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

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)
    • 2% plagiarism and copyvio is a goal I'd like to set for the program, not just the ambassadors. However good the ambassadors are, some of the students will commit copyvio, and the program could be a success even if some of the individual students were to do bad edits. But if we made a low proportion of copyvio one of the main targets of the program then there is a greater chance that the WMF and the Ambassadors would take copyvio seriously. With the previous targets the WMF could declare the program a success however bad the copyvio problem was. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 15 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)

Sorry, in context with my wider view on paid editing, they're identical. That's because I'm one of the people that likes paid editing, so long as its declared and reviewed by uninvolved neutral editors. However, you are right, they're different: the class outreach can be, if not well-monitored, worse. For a paid editor, their job is to make a good page that passes long term scrutiny; for the best paid editors, that means accepting that the page is not under their control and may well include negative coverage if that exists. A student, on the other hand, in most cases, just has an assignment to do, no different than any other homework, and needs to get it done by a certain date. I have had students assigned to write on Wikipedia actually say "Just leave it up for one more day so I can get my grade." A student has no long term motivation, nor any reputation to protect. Now, with good ambassadors (campus and online), and fair treatment, this can result in some wonderful improvements to Wikipedia (if nothing else university students have probably the best access to sources of anyone, assuming they're willing to use them). So I don't want the outreach programs to stop. I just want them to 1) be kept at a reasonable level that we can manage, 2) be accountable to us internally, with the understanding that those editors get no special treatment beyond what we would give to any new editor, and 3) any ambassadors giving bad advice or not doing their job will no longer hold ambassadorships. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to the students, their job also is to make good content - the better the content the better the grades. Of course some students will be only putting in enough effort to get the grade they need, but I suspect that some paid editors won't have their heart in it either. The difference in my view is that the students are supposed to be working to Academic standards which should be similar to ours. Paid editors by contrast have an employer who wants more favourable coverage than they'd get from neutral wikipedians. ϢereSpielChequers 15:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this doesn't need to be at ANI, but I think you're wrong on both points. Academic standards are in fact nearly the opposite of ours, because academic papers require original research, and generally favor POV (even many "scientific" papers, since they often assert