit of the background behind this issue at the link given by Bluerasberry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• More generally, it's a difficult balance to strike; the ambassador system (and outreach generally) is a fairly small young project and hasn't yet had much chance (or pressure) to build internal process & policy. We all know what can go wrong if you try to fit a small young project to a procrustean bed of bureaucracy in the hope of getting better quality. Until this disagreement, I had genuinely believed that there was enough (or more than enough) in place already, what with selection and deselection processes for ambassadors, a steering committee, and vague WMF background presence... bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think the lack of bureaucracy is the problem, it's the lack of clarity. No one seems to know who's doing what right now, all the way up to Frank Schulenberg. If we could get our shit together and just determine who's supposed to do what in the system we already have, I think many of these types of problems would disappear. But we've been after that for months now and haven't gotten any closer, so I won't hold my breath waiting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I had a concern about "globalisation" of the project and USA-specific stuff but, err, apparently the best solution is to email some WMF person and ask to be a regional ambassador, and that person never replied anyway. BOLD may be a virtue here... just go ahead and change stuff, create policy pages &c and then the rest of the community will either go along with it, or replace it with something better - either way, the project wins. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I feel like I've burned far too many bridges with the WMF people for them to seriously listen to me (except Jalexander, who I've met IRL; great guy), but I may take you up on that if for no other reason than to see what happens. I'd love to be proven wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• The lack of accountability in the Global Education Program (and the WMF in general) is stupefying. I think we should take matters into our own hands -- the clearest signal we can send to the WMF that we have lost confidence in a ambassador/WMF staff member is to impose topic bans. Hand out a 6 month topic ban from the Global Education Program and let the internal review process sort itself out. MER-C 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Or we can let the internal review process work, then decide if the Wikipedian community needs to take further action... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no confidence whatsoever (see my second point and the lack of response) in the ability of the Global Education Program to hold its staff members and ambassadors accountable. Passing the buck on the close paraphrasing complaint does nothing to alleviate that. MER-C 03:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

      I'd be all for that, except I think we'd run into a Worcester v. Georgia problem when it comes to implementation. If you can find a way around that, do let me know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

      • You're confusing the IEP disaster with the Online Ambassadors, which are mostly two separate organizations. OAs are Wikipedians and the the group is run by the same; the WMF (specifically Sross (Public Policy), also known as the highly respected Wikipedian Ragesoss) created it, helped it mature, and spun it off. Let us address these concerns. Contrary to what you think we're doing – 'passing the buck', I believe – we're working on it right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Hey, I sit on the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee. We have been furiously discussing this issue since it first came up both on and off wiki. It came up at our past IRC meeting as well as over our email list. Looking at my email inbox, I have two extensive email exchanges about this issue. As it stands, there is a recall path for all levels of the ambassador programs, for a Steering Committee member follow the Regional ambassador path. At this point in time, Mathew needs to either attempt to recall cindy or drop the issue. (The opinions expressed here are my own and should not be taken as the opinion of the Ambassador Program, Steering Committee, or the WMF ) --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not to pile on, but my one encounter with a Wikipedia Ambassador left me deeply unimpressed.[1] This editor unashamedly viewed Wikipedia as an activism platform for his pet topic - his contributions to the encyclopedia were replete with edit warring, meatpuppetry, and namecalling. Perhaps the program could incorporate better quality control, or even cursorily glance at applicants' edit histories. Skinwalker (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I just heard this discussion has now also spilled into ANI and decided to take a look. To clarify, the Foundation is not responsible for the Steering Committee that manages the online ambassadors; the Wikipedia community is. And to echo Ed, I personally have seen no evidence that the issue is being ignored-- quite the opposite. Also, the ambassador Skinwalker mentioned, is no longer with us. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... so, the WMF creates this program, then tells the en.wikipedia community it's our responsibility to police it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the WMF created the program with the intention of turning it over to the Wikipedians recruited into said program. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had several, ah, sub-optimal episodes of late. User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Wikipedia:Request for Comment/WMF - WP relations is pretty empty right now, but I do think that it's time for a centralised discussion on this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please make this happen, it is long overdue. MER-C 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This has little to do with the discussion at hand... the Online Ambassadors are Wikipedian-run now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• This job description for Rob Schnautz (WMF), posted on his page, says: "This contractor will help ensure effective communication with the Wikipedia community regarding the Program working closely with Online Ambassadors as well as the WMF staff involved in the program."[2] Also, the Online Ambassador I originally asked about is still in operation. She just had the same article turned down at GA review again for close paraphrasing, indicating she hasn't learned anything. It has been noted that she caused significant problems last semester especially in psychology articles, per SandyGeorgia. It has been several weeks since I brought this matter to attention, but as far as I know that Online Ambassador is still clueless. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• addendum. I've notified Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Ambassador Recall Process that I wish to file a formal complaint, since that was suggested above. I'm curious to see if I get any response. (There's no place on the project page to file one, so I did so on talk.) I'd also like to see where the en:wp community gave permission through an rfc (or however it's done) for the Online Ambassadors Steering Committee to set itself up as an independent entity with no community supervisor. Where/how was this done? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Steering Committee, elected by Online Ambassadors, oversees the Online Ambassador process, similar to how coordinators, elected by Military history Project members, oversee the project of the same name. Nothing groundbreaking there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Indian Education program seems to be run from meta. I proposed a very challenging target for them over a month ago. No-one seems to have objected to it, so I suggest we try and find whatever target the WMF has given the ambassador program and propose an equally tough target. How about "To be considered a success, the editors recruited through the online ambassador program should generate no more copy vio and overly close paraphrasing than other newbies." ϢereSpielChequers 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • WSC, Online Ambassadors are (supposed) to be experienced editors here, so I'm not sure this is a terribly difficult goal to reach. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Everything the military history project does is under the review of the community: every rule they make for what should or should not be in articles, or what articles there should or should not be, or the quality rating of articles, is open to the immediate review by the community. Anyone who chooses can join, their operations are internal to enWP, and have a long history of acceptance and success. The ambassador program is essentially autonomous, selects and limits their own members, is not subject to review by the community (though their articles their students produce certainly are--and a good many have been rejected, or sometimes tolerated only to avoid discouraging the students in the middle of a class), and represents WP to an outside constituency. It has had a very mixed record of success, even in the US. (The results in India I think are more specifically the fault of the Foundation, which tried to run an editorial project whose needs they did not understand.). It's time the community effectively removed their autonomy. Now that the WMF has confirmed the project is not under their direct control, we do not have to argue about whose jurisdiction it is. Anyone writing at the English Wikipedia does so under the guidelines of the overall community here. There are no privileged contributors. Very few ambassadors are experienced editors here: it has proven impossible to get sufficient people experienced here to volunteer, and we need to consider why.In the meanwhile, we should deal with them here as with any other editor. The principles are NOT BURO and that we are a single community. (I have been a member of the project , but no longer actively participate formally, though I will give talks, advise people, or look at articles on request, for them or for anyone who asks me. I have no further patience in my life for formal organization, and from the start I have thought the programs goals unrealistic and not sufficiently subject to modification. ) DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And the structure of the ambassador program drives at least some experienced editors (I speak here of myself) away from it. I was an Online Ambassador for two semesters...I had some positive interactions with the professor, and he seemed to be a very savvy person who transformed from not getting WP at all into someone respectful of our rules and caring about his students. The students, on the other hand, simply failed to listen to me. I later left the program when an article from a different class was nominated for deletion, the professor not only spoke in the AfD, but notified the Ambassador mailing list about it (calling for assistance), and another ambassador closed the AfD as a snowball keep (in part using IAR to justify the closure since the continued AfD, likely to be closed keep eventually, was damaging the outreach goal of the ambassador program). I had no interest in being part of a program that was attempting to circumvent normal WP rules just to do "outreach" (despite, as far as I know, no evidence that this outreach was getting people to edit WP at all beyond their class assignments). Now, this was 6 months ago, so maybe they've shaped up since then, I don't know. But DGG is right: if WMF is not claiming this as a privileged, special project, then we should manage it through our normal internal processes. If someone wants to establish a centralized consensus that the outreach programs get special treatment (above and beyond normal WP:BITE and WP:AGF) concerns, then fine, but until then, they're all normal editors who perhaps need more watching than others, since they're under a real-world pressure to "finish" a contribution in order to achieve a measurable reward. Heck, I've even argued before that we need to treat these outreach students as being somewhat similar to paid-editors (that is, allow them, but recognize that they have a goal that is not necessarily concordant with the 'pedias). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing promotes a product (or degrades its opponents). Class projects, on the other hand, can be supporting the subject and critically analyze the subject (they are not mutually exclusive). So I think your comparison of class projects with paid editors is fear mongering or at the very least, stretching it out of context. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

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

---

NOTE: this proposal is not the remove all of the restrictions, only the additional restrictions added by the community in 2008. The current ArbCom levied restrictions would still apply in full.

The initial 2007 Troubles restriction was that: "...any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." This was extended by the community in 2008, when a 1RR restriction and direction "to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions" was added. In 2011, these articles were placed under discretionary sanctions and the initial 2007 sanction was rescinded.

In an attempt to promote normal editing practice, I propose that the 2008 community restrictions be rescinded as well. Instead, enforcement can be through discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. These may include the current 1RR restriction but instead of affecting everyone, and thus hindering normal editing practice, the restriction could levied against disruptive editor(s) or a specific article(s) (possibly for a fixed period).

My concern is that a blanket and indefinite 1RR (and a blanket direction to "get the advice of neutral parties") puts good editor off and doesn't promote normal editing practice. Additionally, the majority of recent enforcements are of the kind covered by discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for gaming, hounding, etc.) and not the 1RR restriction.

Nonetheless, I suggest that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s). --RA (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose this suggestion - editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position that removing sanctions will simply increase POV pushing disruption. This is also imo not the correct location to suggest such a thing. Ask Arbcom ? - Sadly sectors of humanity are unable to get over their personal bias and in relation to historic issues and look on life from a fresh uninvolved neutral aspect and the troubles and climate change and Serbia - Bosnia and others you all are aware of need heightened levels of control because of that fact. Youreallycan 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I edit in the Troubles sector :-) (or at least some affected articles)

A very small subset of editors are so strongly nationalistic that they are unable to edit form a NPOV, I agree. However, the 2008 community restrictions are placed on everyone. The 2007 ArbCom resolution contained no such restriction. The immediate reason for the 2008 restrictions has passed and several of the editors involved have moved on or have been topic banned. Additionally, the majority of enfacements for case are now for non-1RR issues, anyway, or could be dealt with just as easily through the new discretionary sanction. So, there's no need to hinder the vast majority of constructive editors with unnecessary restrictions that are open to gaming by a troublesome minority.

Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I am not proposing to lift all of the Troubles restrictions, only those added by the community in 2008. The ArbCom levied remedies would (and should) still apply in full. --RA (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. Normal editing practice should be given priority, and the 1RR restriction was never intended to be permanent (or as permanent as it currently is). There will be problems. But the community should have faith that good editors exist, and place those editors who are unwilling or unable to adhere to policies under restrictions. Comments and positions such as editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position... are lacking in AGF and unfairly cast aspersion at all editors working in contentious areas. While some editors have difficulties, others do not. --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Sadly , in that sector a troublesome majority is closer to the reality - tag teamers roam the sector and reducing any editing restrictions will simply allow them to push their NPOV violating opinion into the whole sector - many articles in the sector are already unworthy of en wikipedia publication from a NPOV perspective - reducing the control will open the nationalistic, partisan floodgates. Oh noes User:HighKing is here already ... with his worn out good faith allegations - a sign. Youreallycan 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, if anything, tag teaming is easier under 1RR. --RA (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am inexperienced in tag team editing, how is it easier under 1RR? Youreallycan 23:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the scenario: You make some change. An "enemy" of yours revert you saying you lack consensus for the change. You revert (possibly adding a reliable source to support the fact). A tag teamer then mysteriously appears and reverts you suggesting you take it to the talk page. Blam! You're locked out for 24hrs. The next day the same thing repeats, possibly with an edit summary "advising" you not to engage disruptive content while talk page discussions are on going. Repeat ad nauseam.

Under 3RR, it takes more reverts to breach the bright-line rule so disruptive reverts are more obvious making tag teaming more difficult. Under 1RR a tag team of three can effectively control an article indefinitely (although two is enough in many practical examples). --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. My original reaction was "oh hell no", but on reflection, the discretionary sanctions should be sufficient to handle continuing disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose God no. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  Why? The only practical difference it will make is to remove the 2008 community-placed 1RR restriction. The ArbCom sanction will still apply. Have faith. The ArbCom sanctions are sufficient and working. --RA (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In a area of intense conflicted users such as the troubles, 1RR is a third of the reverts and disruption that 3RR is. Youreallycan 23:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine two editors working on an article together over the course of a day. One adds a paragraph. The other changes the order of two sentences in it. The first then corrects some statement of fact. The second then flips clauses in a sentence. The second editor has just broken 1RR. In ordinary wiki-land, that's not a problem. In areas of conflict, however, if the first editor didn't like you, you could find yourself in blocked by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for simply trying to collaborate in good faith.

Not all reverts are edit warring. The 1RR puts a chilling effect on collaboration because editors are afraid to engage in this kind of everyday collaboration we see across the 'pedia. Speaking personally, I would not consider engaging in the normal kind of collaboration like the above on Troubles-related articles. It's too risky.

Ironically, over extended periods, 1RR drives good editors away, discourages collaboration, and gives trouble editors a new means to push their POV and a weapon to attack their enemies. --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Er...the scenario you just described is not a 1RR violation. Because no reversion has taken place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs). ISTB351 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not The 1RR works perfectly to prevent groups of editors (of whatever persuasion) skewing articles to their position. See also the British Isles naming dispute, etc. Whilst RA is correct in his above claim (that numbers make a difference under 1RR), merely shifting back to 3RR only ends up with longer edit wars. If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Since October, almost all enforcements have been topic bans. Topics bans are more than sufficient to deal with the issue. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Support proponents buttress their position with the premise that 1RR restricts the normal and customary editing practices prevalent across Wikipedia. Indeed, they're right ... and this would be a problem if these were normal and customary articles. They are not. They are articles dealing with a conflict that has been bitter for centuries, and on form will be a touchy, bitter subject for many decades to come. If instead of free and easy swashbuckling, the restrictions compel all edits to be careful and deliberate, what exactly is wrong with that? I do not believe, as Rannpháirtí does, that such restrictions drive away good editors. I imagine they deter casual editors ... and given the snakepit these articles could once again easily become, I can live with that. Ravenswing 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Add to this RA's suggestions on the Northern Ireland talk page that politically controversial issues should be resolved by direct editing of the article rather than using the talk page and we have a license to edit wars, sock puppets and all those other "good" things that so plague the issue and which the 1RR restriction has dampened down. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not every edit is controversial and politically controversial issues can be resolved through direct editing. That's normal. It's what we should be encouraging. I'm not going to apologies for assuming good faith in the vast bulk of editors or for wanting to see a healthy editing environment. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor should you apologize. But that being said, this is no different from semi-protection of vandalism-prone articles. No doubt most anon IPs are trustworthy and edit within the rules, but there are articles contentious enough to require such protections, a fact long recognized. Ravenswing 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree. For example, today I did a copy edit of large parts of the Northern Ireland article. Nothing that should be controversial but the sort of thing that takes several edits to work through. Now, if another editor had also happened to edit those sections while I was working on them, we would both have had to down tools for the day because neither of us would have been able to continue without breaching 1RR. I genuinely had a worry while doing it that I would accidentally revert someone without getting an edit conflict. That sort of thing debilitates article development if 1RR is left in for an extended period.

There is also the simple experience that some content is best developed through a series of quick rewrite between editors e.g.:

• Editor one: "The moon rotates around the earth."
• Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth."
• Editor one: "The moon orbits the earth once a month."
• Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth once every 27.3 days."

In the above example, editor two just broke 1RR. Some disputes are best resolved in this way too, with editors quickly arriving at a "good fit" for their contrasting POV. Consequently, 1RR actually removes an avenue for dispute resolution.

Don't get me wrong, 1RR has its purpose, but it is not appropriate IMO as an indefinite solution. I'd prefer to see normal editing practice being re-enabled and problems being addressed as they occur through discretionary sanctions (including 1RR when appropriate). --RA (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In your example no one has broken 1RR and if that type of editing took place on non-controversial issues then there is no problem. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better."

This comment by Black Kite caught my eye because topics bans are currently the most frequent means of enforcement on these articles. Just to be clear, there are currently three restrictions in the area:

• A direction to "get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions."
• A 1RR across all affected articles, affecting all editors and edits
• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

The first two of these are not part of the ArbCom ruling. They were added by the community and I say their time as past. What I am proposing is:

• That direction to "get the advice of neutral parties" be dropped because it is ignored anyway. (It is impractical to get outside opinion for every edit. I have never seen enforcement of it.)
• The 1RR be removed as a general sanction and be replaced by a 12 month 1RR for editors who breached it in the past.

Instead, as is currently happening, the use of discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, indefinite blocks, 1RR on specific articles) should become the normal means of enforcing the Troubles. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at present. The idea that you're planning to "handicap" anyone who's breached 1RR in the past is only guaranteed to create more problems that it will solve. If you want to do away with 1RR, do it across the board and issue sanctions to people as and when needed not as some pre-emptive measure that will just cause more strife. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What I suggested above was "that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s)."

My motivation to suggest this was as a transitionary measure mainly to head off worries about opening a flood gate of warriors. It doesn't appear to have achieved that (i.e. commenter above worry opening a flood gate of warriors). In any case, I don't foresee that and would be happy to simply drop it for everyone and let discretionary sanctions deal with issues as they arise. --RA (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, you have already opened a threat on getting rid of 1rr above why raise it again as a ub thread? Topic bans etc are already used on the Troubles, so that is already in place. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For clarity. You and I are familiar with the Troubles sanctions but I got the impressions that some comments above thought I was suggesting we rescind all of the sanctions. --RA (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per black kite --Guerillero | My Talk 20:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments in previous section ----Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral: I'm neutral on this. Yes it is annoying at times but there are those who would abuse it if the restrictions are lfited. I won't make a decision either way but I will say that it does need clarification at times and could do with some better implementation. For example the page Belfast West by-election, 2011 was considered for some reason to be under the 1RR qualifications. I failed to see how when the only way they can is because it includes the slightest mention of the former holder of the seat, the former Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - It may be annoying, but it's working. It ain't broke, let's not do like the only-half-joking description of Congress and 'fix it until it is'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

It's clear consensus is against lifting the 1RR. CoE's observation is good though. Another perplexing example is Carlingford Lough, which is tagged as being under the Troubles restrictions. There may be good reason for these but as a long-term solution, where does it end and how can an article return to normal after (what may be) a temporary trouble has passed?

All Troubles-related articles are under 1RR and the advise is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." I doubt Gibraltar, for example, is Troubles-related but should I assume that it is? If it did become Troubles-related (because, for example, of the shooting of IRA members there in 1988), how could the 1RR ever be lifted again? Would 1RR apply to that article indefinitely because of a temporary trouble involving a handful of editors? Where does this end?

So, as an alternative proposal:

• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions
• Additionally, all articles tagged with the {{Troubles restriction}} are under 1RR
  • Any editor may add the template to an article.
  • Only an uninvoled admin (or someone acting on behalf of ArbCom) may remove it.

This would introduce clarity about which articles are under 1RR restriction and allow a path for articles that are no-longer flash points to be return to normality. Genuinely Troubles-related articles would remain templated indefinitely. The ability for uninvoled admins (and ArbCom) to take sanctions against Troubles-related billigerants anywhere on the 'pedia would be unaffected. --RA (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the 1RR is that occasionally a well-intentioned editor gets caught in the crossfire and receives a block for breaking 1RR; on the other hand IPs often get away with it as was the case with the Shankill Butchers when the 1RR was broken by an IP and no sanctions were levelled against him. The problem with such a draconian restriction is that if an experienced Troubles-related editor such as myself happens to accidentally break the 1RR, I could be busted by anyone and receive a hefty block. I think it's understood that anyone who edits Troubles articles does not lack their fair share of enemies. No matter how hard we strive to remain neutral we're bound to piss others off. Honestly, I don't know who my nemies are but I'm sure they're out there waiting for me to slip up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is that articles that do not have 1RR restrictions can easily abitrarily be decided to be under the troubles restrictions by any editor. The Belfast West by-election page was a prime example where no discussion took place and a non-admin took it upon himself to just apply it anyway because it was slightly linked to someone involved in the troubles. As for this proposal, I would support a change of the "any editor" in number 3 to "any admin" to avoid something like this again. Other than that, it seems OK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both of the comment above. They both cut to the real heart of the problem for everyday, constructive and collaborative editors. The unknown and is a chilling effect that at times seems to serve the needs of belligerent editors more than constructive ones.

No problem with changing "any editor" to "any admin" (presumably uninvolved). --RA (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Concerns of "tag-teaming" are just the same when an article has a 3RR rule, you just get away with more reverts before action is taken. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is now time wasting. Discretionary sanctions are already covered in the Troubles ruling, adding the template or removing it has never been a major issue and current process is fine. I can't think of any example where a draconian block has been applied to an experienced or new editor who accidentally broke 1RR in all my years of editing in the area, if there are some lets look at them ----Snowded ^TALK 08:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Unresolved

This ANI discussion was closed without being resolved. Can it please be un-archived for further discussion and resolution? Thank you. ClaretAsh 02:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It was completed with a level 3 warning. Unless something new occurred, it was over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. As another user commented after Drmies mentioned the level 3 warning, I assumed the discussion was ongoing. Thanks for replying and clarifying. ClaretAsh 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Bwilkins and anyone else passing by, please note that the Sundostund has removed the warning and is editing still in the exact same manner. I'd love to slap a level-4 warning there, or better yet a block notice, but I really, really want someone else to look at this and see if this is actionable or note. I'm fed up with the editors flying solo and completely disregarding community discussion--this is one of the worst I've seen in a while, and that a lot of their edits are good doesn't change the fact that they refuse to be a team player. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem with Sundostund on List of Presidents of Tunisia and Prime Minister of Tunisia. What is the right course of action? — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While you are free to revert now (presuming you're not at 3RR or been further limited) I would suggest wait a few days and if they don't offer any explaination or take part the discussion, revert to your version. If they continue to revert, come back to ANI and ask for them to be blocked (presuming they haven't already). Also although you've initiated discussion on their talk page, it may be better to copy it to the article talk page and direct them there for the benefit of others and of future editors and also to avoid confusion from admins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have implored Sundostund to start discussing and given a final warning. I did not use a standard template as I don't want to get in to a debate over whether their edits qualify as vandalism. Sadly as I was composing my message Sundostund repeated some reverts but continued to offer no explaination. I reverted some of these edits. I agree a block is needed soon if it's not already, due to their complete failure to discuss even when requested and when others have initated the discussion but willingness to continue to revert despite the lack of discussion. Looking thru their past 1000 contrib history, the only talk page activity I saw was creating talk pages adding templates and removing stuff from their own talk page 8and also some stuff from moves), which is far from ideal for someone who has been repeatedly asked to discuss or offer some explaination recently. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, editor has again performed a large number of substantial edits without even a word of explanation. I have no choice but to block for disruption since it is clear from discussion above and on his talk page (look in the history) that these edits of his are not minor or undisputed. I invite the scrutiny of other administrators and editors. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The block ran out, and the editor made a few more edits, only one of which had an edit summary: apparently, my explanation of why I blocked him was nothing more than trash. I'm tired of this. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, when I edit an article, I almost always forget to made an edit summary because I'm too much preoccupied with editing itself. I accept blame for that, and I will do my best to correct it in the future. Apparently, you're completely unable to see results of my editing, because you're too busy checking whether or not I leave edit summary. As for my editing in general, anyone can check my edit history (more than 24,000 edits and 49 created articles since March 2010) to see that I'm not an vandal who ruin articles, make disruptive editing etc. Sometime I engage in edit warring, but it's not my modus operandi on WP. As you can see, I didn't engage in some crazy edit warring on disputed articles (leaders of Egypt and Tunisia) when my block ran out. I bet that disappointed you, eh? Anyway, if I do something wrong, I can take punishment for that anytime, like a man. As for my comment in edit summary on your explanation, I only can say you obviously can't take a joke. Tired? Believe me, I'm much more tired of this then you. I constantly try to avoid engaging with people like you (without sense of humor and flexibility) both in real life and on WP. Believe me, I'm very successful in that. I truly hope this is the end of this futile discussion. Sincerely, yours truly Sundostund (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sundostund and unexplained reverts (again)

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742 § User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

Sundostund has simply waited until the past complaint was archived to resume making the same unexplained reverts on multiple articles. His last six edits are all reverts that he has repeatedly made without comment, with 2 edits prior to that also being edits but with the oh so helpful edit summary of That's your opinion being given to explain those. The user refuses to discuss any of the edits, either on his talk page or on the article talk page, ignoring the article talk pages and wiping away any attempt at raising the issue on his user talk page. He has, since the last ANI thread was archived, twice reverted at both President of Egypt and List of Presidents of Egypt, as well as reverting at Prime Minister of Tunisia and List of Prime Ministers of Tunisia multiple times. There have been exactly 0 edits to any talk page by this user during this time. Can somebody explain how I should collaboratively edit with somebody who has zero interest in anything other than reverting without comment? He ignores the article talk page, he ignores his user talk page, and he ignores this board, just waits until the section is archived without resolution so that he can go back to inserting incorrect material in an "encyclopedia" article. nableezy - 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I had not noticed that this is also discussed in a section above, #Unresolved. Sorry for that. nableezy - 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko block

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

---

• Kumioko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ShmuckatellieJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.163.243.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.162.8.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kumioko has been abusing multiple accounts, and I have just blocked him for it. I'm requesting a block review; if the community feels I'm being too harsh I'm happy to reduce any of blocks. Essentially, since he "retired" on February 27, he's been trolling and rehashing old battles as 71.163.243.232 (sometimes referring to Kumioko in the third person, sometimes not) while simultaneously "clean-starting" and pretending to be a new user as ShmuckatellieJoe and 138.162.8.58.

In accordance with the sock puppetry policy, I have:

• blocked the (new) primary account, ShmuckatellieJoe, for a week.
• blocked Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot (the "retired" accounts) indefinitely.
• blocked 71.163.243.232 and 138.162.8.58 for a month. I would have blocked those indefinitely were they not IPs, and if, after the blocks expire, Kumioko continues to use them as good hand/bad hand IPs, I plan to reblock for longer.

I don't care if he takes a clean start with no connection to the Kumioko account, but he can't simultaneously do that while trolling and fighting with Kumioko's old foes as an IP. One of many examples is on this page, where he first approaches User:Markvs88 as "new editor" ShmuckatellieJoe/138.162.8.58 ("Question about a reversion"), and then comes back as 71.163.243.232 ("I hope your happy") to rant at Markvs88 about Kumioko. I think a 1 week block for the (now) primary account and longer blocks for the socks is quite reasonable but as I said above, I'm happy to reduce them if there's consensus for that. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I disagree with is not blocking the new account indef as well. An actual cleanstart account is one thing; this was just a sock created to further old grudges. This person, whatever account they're using, should be blocked. Period. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot haven't edited since February 28. Kumioko has stated that he is 71.163.243.232 and this IP started editing after the last edits of Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot. Is ShmuckatellieJoe actually Kumioko? I don't know, but it should be taken to SPI before a block is handed out to that editor. Long story short, if Kumioko, ShmuckatellieJoe and the "old foes" just stop responding and placing messages on each persons talk pages, this thing will go away. It takes two to tango and everyone is dancing. Kumioko and "old foes", please don't respond here, it just will make things worse. Just walk away.... Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person. Kumioko has accidentally edited logged in as ShmuckatellieJoe a couple of times, "ShmuckatellieJoe" has accidentally edited logged out as 71.163.243.232, and 71.163.243.232 has stated plainly that they are Kumioko. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oi vey as I shake my head in disgust. You were right to put a block on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'll defer to User:28bytes as to the block itself. I AGF that 28bytes was doing appropriate mopping. However, I'm confused as to the length of the block, raised the point on that sysop's talk page, and was cordially invited to comment here. To my eyes, Kumioko (an editor of legendary bot-like productivity, if sometimes dramatic) has burnt out, needs and deserves a good long rest. If the editor chooses not to return, then we can all look back on his 300,000+ edits and say he really helped the pedia. But if several months or even years from now he feels his gumption rise enough and misses the back-and-forth, I'd like to think the editor could choose to edit under his original account name. A cleanstart after 300K edits seems absurd. I'd ask 28bytes to modify the block length to a shorter period, say 30-90 days. If the editor has chosen to work under a different name or an ip and has been abusing the policy, then a block is certainly in order. An indefinite block seems harsh to me, given the editor's long and positive history here. BusterD (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• I keep wondering how to bring Kumioko back into the fold, but right now it doesn't really look like he wants to. Agree with everything 28bytes did, including the 1 week rather than indef block on the new incarnation, but I have a sinking feeling I know where this is headed, and if old fights continue to be re-fought, we shouldn't let it go on. An SPI wasn't needed here, as the new account self-identified, but if someone wants to file one for posterity, no one is stopping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - obviously, Kumioko has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and use sockpuppets to disrupt the project. We should never let old fights go on and I have a bad feeling about this. I support 28bytes' reasoning behind his block of Kumioko's accounts. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - and I'd be concerned that Kumioko's userpage verges on being uncivil in places, especially with regards to photos and captions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Clearly an appropriate block. Being a long-term editor does not give you leave to make abusive sockpuppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Wow could this guy make a bad situation any more worse...first he says he is going to keep edit warring....then he uses his bot account to evade the block....now socking....If he would have just relaxed and discussed none of this would have been necessary. Such a shame that he couldn't hold his temper or whatever it is that has lead him to this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block I reverted the IP edits and semied his userpage --Guerillero | My Talk 20:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser needed Per Floquenbeam's suggestion and ShmuckatellieJoe's comment here, I believe that a checkuser would be good for posterity and/or alt sleeper accounts.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me (which is my way of saying "I probably wasn't clear"). This edit shows pretty convincingly that they're the same person. I don't think a checkuser is needed to link these accounts; all I meant is that if someone wanted to tie them together for posterity in an SPI, instead of here, they're welcome to. A checkuser might be willing to check for sleepers, but (and I could be wrong) that doesn't strike me as Kumioko's style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd still do a checkuser even though I hear a flock of ducks quacking. It's good idea to do everything proper while handing out a block just in case... Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I've declined ShmuckatellieJoe's unblock request, and locked his talk page for the duration of the 1 week block. Anyone is free to overturn that without my acquiescence if they think it wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Good choice, Floquenbeam -- that level of "who, lil' ol' me" shouldn't be encouraged.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: Kumioko and I have had our differences, but I've respected his contributions as a fellow editor. I would welcome him back to the community at a later date, but he needs to let go of this grudge. In short, if he can let the past be the past, he's welcome back. If he decides to make a clean start to come back, that's fine so long as he makes a clean break with the grudges and drama. For now, regrettably based on his own actions, the blocks are appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you, this was long overdue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• It saddens me it has come down to this, but I'm not wholly surprised. I was on the receiving end of some ranting, distortions, and accusations from him not so long ago. I didn't bother responding because I thought he was just stressed out. Alas, using sockpuppets for WP:THERAPY is taxing the other Wikipedians too much. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Kumioko should not have socked to continue a fued with others, so the block is valid. -BUT- I've read through all the stuff that happened and I could see that Kumioko was hurt. Deeply hurt. Xe almost certainly felt that enwp had his back, and when that didn't happen during the recent WPUS kerfuffle, xe got upset. Not excusable, but certainly understandable. Kumioko is a long time editor with a good name. Here'e the BIG FAIL. Kumioko was sanctioned, but nobody else was. We, as experienced Wikipedians, should have broke up the fight and sent everybody to their respective corners, not just a single combatant. Kumioko is a good Wikpedian who has done a lot of good work on articles, but more importantly, xe's been kind and helpful to new users and IPs and that is a great value to the project.
  

Suggestion: I'd like to see an interaction ban between all the participants in the recent kerfuffle to hopefully end this drama. I'd also like to see people offer words of encouragement to Kumioko after the block is over rather than threats of sanctioning. Yes, enwp is not WP:THERAPY, but maybe it could be just this one time. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for your understanding. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why other sanctions are needed here. Unfortunately, while Kumioko was a good Wikipedian, and I was one of the ones who respected him, that went downhill in a sudden blaze of fire. The pun to 'burning your bridges' is intended. I think we would need plenty of diffs before any sort of sanctions on others were applied. And incidentally, who are you? Did you edit while logged out? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a talk page restriction for a short while? I think all the messages, even the well-intentioned ones, are only enflaming the situation. I'm not logged out, I never wanted an account, so I show up as an IP (dynamic). I just chacked and much of this is me, for those that are curious. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. Period. Either you contribute or you don't; we're not the psychiatrist (not even Lucy) and we're not a social network. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Al-Andalusi not participating to resolve conflict (on purpose in my opinion)

In the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article, Al-Andalusi added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute on the talk page, but wanted to here al-Andalusi's view first.(see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved and hasnt even responded even in last 8 months.

Given this user is not trying to resolve the issue, just blatantly tagging them (to get me to revert it, which is why i think his doing it, like he did last time which got me banned due to edit war), I would like this user to be either banned from editing that article or forced to participate to resolve the issue. We can hear all his arguments here for tagging.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No-one can draw you into an edit war: that's entirely your choice. It's highly concerning that you've returned to the same kind of disputes which led to your two indef blocks, and seem to be picking up where you left within days of the most recent block being lifted. I can see no evidence of you having discussed this anywhere, and coming straight to ANI to demand that admins either ban Al-Andalusi from this article or be force him or her to discuss it with you is rather unhelpful. Your posts on my talk page and the talk page another admin asking that we block Wiqi55 (talk · contribs) ([3], [4]) are also concerning, as are your posts asking admins to weigh in on a content dispute ([5], [6], [7], [8]) instead of first trying to resolve this with the other involved editors. As a very blunt warning; you are on a path to having your block reinstated as you have returned to the conduct which led to the blocks in the first place and are basically in breach of your restriction against disruptive conduct. There is no need to generate all this drama as you are asking for admins to weigh in on matters you haven't properly tried to resolve for yourself. I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming you did not read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expedition_of_Ghalib_ibn_Abdullah_al-Laithi_(Al-Kadid)#Dispute , it shows i have been trying to resolve this issue for 8 months (he never participated or even comments) ! Where did i return to the same actions. I am trying to PREVENT returning to the same action ! "

"I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles", good advice, that is what am intending to do. I am just putting this in the back of my head. I am going to concentrate on creating more military related articles to be featured of wikipedias front page. Once I finish Muhammad's military history related articles, i plan on moving to some other areas.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Al-Andalusi says on his talk page:

My concerns were clearly stated at the time on the talk page (which I started btw). In addition, another editor (Wiqi55) raised another issue regarding the references. So I'm afraid I don't have time for this "he got me banned" drama.

I dont think this is a helpful attitude, he says he contributed and participated, that was right at the start, here, and it was just an argument. No dispute resolution. This was actually a dispute resolution where someone offered to mediate. He refuses to take part--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss the matter with them. An eight month old post followed by an ANI report lodged almost as soon as your block was lifted isn't dispute resolution: it's disruptive conduct. See also WP:STICK. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:DeFacto

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

---

Hello. Some more drama, perhaps, to get less disruption. User:DeFacto is having a hard time understanding that "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone has to agree". They've been wanking on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom for days now, refusing to accept a complete and utter consensus on some minor issue in the article. In the meantime, Todd came by to close two discussions there, and then was nice enough to nip another attempt by DeFacto in the bud at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. DeFacto doesn't seem to get that there isn't a dispute, and they are taking up too much time and community resources. I request that DeFacto be issued a topic ban requiring them to stay at least a Swedish mile away from the Metrication article and its talk page. Of course, if anyone finds it in their hearts to add a block for a couple of weeks for persistent disruptive editing, that would be nice as well. But please, tell DeFacto to stay away from that article and its talk page. Tack so mycket. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we make that a topic ban on metric v imperial units in any article please? Otherwise he will just take his flying circus of disruption to another page as he did to Hindhead Tunnel.--Charles (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This editor has caused immeasurable disruption over a prolonged period, not just at Metrication in the United Kingdom and Hindhead Tunnel, but also in numerous other places such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Introduction to the metric system. Never before have I seen such a clear example of WP:IDHT. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like a WP:Witchhunt, and is unseemly. I disputed that a consensus discussion had properly finished, yes, that was my strong opinion at the time. But let's move on now, there is still a lot of work required on that article. -- de Facto (talk). 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I would support a topic ban for DeFacto on topics broadly constructed having to do with metric v imperial units. I realize DeFacto says he's learned here, but his/her rejecting such a broad consensus so emphatically and in such an indurate manner was an extreme position that a minor correction won't change. It caused significant disruption affecting numerous editors and has continued for months an extended period before it was forced to a head. It speaks volumes about the interpersonal skills or perhaps more succinctly, the lack of on-wiki communication skills of this editor. I don't think this is a witch hunt, rather a measured reaction to an extremely problematic situation. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That event though is history now, and lessons have been learnt. The discussion, resulting in the removal of a paragraph from that article, lasted about 5 days. Last time there was a proposal to remove that same paragraph, from that same article, the disussions lasted about 2 months, and the paragraph was kept. It is a paragraph that uniquely seems to divide opinion and disproportionately stir the emotions in many. Not excuses, just mitigating circumstances. -- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Modified proposal: DeFacto be topic-banned from articles (and their talk pages) which, broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. This is supported, if I read them correctly, by all three (III) editors who have weighed in so far--User:Charlesdrakew, User:David Biddulph, and User:Toddst1, besides myself. I encourage tweaks. My first proposal was an ell off, but I feel we're inching towards the proper phrasing. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Support perhaps a slight reword towards any content changes that broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. But the wording is almost there. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that User:Toddst1, an administrator involved in this action and in the dispute that preceded it, has resorted to canvassing all the editors (diffs: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) who opposed my views in the recent bitter consensus dispute in Metrication in the United Kingdom for their opinion on whether I should get a topic ban for that article! This, I would say, is with the intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion in a particular way. -- de Facto (talk). 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's why I included VsevolodKrolikov and Alpha Quadrant who are not folks that you have made your adversaries. Unfortunately, the number of folks with experience on this issue that you've made your adversaries far outnumbers the others - which speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Six to two then (and one of the two is inactive!). So why didn't you also invite all the editors who have agreed with or supported my edits on these articles in the past? There in one obvious reason - you have made your mind up which way you want this vote to go - and that is indefensible. -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure a topic ban will solve the problem. DeFacto needs to be able to identify then a discussion has reached a consensus. He needs to understand that once a consensus has been reached, he should disengage from disputing the particular issue. While a topic ban would solve the problem on this particular article, it won't resolve the main issue. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but tackling the very apparent WP:Competence issue that you refer to head-on is much more difficult. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- Discussion never hurt anyone. We don't need to continue trying to topic ban every editor who holds a minority opinion. This is starting to become the first response rather than the last resort this page is covered with these topic ban discussions by editors who continue to feel that anyone who holds an opinion other than the majority opinion must be a disruptive editor. JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I support the proposed topic ban on DeFacto.

I bore the brunt of his actions in the "Asda" topic last year when he (in which he was supported by User:VsevolodKrolikov) refused to accept that the addition was made to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was not encyclopeadic. He initially placed this "addition" in the article Metric system, mentioning it once in the lede and twice in the body of the article. I did not have time to examine it properly, so I moved it to Metrication in the United Kingdom and after I had looked at it properly, I tried to remove to. DeFacto objected. The discussion ran over six talk page topics, three of which were attached to the topic:

• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2#ASDA (105 replies)
• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Asda_report_-_12_October_update (30 replies)
• Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#MedCab_mediation_offer (197 replies)

There is no need to read these threads fully, just count them – together they contain over 300 responses of his and VsevolodKrolikov’s WP:wikilawyering during which time he refused to concede that the results of an in-store survey was unencyclopeadic, as was an announcement of a short-lived product launch. I had support from a number of other editors, all of whom eventually gave up in disgust.

DeFacto has also been active on a number of other articles connected with metrication – in all of them he has tried to belittle the metric system by introducing adjectives that are inappropriate in the context (for example using the word "certain" to represent "100%" in the articles gallon and stone (unit) - this edit and in this edit), or by inappropriately pushing hard to promote sloppy use of metric unit symbols (in a manner often by market traders, but actively discouraged in schools) in article ledes. One such example was equating "kilo" with "kg" as a shorthand for "kilogram" (approximately 80% of Talk:Kilogram is devoted to this topic) or by introducing the abbreviations "ltr", "mtr" into the article Introduction to the metric system. Revoking these changes is such an exhausting business that I would wait for a week or two rather than enter into a tedious edit war with him. Meanwhile the quality of Wikipedia has been compromised.

After he had been rebuffed on the Hindhead Tunnel and WP:MOSNUM articles, he “attacked” (I can think of no better word) the article Metrication in the United Kingdom by deleting one section of the article and adding banners to three other sections (My reinstatement here). This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from a two year-old. After I reverted and he again reverted and then rewrote the section "Legal Requirements", replacing a summary of the law with his own summary which bore no resemblance to the law whatsoever. Again we had an edit war and he reverted my text with the comment "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (DeFacto’s revert diffs) I demanded an apology for abusive language, but none was forthcoming. Moreover, when I was preparing an argument against him for piublication on an appropriate noticeboard, he twice deleted my work from my own user area (other editors kindly restored it for me befor eI was aware of what he had done).

Finally, I have wasted a considerable amount of time having to deal with his wikilawyering, reverting of text and abusive language when he is pushing an untenable argument – to the extent that I have wondered whether it is worthwhile spending time as a Wikipedia editor. I believe that an outright topic ban would be appropriate – something along the lines proposed by User: Drmies.

Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of us sympathise with the intolerable treatment which you have received at the hands of this intransigent disruptor of Wikipedia. Many people stayed away from the affected articles because of his attitude and actions. It now looks as if the proposed topic ban will be a moot point, as he has now been indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. It is pretty clear that it was going to have to come to this; sooner is better than later. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban if block lifted. If DeFacto's block is lifted, please can it be replaced with a topic ban on metrication in particular and on engaging in editing and/or discussion on the merits or use of metric and/or imperial units in any article? I'm sorry to say that this will need a wide scope; Defacto pays particular attention to wording; his interpretations can be surprising and might be regarded as testing boundaries, finding loopholes, wikilawyering and just plain looking for any way to win. For example, I can easily imagine Defacto injecting additional measurements in imperial into articles that have been using metric, using inappropriate metric units or abbreviations in order to demonstrate the flaws he sees, or selecting inappropriate units when originating articles, and then bogging us down in further arguments. So please, can we have broad phrasing and an emphasis on following the spirit as well as the letter of such a ban? NebY (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, took too long to write the above and only saw the discussion was closed after I pressed Save. NebY (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block of User:DeFacto

Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [21]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

This breech is all the more serious because:

• a) he is an administrator
• b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [22]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [23]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [24]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [25]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [26]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

  I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerene^talk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.

In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

People lash out when they feel threatened, which isn't an excuse but a reason at least. A week block together with a broadly construed topic ban from metrication is a pretty severe penalty and has the potential to at least keep someone who has contributed considerably. Unless the majority of their contributions haven't been helpful I don't see why it wouldn't be worth trying. I don't care what someone's attitude is unless it colours their editing and in that case it would be easy enough to block again. Polequant (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that they seem to be unable to grasp one of the basic concepts here: Wikipedia is a team effort that necessitates consensus building and the acceptance of consensus. That they haven't been blocked earlier is because such disruptive tendencies don't automatically lead to blocks--they are not easily templated, and require a measure of judgment on an administrator's part that can be challenged in ways a block for vandalism can't. I'm glad to see that Todd and others stuck their neck out, and I'm glad to see that for the most part HJ's decision is supported by the community (including me). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block: In case it wasn't clear from my comment above. It's clear that this editor has some serious issues interacting in an unstructured environment and a profound lack of self-awareness that has led to protracted disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block I reviewed the situation by skimming a couple of pages, but just browsing User talk:DeFacto is sufficient to show that the reports above are correct: the user is currently unable to participate in a collaborative project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of block by EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) had a content dispute with WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) on the Book of Habakkuk article over WP:ERA dating. However, EncycloPetey's last edit was to revert WP Editor 2011's "illegal changes" and then to immediately block WP Editor 2011 for edit warring for 48 hours, presumably so that EncycloPetey's edit would not be reverted. 48 hours just seems a bit much when WP Editor 2011 has had no previous block, and has (from what I can tell) never been warned about edit warring in any capacity. The blocking administrator also failed to leave a block template on the blocked user's talk page, so the blocked user likely has no idea how to appeal their block, or even that they can do so.

During the past two days, each of them made two reversions back to their preferred versions, each of them explaining on their talk pages why they made the edits, so I'm at a loss as to why WP Editor 2011 was edit warring, and EncycloPetey was not. Looking at the article's contribs, it looks like somewhere around a third of the edits to that article have been made by EncycloPetey, so the user doesn't appear to be WP:UNINVOLVED by any means.

I'm not involved in this dispute, but an editor with administrative privileges using their tools during a content dispute to maintain their preferred version and block the other editor concerned me, so I would greatly appreciate it if administrators could take a look at this and review both WP Editor 2011's block and EncycloPetey's actions. I left a message on EncycloPetey's talk page ~15 hours ago asking the editor to clarify why they made this block, but as of posting this message, EncycloPetey has not edited further and their contribs show relatively infrequent editing, so I wanted to bring this here so that this could be reviewed in a more timely manner and the block adjusted if doing so is appropriate. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Editor 2011 and EncycloPetey have both been notified. - SudoGhost 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... I've unblocked WP Editor 2011 as this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good call to unblock. Entirely agree that this was a textbook case of an involved admin. Does the unblock put this report to bed? In my view it would be good to hear from EncycloPetey before we do. I'd want to hear that he accepts this was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, and an undertaking to be more careful in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot on Kim - unblock was entirely correct, and it would be beneficial to hear from EncycloPetey on the matter. GiantSnowman 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP Editor 2011 was simply lying in his edit summary "Undid revision 481432198 by EncycloPetey (talk) since this was the same change made against the rules by this editor on 12 Dec 2011". [This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Habakkuk] was the condition of the article before EncycloPetey made any edits on 12 December. As you can see that version of the article contained both era styles, which is clearly against the MOS, which calls for one style per article. EP simply made the article consistent throughout. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How was he lying? This was indeed "the same change" that EncycloPetey made on 12 Dec 2011, there's nothing untrue in the edit summary. They were both "making the article consistent", and WP Editor 2011 was making it consistent with the first version of the article. Not saying WP Editor 2011 was correct, but this was not some critical disruption that caused for an immediate block by an involved administrator, it was a content dispute. Nor was it "illegal", which is an odd choice of words for an administrator to make in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I missed the "against the rules" part. However, I don't think it was a matter of lying so much as a misunderstanding. - SudoGhost 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[I've re-opened the discussion, which seems as yet unresolved--if an admin made a wrong and "involved" decision this board can comment. If this gains no more traction, it can be closed in 24 hours, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently this issue isn't resolved. EncycloPetey apparently doesn't think this is an WP:INVOLVED issue, stating that "all my interaction on this particular issue has been in the capacity of an administrator". I don't see how blocking an editor for having a content dispute with you isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and this statement seems to suggest that this problem will potentially repeat itself in the future. - SudoGhost 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did that edit go? But also, the thread was just about the block itself or not? It's not like ANI can make someone listen short of community sanctions. Is it thought that this is serious enough for escalation? - 124.148.170.131 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • He undid it a few minutes later with an edit summary stating "undo my edit - I had not spotted that the issue was closed before I had a chance to respond". --64.85.220.19 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator using their tools in a content dispute to block an editor to win an edit war for an escalated period of time when the user has no previous blocks, without warning the user or so much as placing a block template on their talk page? To top if off, that administrator makes no comment that this will not happen again, quite the opposite, not seeing that it is even an issue by egregiously misinterpreting their actions there as somehow not being WP:INVOLVED? Yes, I do think that this is a serious issue. - SudoGhost 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've reviewed this, and agree that it was a clear-cut case of an involved admin using his tools in a dispute. Indeed, it would have been a poor block if he hadn't been an involved admin. Whether it should be escalated further depends (a) on whether EncycloPetey takes on board the opinion from multiple people that this was a serious misuse of his admin tools, and agrees not to do it anymore, and (b) on whether this is a one-off, or a pattern of behavior. The first has definitely not happened yet; I don't know about the second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If I may, I've known 'Petey for a few years and have never seen him abuse admin tools, so I think the comment about a pattern of behavior is unwarranted. I've only ever known him to be a polite and dedicated editor. I have not reviewed the particulars of the case, so I can't comment on it. I would say, however, that there's clearly no evidence that EncycloPetey is going to go on a rampage abusing the tools, so can we tone down the rhetoric here, give him some time to reflect and respond? From someone uninvolved, the discussion here, on his talk page, and at Talk:Book of Habakkuk#BC/BCE could be perceived as piling on. Just a kind reminder to WP:AGF. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this a general comment, or did you indent this correctly and it's a response to me? If you re-read my comment, I didn't say it was a pattern, I said I didn't know if it was a pattern or not, and that would affect whether it should be escalated or not. I also said we should wait to see his response. You've misused AGF to mean "don't criticize someone who did something they shouldn't have", and the "tone down the rhetoric" comment, if made as a general comment, I find puzzling (I don't see anyone in this thread making any rhetorical excesses), and if directed at me, I find insulting (I probably took that in a way it wasn't intended) (because I guarantee I'm not making any, and I have not made any comments about this anywhere other than here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've reviewed and would also agree that they were definitely involved. I can see no way that edits like this and this could be considered admin actions, hence they are involved.

Looking at recent blocks there's another that stand out as problematic. User:EncycloPetey blocked User:Drphilharmonic at 04:27 on 17 Jan for edit warring on Brassicaceae despite them apparently being one of the people that Drphilharmonic was in an edit war with - for example this edit by EncycloPetey which he made with the edit summary "Undid revision 471764899 by Drphilharmonic (talk) - incorrect grammar and incorrect hyphenation". This is clearly a content dispute not an admin action and was made at 22:51 on 16 January well before the block.

I am also worried somewhat by the block of User:86.164.252.184 which must have been for edits to Chlorophyll. Unless there's some previous edits with a different IP I don't think edits like this warrant a block for spamming especially as the IP was not warned and EncylcoPetey just used the default undo edit summary so the IP could find out no information in the edit log either as to what they did wrong. Even when EncycloPetey blocked they did not leave a message to explain the problem. I also note the EncycloPetey had made several previous edits to that article in what looks like editor rather than admin actions (for example with edit summaries like "restoring adverb to follow verb phrase instead of splitting it").

EncycloPetey has only made seven blocks in the last 11 months and I thought it unfair to review further back given the time scales involved. Personally I find 3 of their 7 blocks to be at least debatable and think this is a worrying proportion It would appear that EncycloPetey has a different understanding of involved than the wider community and, at a minimum, I'd like to see them admit this and make an undertaking to not act in the same way in future. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also reported as a possible (anon ip) sock of an unknown pupeteer (as the two attack messages are the only contribs from this anon ip. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. For the record, we have something called AIV.... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[moved 'archive bottom'] To be fair, if Gaijin42 had reported personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry at AIV, they would have probably been told to bring it here. This was the correct forum, I think , although I have no problem with a 4im warning instead of a block, especially since the editor was probably not going to edit from that IP anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To be more snarky than a responding admin, we also have something called not bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume this is in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (4th nomination). FWIW, I agree with Floquenbeam and Nobody Ent. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit to Sandra Fluke

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

---

I want to request that Sandra Fluke be edited to redirect to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. The page currently redirects to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, which redirects to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. I would use the editprotected template, but the redirect is fully protected, and the talk page is salted. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

WarriorsPride6565

I have recently had to revert User:WarriorsPride6565 addition of an old image at the Human article a few times over the past weeks or so. As see by this consensus a new image was chosen. I have informed WarriorsPride6565 of this talk (that he/she has joined). However he/she is simple reverting saying things like The changing and talk is not necessarily. I do not want to see the user banned over a simple image. The "I dont like it" agreement by one individual does not override even the smallest local consensus. Looking for help in how to proceed without having anyone blocked or the page lockup. Basically I not sure what to do or were to go as the user has stated they may report the page (is this a threat of some sort?) Moxy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As seen below the editor is not willing to go about this in a mature manner.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Moxy

I have recently had to revert User:Moxy of an image at the human article a few times over the past weeks or so. While in the talk page most users prefer to use the old image like me, because the old image is an really bad representation of human figures. Moxy decides to replace to replace the old image (which shows 2 moderate human figures) with the new image (which shows 2 very anorexic figures), at the same in the new image it shows the Asian guy that has an penis problem ( of all picture, moxy insists to use this one). Which I believe is partially motivated with bias racism. I do not wish for Moxy to get banned, I just wished the wikipedia keeps it's old image and stop these exaggerated stereotypes. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 5:56, 12 march (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Pls dont call me or anyone a racist as you did here Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I too would appreciate it if those of us (which seem to be most of us) who think the new pic is fine would not be referred to as racists. It is a very nasty personal attack. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• WarriorsPride, a couple of notes:
  • There is consensus for the new picture, so stop reverting to the old one unless a different consensus develops.
  • If you imply that using the new picture is motivated by some kind of racism one more time, you will find yourself blocked.
  • This copy/paste/modify gamesmanship with the ANI report is annoying; while not blockable, it's generally considered poor form to be annoying when you post to ANI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• WarriorsPride reverted the image on Human again, so I've blocked him for 31 hours. I restored the page to the version before the edit war started. If disruption resumes when their block expires, let me know and I'll just block indefinitely; their talk page indicates numerous not-quite-blockable problems before this, and they're starting to add up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I have not seem many productive edits from this editor, and I've given them a final warning before, for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Update: talk page access removed for continuing the "racist" meme, and I'm fast losing tolerance for this crap. So unless someone objects, if this resumes when the block expires, the next one will likely be indefinite with no talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest there's actually a worse problem then the 'racist' meme. WarriorsPride6565 keeps insisting the model who is a living person identified by name in the image description has a 'penis problem'. To diagnose someone has having a penis problem solely based on one photograph and possibly from a misintepretation of that photograph (WarriorsPride6565 says that the penis is erect but this isn't stated in the description and it seems to me it's easily possible it's simply looks a bit like it is from the angle) is rather offensive and IMO violates WP:BLP. In other words, if WarriorsPride6565 wants to come back, he not only needs to stop accusing people of racism without evidence, he needs to stop claiming medical problems in living people without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From his ranting on his talk page, it seems that WarriorsPride's issue is that the model's penis is not large enough to suit him. Further, deponent sayeth not. Ravenswing 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

TWSS. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We've got a serious problem here...

Despite numerous warnings on his/her talk page and discussions of the notability of the video game characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Once again Metal Gear characters, 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks in the Wikiproject discussion, the discussion on the Tekken character list talk page, the talk page of the Metal Gear characters, demerging articles without showing consensus while discussion is taking place and has attacked other editors such as myself, MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs) ([27]), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Tintor2 (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs). He has also called other good faith edits vandalism and has repeatedly breached the relevant policies: WP:NOR, WP:OWN, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOTABILITY. Today, the IP readded the unsourced material to the Onimusha: Warlords page, unmerged the Shadow article from the Final Fantasy VI character article without consensus again and has engaged in uncivil and disruptive activity in the Wikiproject discussion. These issues have gone out of hand and I cannot tolerate the IP's disruption any longer as the attacks and incivility are particularly urgent. What is the best possible solution to help resolve the situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• In am mostly uninvolved in the discussions mentioned above, but I have spoken with the user about two weeks ago. After this edit (which I only happened to see because I had recently tagged the article with the WP:VG banner), I left him a note on his talk page about what appeared to me as a revert of a revert with no visible discussion, and also about the innapropriate edit summary. I pointed him to WP:BRD; he presented a few instances where discussion was being held (or at least sparked). I realized this was nothing recent nor short-lived, but rather a lengthy, sometimes sour debate. Having no interest nor particular knowledge of the subject matter I did not involve myself further, but haven't had much of a choice but to see the discussion evolve (maybe "devolve" would be more appropriate) since it was held at WT:VG. While I believe the original intent had at least a healthy measure of good faith, the editor has shown incapacity for proper discussion, and an inability to accept that people may disagree. Salvidrim! 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've tried to work with him and discuss things with him multiple times, but he gets so wound up in these long, rambling responses, where he talks about various outrages and injustices of Wikipedia, and I can't follow what he's even talking about, let alone have a real discussion with him. I've left several messages on his talk page and several other places saying that he comes off way too aggressive and that it's not helping him out any addressing people the way he does, but he never outwardly acknowledges what I say postively or negatively. I'm tired of his antics, but he, for whatever reason, at least doesn't repeatedly revert any of my edits (though he frequent instructs me on what to do), so I don't need any specific help with him. I'm just tired of his antics in general. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Supporting the statements above. User responds to conflicting views by attacking the editor in question and suggesting that they re-read their post until they "get it" and go away. User repeatedly states that his actions are just to 'get things started' on various stubs and "it's up to the rest of you to fix it after that" as he has no interest in doing anything further. User disregards concensus, and continually seeds his edits and edit history with exclaimations such as "jesus don't you get it?" -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Although at first I thought the user had good faith attempts, his civility was intolerable. Edit summaries use capital, continuously says "rewrite", tags every article (see Jax (Mortal Kombat) and discussions he starts lack formality. Moreover, when he created three articles, Liquid Snake, Hal Emmerich and Meryl Silverburgh, all of them were empty and reverted an edit by AxelTantium (who was returning them to their own sections) calling it vandalism. I would have liked the anon to be more constructive and civil, but I have seen him for several years with the same attitude with another account that was blocked because of wp:sockpuppet.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't personally engaged with this anon yet. I might have inadvertently sparked this rant by carrying out the "revert" step of WP:BRD. I did not participate in the extensive discussion at WT:VG but I did read through it a few days ago and was impressed by the amount of civility and rational discussion that other WP:VG members showed in trying to deal with him. From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to be interested in improving articles so much as he thinks his favorite characters deserve to have articles and wants everyone else to prove it for him. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for six months. This may seem harsh but I feel given the level of exasperation expressed above by multiple editors in good standing (and the supporting evidence on talk pages and contrib histories), it's warranted. The IP editor does not appear to be a net benefit to Wikipedia and dealing with that is actively detracting from the efforts of other editors who, I'm sure, would rather be spending their time more productively.

Incidentally, the IP has been blocked previously as a sock of HanzoHattori (talk · contribs); this may or may not be unrelated. Hope this helps and review welcome as always, EyeSerene^talk 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You might as well check IP 50.99.109.185. Few hours after commenting here, I received some sort message that I was being inconstructive and few insults by such anon.Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There are only two edits from that IP and they're from nearly 12 hours ago, so it might be premature to block now. However, if no-one overturns my earlier decision, future disruption "in the style of" can always be dealt with as straightforward block evasion. EyeSerene^talk 17:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, one of the talks I've had with the originaly 194-- IP was his/her misuse/overuse of the term "constructive editing" on wikipedia. So, considering the 50-- IP used that term, and also ranted angrily, makes the two IP's approach to communication pretty similar. But regardless, thanks for the help, EyeSerene. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure they are the same person. What I really meant, but didn't explain clearly, was that the 50.99.109.185 IP may be dynamic so a block might be unnecessary. At the moment there's not enough evidence to go on but time will tell :) Apologies for my lack of clarity. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass canvassing, meatpuppets or botfarm

I spent some time this morning looking into an issue of suspected canvassing relating to Talk:Republic of China. From what I can determine, 131 editors across enwiki and zhwiki have been canvassed to participate in the move discussion currently running on that page, by 71 different IP addresses in the 61.18.170.* IP range.

The canvassing has targeted editors that the IP believes either come from Taiwan, or have sufficient interest in Taiwan that it has been mentioned on their userpage. Typical canvassing messages are as follows: [28][29][30]. This surely violates our WP:CANVASS guideline on scale (mass posting) and audience (partisan).

For background, several IPs in this range have been blocked both on enwiki and other wiki projects for being open proxies, and recently there have been a number of unblock requests made on some of these IP addresses claiming the IP is not an open proxy but simply dynamically allocated. As the timestamps in the evidence below will show, this is a false assertion - at numerous places in the table, the IP addresses are in use simultaneously. IP address reallocation typically takes a few minutes to take effect in the ISP's DHCP system, making it temporarily unavailable for use, but this user has been able to switch between addresses instantly (eg. [31][32][33]). Further, there are no ISPs anywhere in the world that I'm aware of that reallocate IP addresses on a 60-second basis. Such changes would render the user's internet experience almost unusable. It's simply not possible for this evidence to be explained away as simple dynamic IP allocation.

I believe there is strong evidence that there is either mass meatpuppeting or (more likely) an open proxy/botfarm running on this IP range. The canvassing alone is highly inappropriate, but the posting behaviour demonstrated by this IP range is downright worrying.

Evidence as follows:

Evidence

Canvassed user Canvassed by Date Diff User:Butterfly0fdoom 61.18.170.186 Mar 11 11:57 [34] User:Gorden Cheng 61.18.170.222 Mar 11 12:03 [35] User:Hsinhai 61.18.170.130 Mar 11 12:12 [36] User:James8312201 61.18.170.117 Mar 11 12:17 [37] User:Marcushsu 61.18.170.227 Mar 11 12:20 [38] User:Minkuo67 61.18.170.204 Mar 11 12:21 [39] User:OnionBulb 61.18.170.25 Mar 11 12:24 [40] User:Pryaltonian 61.18.170.131 Mar 11 12:25 [41] User:Ronline 61.18.170.113 Mar 11 12:27 [42] User:Ronald Chien 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:30 [43] User:Shang2 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:31 [44] User:The alliance 61.18.170.78 Mar 11 12:39 [45] User:Yhjow 61.18.170.166 Mar 12 10:24 [46] zh:User:殷浦藤熙 61.18.170.130 Mar 12 10:28 [47] User:Wctaiwan 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:38 [48] User:虞海 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:39 [49] User:Nyttend 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [50] User:Edouardlicn 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [51] User:Rennell435 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [52] User:ASDFGH 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [53] User:Tommyang 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [54] User:Peterkingiron 61.18.170.76 Mar 12 11:00 [55] User:Sussexonian 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [56] User:Matthew hk 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [57] User:Courcelles 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 11:06 [58] User:RevelationDirect 61.18.170.223 Mar 12 11:10 [59] User:Good Olfactory 61.18.170.212 Mar 12 11:12 [60] User:Johnpacklambert 61.18.170.206 Mar 12 11:13 [61] User:Northernhenge 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:20 [62] User:Jim Sukwutput 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:21 [63] User:TaerkastUA 61.18.170.121 Mar 12 11:56 [64] User:Andyso 61.18.170.104 Mar 12 11:57 [65] User:ConorOhare 61.18.170.78 Mar 12 12:00 [66] User:Sgt Simpson 61.18.170.198 Mar 12 12:03 [67] User:Presidentman 61.18.170.168 Mar 12 12:05 [68] User:Jsc1973 61.18.170.150 Mar 12 12:09 [69] User:Allentchang 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:10 [70] User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:11 [71] User:Silverhorse 61.18.170.142 Mar 12 12:12 [72] User:Tuckerresearch 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:14 [73] User:Kintetsubuffalo 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:15 [74] User:Ominae 61.18.170.214 Mar 12 12:30 [75] User:Imdabs 61.18.170.189 Mar 12 12:33 [76] User:Timberlax 61.18.170.33 Mar 12 12:38 [77] User:BilCat 61.18.170.23 Mar 12 12:39 [78] User:Therequiembellishere 61.18.170.6 Mar 12 12:41 [79] User:Think777 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 12:43 [80] User:Dirtybutclean 61.18.170.230 Mar 12 12:46 [81] User:W Tanoto 61.18.170.27 Mar 12 12:47 [82] User:Marbles 61.18.170.64 Mar 12 15:19 [83] User:Nimora 61.18.170.112 Mar 13 14:18 [84] User:A. Exeunt 61.18.170.108 Mar 13 16:46 [85] User:H2ppyme 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:48 [86] User:Thew ent dan 61.18.170.83 Mar 13 16:48 [87] User:MichuNeo 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:49 [88] User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.180 Mar 13 16:51 [89] User:IJA 61.18.170.8 Mar 13 16:57 [90] User:Canadian Bobby 61.18.170.47 Mar 13 17:02 [91] User:Spesh531 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [92] User:AlexanderKaras 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [93] User:Jamiebijania 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:05 [94] User:Qcomplex5 61.18.170.236 Mar 13 17:08 [95] User:MichiganCharms 61.18.170.117 Mar 13 17:09 [96] User:Holy Santa 61.18.170.85 Mar 13 17:10 [97] User:Mouramoor 61.18.170.146 Mar 13 17:18 [98] User:Veyneru 61.18.170.136 Mar 13 17:21 [99] User:Ken Takahashi 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [100] User:Smsagro 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [101] User:Njcraig 61.18.170.119 Mar 13 17:23 [102] zh:User:櫻花公主 61.18.170.188 Mar 13 17:27 [103] User:Sf46 61.18.170.168 Mar 13 17:28 [104] User:Xabiereus 61.18.170.6 Mar 13 17:30 [105] User:Base64 61.18.170.57 Mar 13 17:37 [106] User:Noblesham 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:38 [107] User:Bolegash 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:39 [108] User:Nerdygeek101 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [109] User:Obaidz96 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [110] User:Cradel 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:41 [111] User:Czar Choi 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:43 [112] User:The Bushranger 61.18.170.41 Mar 13 17:46 [113] User:Petero9 61.18.170.161 Mar 13 17:47 [114] User:Cargocontainer 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:50 [115] User:Scriberius 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:51 [116] User:Ipatrol 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [117] User:The Great Duck 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [118] User:Lunar Dragoon 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:54 [119] User:Tanzhang 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [120] User:SGCommand 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [121] User:Laci.d 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [122] User:Unobjectionable 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [123] User:Smart30 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [124] User:Vasko Kelich 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [125] User:Boniek1988 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 17:59 [126] User:Beggarsbanquet 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [127] User:Iune 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [128] User:SergeantGeneral 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:01 [129] User:Typhoonstorm95 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:30 [130] User:Ferox Seneca 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:39 [131] User:Ngchen 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:42 [132] User:Srnec 61.18.170.229 Mar 13 18:42 [133] User:Kevinhksouth 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [134] User:Visik 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [135] User:Pi 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:43 [136] User:Bigmorr 61.18.170.214 Mar 13 18:44 [137] User:Justincheng12345 61.18.170.202 Mar 13 18:46 [138] User:WhisperToMe 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [139] User:Jsjsjs1111 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [140] User:Jj98 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [141] User:Nlu 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [142] User:刻意 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [143] User:Tyle4ful 61.18.170.76 Mar 13 18:48 [144] User:MtBell 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:48 [145] User:Pmanderson 61.18.170.67 Mar 13 18:50 [146] User:Night w 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:51 [147] User:StoneProphet 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:52 [148] User:CWH 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:53 [149] User:Michaeldsuarez 61.18.170.128 Mar 13 18:58 [150] User:Deryck Chan 61.18.170.129 Mar 13 18:58 [151] User:Mys 721tx 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 18:59 [152] User:Cobrachen 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 19:00 [153] User:Zazaban 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [154] User:T-1000 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [155] User:Aronlee90 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [156] User:Σ 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:04 [157] User:Danaman5 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:05 [158] User:Avanu 61.18.170.205 Mar 13 19:06 [159] User:Ohconfucius 61.18.170.224 Mar 13 19:06 [160] User:Icarus the younger 61.18.170.199 Mar 13 19:07 [161] User:Jabo-er 61.18.170.183 Mar 13 19:11 [162] User:BritishWatcher 61.18.170.171 Mar 13 19:12 [163]

I'm not sure what the appropriate admin action to request would be. A range block? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I blocked 61.18.170.0/23; slightly bigger range than the one used above but still small. Maybe a CU wants to poke around a bit and see who is behind it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of the users were definitely selected because they expressed opposition in one or more community discussions on whether to move pages from "People's Republic of China" to "China". Some of the relevant polls are here.[164][165][166] This has been orchestrated by a user who has been following these discussions for a long time; possibly the same user who has been operating under a rotating Hong Kong IP, sabotaging and filibustering every related community discussion and trying to force a 'no consensus' result. If the botmaster is not User:Instantnood, then his behavior is close enough to be indistinguishable from it. Shrigley (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the cavassees were selected because they had the phrase "Republic of China" on their user pages, usually as a flag. Kauffner (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if there are any brave, uninvolved, admins out there who would like to help with closing this discussion (which has been raging for nearly a month), I've reiterated the request for closure (here). I think it's probably a good time to wrap this one up. As in the PRC / China move, we think it's a good idea to have a "triumvirate" of admins close this one, if possible. Mlm42 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely this needs wrapping up.

Its so sad there has been so much disruption :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked 1 month by Floquenbeam. If talk page abuse occurs, you know the drill.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This IP, 71.195.125.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just threatened the life of an editor.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As death threats are considered personal attacks, which are not tolerated, the IP must be blocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I saw that; did you report to emergencywikimedia.org? Honestly though, obvious troll is obvious. Immediate block please, per Sjones23.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Troll or not, death threats like the one he posted should always be taken seriously and reported. Salvidrim! 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Typical childishness as indicated by the latest edit to that user's talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• It's just vandalism, I wouldn't bother with WMF's emergency email. Blocked for a month; they've been doing this for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, thanks. I was not aware of any history of the user.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Also, I have already reported the death threat in question to the WMF. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless these kids start abusing the talk page, I think we're done here.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, I guess that's fair enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • yeah that's fine. Just for the record, I did not send anything to the WMF's emergency email. Racerx11 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, closing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Johnsc12 on the page Humat al-Hima

This user has repeatedly made the same disruptive edits without explanation. I've tried a few times to discuss with him on his talk page but I have been completely ignored and the user has kept on repeating his edits. I'm not sure what else I could do except report the issue here. Thanks — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring. However, I'm not an Arabic speaker so some additional information would be useful. I see you've made an attempt to communicate with Johnsc12, which they've ignored, but at the same time you've both been edit-warring on the article. I guess what I'm asking is why were those edits disruptive? If you could point to some policy/guideline/consensus that would support your repeated removal of their edits that would be helpful. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's true I've been edit warring, but that's because his edits were plainly wrong. For one thing, the transliteration he used was not consistent, whereas my edits followed a standard that you may find on WP:AMOS. While WP:AMOS is not a rule to follow per se, it certainly gives coherent guidelines on how to transliterate Arabic. Actually it would be fine if the user used a known transliteration system (ALA-LC, DIN, etc.) but as far as I know his edits were not following any rules. But beyond that, in the section Humat al-Hima#Original poem, the user kept on changing the word Egypt (Misr) for the word Tunis even though the Arabic lyrics mention Egypt. For that reason, I could not let his edits remain unchanged. Please tell me if I can help you any further and thank you for taking care of the issue. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. This appears to be essentially a content dispute. I'll warn Johnsc12 about non-communication and edit warring, and obviously you know you were edit warring too which mustn't happen again :) However you did try to talk to them and I appreciate that it's difficult when one side doesn't respond to discussion. If Johnsc12 makes more disruptive edits and fails to respond to communication when article protection expires I'd suggest you revert no more than once or twice, then if they keep reverting report them back here or to the edit warring noticeboard, where I expect they'll be blocked. If you like you can drop me a note on my talk page too.

I notice that WP:AMOS is marked as inactive. It could be a lot of work, but it might also be worth considering redeveloping that or coming up with another guideline for Arabic transliteration. I don't know how common a problem disagreement over translation is, but an active guideline demonstrates support and consensus and is therefore much easier to enforce than an inactive one. Best, EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Operation Storm

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

---

Hello ! In article Operation Storm I placed references to youtube which are directly connected with article subject. However them constantly delete. I ask managers to pass the decision on the matter. Links from Youtube:

• Capital of Serbian Kraјna Knin under bombardment of the Croatian artillery 4 august 1995
• CNN video reportage from Serbian Krajina after operation

Best regards ! 78.153.134.178 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually we don't link to YouTube because of copyright and other reliable sourcing concerns (see this guidance which specifically mentions newscasts). However sometimes a YouTube link is okay. I think the best thing you can do is to ask on the article talk page why other editors have been removing the link. It might be that the links are not suitable and are being removed for a good reason. You also need to be careful not to keep adding them back on the article. We call that edit warring and it can get your account blocked. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The second link at least according to the title is CNN footage but is hosted by some random user so will likely be out. I'm not sure about the first link but the fact it's from the same Youtube user doesn't inspire confidence it's not a copyvio. However I agree with EyeSerene, feel free to discuss it in the article talk page if you feel they aren't copyright violations. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ! Best regards ! 212.119.226.91 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Odiriuss

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

---

User:Odiriuss has repeatedly accused me of vandalism,[167][168] arrogance[169], misuse of administrator power,[170][171] and had implied I have no reason.[172] He has also been reported for edit warring. He has stubbornly disregarded reliable sources and the opinion of his co-editors at Talk:2Cellos and pushed his own view at 2Cellos, disregarding the opinion of others. I'm sorry to have him reported here, but it just seems something has to be done about his behaviour. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accused Eleassar of vandalism because that is what he is doing. I have not disregarded opinions of others,just the ones that were blatantly false. I have also provided evidence for my claims,evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute in any way,shape or form thus he is using his admin power to block my account and because all of that i request that he be punished by any means necessary. I will post my evidence here,so there is no confusion,again evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute and is using his admin power because of that to try to ban me. All what i have written,under logical conclusion states that he is unreasonable,as i have also stated.

Here is the evidence i have provided,which Eleassar cannot dispute (copy from the 2cellos talk page):

I am done arguing with you. You cannot prove your points,you have no evidence for your claims and you refuse to accept valid evidence such as: In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

When you can answer all of those questions and find video proof that says otherwise,you can change the article. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Missuse of admin power

Related threads merged EyeSerene^talk 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Eleassar has been using his admin power for making false articles on 2cellos article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos) and trying to get me banned User:Odiriuss because he cannot cope with the truth and does not accept valid sources and evidence i have provided and continues to neglect them all,shaping the article as he sees fit,even though it is false. He has already reported me couple of times even though he cannot dispute the evidence i have given forth. The evidence i have provided is sufficient for any reasonable person,but he does not seem to be one.The evidence:

In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

Numerous other articles all over the world state they are both Croatian,only Slovenian sites make Luka look like a Slovene. Because all of this i request that User:Eleassar is stripped of his admin rights and banned,and that the 2cellos article is locked to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that a third opinion was provided which was in my favor,again shows that User:Eleassar does not care about wikipedia protocol. Odiriuss (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User notified. GiantSnowman 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Odiriuss (talk · contribs) ought to calm down. He's a bit too confrontational for a day old account. It sounds like a case for as much as consideration at WP:RSN, where Odiriuss would be well advised to listen as much as he writes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The real question is, whose sock is he? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly seems to be 78.1.187.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was going to be blocked for edit-warring though that apparently didn't happen. Other IP suggestions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.138.76.254 - David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Odiriuss, it looks like you don't know that Youtube and Facebook are not reliable sources (as they have no editorial oversight) and that self-published sources can only about themselves (in this case the Elton John website could only be used for information related to Elton John, and not for others). Also after a second look I don't see any admin action by Eleassar either to the article or against the user, thus there is no case for "Missuse of admin power". Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  I made this account today because i wanted to have full access to present my case on the 2cellos article,and i have behaved in a cool manner,presenting evidence and sources which Eleassar cannot dispute. As for the reliable source it clearly states : there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material,and there is no doubt that their official facebook page is theirs. Furthermore it does not state nothing about youtube,as it has a wide variety of videos,and the ones that i sourced were form TV stations,which do have editorial oversight. I am not a sock or whatever,as i stated i have made this account this morning so that i could present my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• As per the reliable sources most reliable source is that of Matica Hrvatska (http://www.matica.hr/www/vijesti2www.nsf/AllWebDocs/ciklus202?OpenDocument),a cultural institution which clearly states Luka Sulic is Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This source is contrary to all others stating that Šulić was born in Maribor, including two interviews where he states this himself. However, this discussion belongs to the article's talk page, as already explained. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Armbrust, B.Ed. who do you not see missuse of admin power? The changes he made are in dispute with every single article and video there is about them.ONLY the articles from Slovenia state he is Slovenian.

Evidence: http://www.mtv.com.hr/vijesti/2cellos-luka-sulic-stjepan-hausar-izdaju-album , http://www.matica.hr/www/vijesti2www.nsf/AllWebDocs/ciklus202?OpenDocument , http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/105855/hrvatski-violoncelisti-potpisali-ugovor-sa-sony-music-entertainmentom , http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ocio-y-cultura/20110607/los-chelos-del-pop/1034351.shtml , http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10196/1/2-Cellos-Luka-Suliae--Stjepan-Hauser-2-Croatian-Geniuses-conquering-the-world.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws (the Ellen show which has editorial oversight) . There is not one source out of Slovenia that claims he is Slovenian,if you can find me one show it to me. And in the end a Slovenian site telling the truth : http://www.rtvslo.si/zabava/zanimivosti/video-hrvaska-violoncelista-videlo-na-milijone-americanov/256245 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• And as is stated their official facebook page is not in conflict with reliable sources as there are no questions that it is theirs. Furthermore according to : Template:Infobox musical artist, the "origin" section of the Infobox is for "the city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career, should it not match the location of their birth)" and he changed that to write Croatia and Slovenia. If tampering with articles after being warned is not vandalism i do not understand what is.Odiriuss (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore User:Eleassar lied in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos stating :"It seems like we disagree about what is a reliable source and that we won't be able to solve the dispute by ourselves. I think the Slovene-language sources are completely valid, contrary to the YouTubes that are one-sided and not detailed enough, and there are also other non-Slovene sources listed in the article Luka Šulić that is already locked due to an edit war there." If you have a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_%C5%A0uli%C4%87 there is NOT a snigle source outside of Slovenia stating that he is Slovenian,on the contrary they all say they are a cello duo from Croatia.And it also proves that he is neglecting ALL the sources all over the world except the ones from Slovenia,does that sound objective to you?Odiriuss (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a report about the abuse of administrative powers. As far as I can see no admin tools such as blocking, page protection etc have been used (never mind misused...) What we have is two editors in a content dispute, one of whom happens to be an administrator. This is not an incident requiring AN/I, but a content dispute for WP:DRN or a question about sources for WP:RSN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have provided my sources at the relevant talk page and the reference for the claim in the article Luka Šulić that I had in mind has No. 3. If Odiriuss or anyone else needs a source based outside Slovenia, it is e. g. [173] or [174]. Nonetheless, in my opinion the interviews (cited at the talk page) where Šulić said that his home is Maribor, Slovenia, have greater weight. I have yet to see at Facebook written that Luka Šulić comes from Croatia, contrary to the band, for which we have agreed to list Croatia as the country of origin (per third opinion).

Dear Kim, this post was in the first place (see the top of the section) about Odiriuss attacking me and claiming that I'm irrational, that I'm lying and that I'm abusing my rights. It is also about him edit warring and his controversial usage of multiple IPs and accounts. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

He has not provided any sources that can dispute mine,also his first outside source also states they are from Croatia (http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/music/278479/the-pains-of-being-pure-at-heart) ,how about that? :D User:Eleassar clearly does not understand the difference between place of birth and nationality,as i have stated before i was born in Tokio,Japan but neither me or anyone else has ever considered me to be Japanese.And I have not been using multiple accounts,there he lies again. I have been using this account since this morning,made all of my replies with it and not with another account. This is what i have been saying all along,he cannot dispute the evidence i put forth thus he is trying all he can to get me banned,that is the reason i titled this page Missuse of admin power,that is what i was talking about. He is the only admin that gave me warnings,and accused me of vandalism and without any sufficient proof of his claims or any attempt whatsoever to dispute my evidence,which he clearly cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you have another non-Slovene source claiming Šulić is not only Slovenia-born but was also raised in Slovenia.[175] I think he being in born in Maribor, raised in Slovenia, saying that his family lives in Maribor and that the town is his home surely disputes your unbalanced sources stating that he is Croatian - the rephrasal Slovene-Croatian was legitimate.

That source actually says Šulić was born in Croatia (but raised in Slovenia), and also describes him as Croatian. Number 57 15:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps not the best source, I'll try to find a better one. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:ILLEGIT states: "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles." and it did, per: "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history" and contrary to "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts". As for lying, I'm not sure that you're telling the truth, and I suspect you have been using more than one account, that's why I have used plural. Is this account (Iconda) perhaps yours? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also User:Gaijin42 a deletionist has put forth croatian reliable sources that state they are both Croatian on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos . If User:Eleassar actions after this are not against wikipedia policy i do not know what would be considered as such,since he cannot dispute any of the sources,and an overwhelming number of them (only the ones from Slovenia state otherwise) states they are Croatians. I have not posted under different ip,i posted from this account from the moment i created it this morning.Your lies are just getting bigger,you have no shame whatsoever do you User:Eleassar ? And again in the article you provided http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-27/elton-john-grabs-croatian-cellists-with-hot-guns-n-roses-video-on-youtube.html , you can see in the URL they are Croatian! Seriously i do not understand you User:Eleassar , again it clearly states in the article you provided they are both Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:Eleassar clearly cannot accept the truth,i beg of an admin after all of this evidence put here,both by me and User:Eleassar (even though he did not plan to boost my case) in which it is clearly stated that they are both Croatian,birth place is one thing,nationality another. Please lock the article and make it so that he cannot use his admin right to change it,that is what i am asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. No administrator action is necessary or appropriate. resolve this on the article talk page or if that has been tried and failed, take it to WP:DRN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you, what about insulting people, edit warring and sockpuppetry? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not insulted you once,i have not made edits after the warning and i have been posting from the same account all along. I shall take this to the WP:DRN and after that if he tries to make changes again i will be forced to report him here once again. Odiriuss (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. And I hope you will really take it to WP:DRN. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No i haven't,but i won't discuss it in here with you anymore,my evidence is sufficient and more. Oh i will,i have no doubts in the outcome of it. Odiriuss (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. The links have been provided at the top of the section. You don't have to discuss it here anymore, we can discuss it elsewhere, if you wish. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The more we talk the more you confuse me. You must be aware those are the precise reasons why i reported you here? Anyway,see you on WP:DRN . Odiriuss (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For insults, please go to WP:WQA. For sockpuppetry, please go to WP:SPI. For content disputes, WP:DRN. For disputes about sources, WP:RSN. I haven't seen any other regular posters here weighing in to disagree that this is the wrong place. But I suggest to both of you, wherever you take this, tone down the rhetoric and win the argument by coming across as more measured and calm than your opponent. I will mark this as closed shortly, unless any other uninvolved editor wants to chip in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and calm words. As you stated above, no administrator tools were abused. I think you can close the report. Just for the sake of principle, there are at least two non-Slovenian sources describing Šulić as Slovene cellist.[176][177] Another source says he is a Slovene-Croat.[178] I'll try to find more. In addition, there are several Slovenian sources, cited at the article's talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate relisting?

In this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus an editor, User:Trevj relisted the debate despite it shows, as far as I can see, a clear consensus for keeping the article, so I reverted his action with the edit summary "relisting based on what? I see a clear consensus... anyway no objection to a relist-action if made by an administrator" but the AFD creator re-reverted my action as "inappropriate" so, could an administrator assess whether there is or not a consensus in the discussion and eventually relisting with an adequate rationale? Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the relisting comment, I think the consensus is clear there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a breakdown of the AfD process; what does one do with a discussion running at 4-0 (The IP is discounted) keep where the 4 keeps have been effectively refuted (werldwayd, cirt), devolve into rote ARS dogma (Schmidt), or dismissed as a WP:VAGUEWAVE (Cavarrone)? Tarc (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note; the relist is restored and I have entered an opinion to delete. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that removing a relist by an uninvolved editor of longstanding is quite unusual, and this departure from usual practice should certainly not have been done by an editor who participated in the AFD. As Tarc argues here, it was certainly quite reasonable and accurate for Trevj to conclude the discussion was unsatisfactory for establishing consensus, and relisting was called for, particularly since none of the keep !voters could provide any reliable sourcing for the article or any explanation for the unavailability of such sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear , if mine was an unusual practice, it is clearly more unusual that a non-administrator user put a relist in a discussion that shows 5 valid keep-votes (the IP is not a spa-account) against 0 and doesn't provide any rationale for that. In my revert-edit (and here, too) I just requested an administrator's action, and if the same thing would be made by an administrator I've had nothing to point out. That's all. Cavarrone (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc, that's not how I read the discussion. I read Schmidt and Hullaballoo's arguments as being roughly equivalent and the other points as being weaker, that said I considered it pretty damn unlikely to close as anything other than keep or no-consensus (which in this case results in the same thing).

That said now there are additional comments the relist should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only was the resisting appropriate, Schmidt's fillibuster should earn him some community finger-wagging. The bit with linking to his own shortcut is particularly egregious. Is this normal behaviour for this editor? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Psst! Some of us remember the Aaron Brenneman who also used to regularly link to essays in deletion discussions. It's linking to an essay to further explain one's argument, and shouldn't be considered "egregious". We all do it, even you. And at least MichaelQSchmidt is linking to something that xe xyrself wrote, rather than the useless and counterproductive boilerplate block voting using the same pre-prepared wording from somebody else that the schools discussions came to involve, if you remember. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Ahh, good times.
  While my opinion is that linking to your own essay is wildly disingenuous, we're a broad church I suppose. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see how MQS did a filibuster: he made a !vote, and when it was challenged explained himself in some detail, as appropriate for an expert in the general subject . That doesn't prolong the process. I consider the relisting appropriate--if the comments seem to inadequately address the issues, a relisting can correct the situation, and give the opportunity for others to make better comments, as Tarc did. And fwiw, MQS has now suggested a merge with the director. A complain here was inappropriate--the better course is to wait for the result, and, if one disagreed, then use deletion review, which is intended for the purpose. (or wait a few months and then renominate, which is considerably easier) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  As per my response to Uncle G, I'll simply duck my head and say (with respect) that we see it differently, then. My reading of his edits is almost identical to that of Hull, that they are mostly content-free walls of text. If I were closing that, I'd have disregarded almost every word as pure "filler" and having no strong policy-based arguments. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even though the consensus seemed clear, I have no problem with the relist, as my careful and reasoned and polite responses are what they are. It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed, as a lack of civility is never helpful in a discussion. And yes, I am fine with a merge and redirect to the filmmaker... but THIS is not the forum to offer !votes, insult others, nor re-argue the merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal & The Exodus

This is a continuation of [179]. He continues to editwar slowly at The Exodus, but the last straw for me is his misrepresentations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal of my conduct. Now if I've been out of line I'd like to be told, but I believe I've been acting in good faith at Talk:The Exodus and his comments about my reversion of his edit at American Civil War, particularly after the discussion of them here a few days ago, are an attempt to discredit me. Oh, and any advice as to how to solve the problem of the lead at The Exodus would be welcome, it's just getting worse with time. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Harris Media LLC

Harris Media LLC is a U.S. PR firm specializing in local, state, and national political campaigns. For several years it appears that they have engaged in coordinated long-term abuse of Wikipedia, using countless IPs and sockpuppets to create campaign-brochure type articles on their clients and attempting to control those articles and existing articles for SEO, copy editing to make the articles as laudatory and positive as possible, deleting negative information about the clients, and various other abusive practices such as inserting the claim that a journalist critical of their client is a communist.

I discovered this about a year ago while working on a local senate candidate's article that I originally assumed to have been created by his campaign personnel. But I found that many of the IPs and sock puppets fighting me were also editing bio articles for other individuals across the country, all of who seemed to have currently or recently been political candidates. Googling the names lead me to find that they were all clients of a single PR firm, Harris Media.

I started accumulating evidence at a SourceWatch page before real-life events took me away from Wikipedia. Returning recently I have found that the activity is ongoing but I've realized that it's far too much for me to even thoroughly investigate on my own, much less combat against.

This seems like a complicated issue because it's not simple spam or vandalism: these users are adding a fair amount of legitimate content, often with citations, so it shouldn't necessarily all be reverted; it's just of a spammy nature and terribly POV.

So... how to handle this? I note from searching the archives here that other PR firms have been observed doing the same sort of thing. SourceWatch tracks some of that, is there anywhere else? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking just at the article you mention above, it appears that various people who have worked on it have been making what amount to minor and cosmetic changes. (What I think is the most appropriate thing is to watch all political articles for promotional editing, and, when it is seen, do some drastic cutting back to the basics, 'd say this regardless of who it is adding the articles. The goal is to convince the PR agency and other PR agencies that only proper articles will be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not involved in it, and haven't given my attention to it, but I've seen User:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch mentioned in several discussions. Some of the people listed there may or may not be able to help you. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale edit reverts by User:Tagremover

Resolved

 – both editors blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover is again (old ANI) making wholesale reverts of (my) edits. The editor has 3 Reverted[180][181][182] in Fisheye lens ignoring this and this unrelated edit he/she is also reverting. Editor notified on article talk page about removing un-related content[183] and here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having some problems of my own with Tagremover, first at Sukhoi Superjet 100 (over flags, of all things, and they took it as far as they could), and then at Nikon D700 (they insisted on having a gallery with a dozen pictures of the camera). Drmies (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism

Hello, I'm personally insulted by Dzlinker User:Dzlinker, as you can see here ("you stupid peace of shit"), in addition to attacks in arabic [184] ("yal bagra aqra shuiya" for "read a little bit stupid cow", "bagra edits" fot "cow's edits"...).

The reason of these attacks is a war of edition (on "Kabyle people" article) resulting from vandalism behaviour (page blancking) of this user, of whom I note that he's a regular customer of this kind of process (blocked several times for similar facts). Nabilus junius (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dzlinker blocked a week for edit warring (there was a previous edit warring block) and pretty over-the-top personal attacks, which don't appear to be a new issue either. Nabilus junius blocked one day for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• According to this edit history you were both over the three revert limit in the past 24 hours. I was thinking of protecting the page and going back to The Wrong Version to give you both incentive to use the talk page, given the irony of edit warriors saying "go to the talk page" in edit summaries as they edit war. But revoking privileges is an alternative. Floquenbeam beat me to cleaning your user talk page, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dzlinker has a Waffen-SS userbox on their user page, but I can't find the template. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be User:Dzlinker/Userboxes/waffen-ss. 28bytes (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I was probably supposed to go thru MFD or something, but I just deleted it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Brickell4 complaint

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

---

Resolved

 – Brickell4 blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ;) I am being personally attacked by Beeblebrox User:Beeblebrox as can be read here "....self-proclaimed experts dictating what can and cannot be used to verify that content based on their own prejudices, and by resorting to petty name calling when they see something they don't like." This behavior began because I started mentioning in the talk page of an article that the article was over politicized in nature instead of containing real substance about the subject, (hog dogging). Thanks and if there is any other way I can help with this let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickell4 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you need to slow down and use the "preview" button. This is at least the second time you've inserted your comments in the wrong place. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, you have a bit of nerve to complain about "personal attacks" from anyone while making comments like this. A look through your contributions suggests that you do not yet have the competence necessary to edit here. 28bytes (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) You are not being personally attacked, you are being given advice on how to behave if you wish to edit here. It's good advice, I suggest you listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• He isn't interested in editing here. Blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, good block. The real aggrieved party here is User:Chrisrus, who has been trying to fix this article, only to be met with unending contempt and unjustified condescension from Brickell4. We've both been very patient with this abusive user, but they simply refuse to acknowledge even the simplest standards for behavior and content. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Talk page privileges now revoked. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the article Hog-dog rodeo, where they were causing this disruption, could really use some help now that this angry obstructionist won't be allowed to try and own it anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, when you finish that article you will have done a good thing for mankind, and you can die knowing that it was not in vain. Good luck, padner. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by an IP

I came across these two edits on Maybach Music Group by 199.15.170.150 while patrolling for vandalism. They seem to be legal threats, so I figured they should be mentioned here. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked for other reasons (vandalism) - the "legal threats" are incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, a minute ago I blocked them for vandalism. 31 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good block. This edit is an assertion of ownership of the article, which is not the case nor is consistent with our policies on who can and cannot edit. Mind you that I did not mention legal threats in any way, though that is most certainly blockable in its own right. --MuZemike 03:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica and escalating POINTy conduct related to Libertarianism

Hi. User:Xerographica (notified) appears to have some worthwhile content to contribute in relation to an American electoralist political movement, however, they have problems with pointy editing ([185]). In addition to pointed behaviour, they have a continued problem with ascribing political beliefs to other users. A recent WQA discussion hasn't produced any change in conduct, despite advice from editors. Could administrators have a chat with Xerographia about productive editorial relationships, and/or refer me to the venue appropriate? Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again - it is time for a cup of tea. Xero is not doing anything which requires multiple noticeboards for sure - and the WQA thread did not appear to find anything heinous at all going on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dreadstar

User:Dreadstar made a big to-do about disappearing himself from Wikipedia in early February and nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation. He is now trying to tarnish my anonymous editing and that of others with a sockpuppet tag. I think he's on some sort of power-trip. Perhaps a neutral administrator could talk to him?

Thanks.

• Inappropriate creation of a category
• Inappropriate use of rollback and here

76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the witchunt [186] idea is misplaced.
  • This is a complete fabrication, "nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation." I am very familiar with that case. This comment alone should lead any editor to investigate the IP.
  • The IP's edits to What the Bleep appear to be in the face of editor agreement.
  • The IP is concurrently posting on the Fringe Theories Notice Board against Dreadstar,
  • Looks to me like the witch hunt is not against the IP at all but against Dreadstar.
  • I also worked on What the Bleep at the time Science Apologist was working there, and whether the IP is a sock of SA or not, his manner is very similar and I believe an SPI to clear the air is/was warranted.

(olive (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

• Let's just say that Dreadstar's approach to sock tagging absent CU confirmation is highly inconsistent [187]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci has removed the IP's post on the Fringe Theories NB since my original post here.(olive (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
• I have no idea whether the IP is a sockpuppet of SA (the location seems wrong). His editing at the moment seems disruptive and his double posting on WP:FTN was inappropriate, hence the removal. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• With the caveat that I know nothing about SA, * "Disruptive" in this case could easily be someone new who's behaving normally when accused w/o CU, yes? and * The rollback of the sock-puppet tag removal seems inappropiate. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think SA is a banned user, but other than that, it seems Dreadstar and the IP are engaged in a content dispute here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron, I'd be surprised if the IP is a new editor, given the way he introduced this section (with reference to an old case, but with a misinterpretation of it designed to promote a particular view of Dreadstar). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This account 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same editor as the IP, who has been editing with the first IP for over 6 months (on topics related to fringe physics and cold fusion). In the past SA has edited from NY not Boston. However, stylistically these editors seem indistinguishable from SA. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an account, just another IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

SA/jps/VanishedUser314159 frequently used hyphenation: good-or-bad, not-so-up-to-date, etc, in talk page comments and that seems also to be true of the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the stylistic similarities, both the IPs and the vanished/banned user seem fond of the word "pandering" in edit summaries [188] [189]. But that correlation alone is too weak for me to draw conclusions. Further investigation is warranted, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the word "tenor" metaphorically to describe a lead proponent [190] [191] is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" [192] [193] and an interest in serial comma consistency [194] [195]. Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy [196] [197]. Unfortunately, this kind of evidence proves nothing according to Dreadstar, so I'm curious what he'll come up with as evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All the above is intersting enough, true, and I'll eat my hat if Slim's wrong about this person... but... but... I'm always concerned when we (collectivly) get our DUCK hunting caps on. Even if this does turn out to be the SA irritant, shouldn't we be taking the tiny extra effort to be polite and do all the steps properly? Looking at the tag reversion by Dreadstar, particularly with the totally-true "get some CU" edit summary that he reverted over, I find that I'm not comfortable no matter who it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The last ipsock of SA is here for comparison: 128.59.171.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• My first impression here is one of a distinct air of WP:BOOMERANG on both counts.

1. On the content end, it would appear that the talk page discussion shows a consensus which does not favor the 76.IP editor's preferred version. see: WP:CON policy for further information.

2. On the administrative end, I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to Dreadstar. I suspect that SlimVirgin has been fairly accurate in her observations. I've never been much of a sock hunter, and I do see a distinction between using an IP vs. a registered account - that said, I'd rather see some definitive CU data to the circumstantial "A looks like B" type of diffs that so often fill up these threads; but I do concede the similarities others have noted. — Ched :  ?  08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the ipsock I mentioned, SA used another Columbia IP 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [198]. That was discussed at WP:AE, after which one year blocks were enacted. The timing of edits might rule out SA in this case. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have the impression that SA/VanishedUser314159 is active again using IP socks.

The Columbia IPs he used until they were blocked in Dec 2011 are:

• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.46 - blocked dec 20 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.48 - blocked dec 21 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.194 - blocked dec 10 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184 - blocked dec 23 2011

And I suspected this one too, but it is currently not in use:

• Special:Contributions/140.252.83.241 used until 30 august 2011

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This sequence of edits is a bit strange.[199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207] [208][209] SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article.[210] Similarly in the discussions about Energy Catalyzer on WP:FTN and its fourth AfD. However, I am not sure these show anything conclusive. There does appear to be a considerable overlap of subject matter between the 4 ipsocks of SA and the IP here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I found this remarkable similarity between the currently discussed IPs 76.119.90.74 and IP 71.174.134.165, both at the same geolocate.

76.119.90.74 - Talk:Cold fusion - 18:36 12 March 2012 - explanation that "prove" is not the right word [211]

71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word" [212]

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize that witch hunting was what Wikipedia was like behind the scenes. This discussion has been very educational. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia anymore. If this is the normal way IP authors are treated who are trying to fix the encyclopedia anybody can edit, maybe it would be a good idea to stop asking readers to edit with those ratings at the bottom of the articles. That's why I started changing things here. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

MoodBar Feedback Spamming

I'm unsure what to do about this; as you can see from Special:Log/Superwikiman01 it seems to be possible to spam thousands of these things and I can't see a way to delete them efficiently. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs to be mass rolled back and the account indef'd. Blackmane (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't even possible to delete them. He was using a bot to mass-spam these things because the WMF was so desperate to push these "improvements" out without any safeguards to prevent this type of abuse (5000 submissions in 7 minutes). Be prepared for more of it. I've blocked the account without talkpage or email access, and am going to file a bug report with bugzilla. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)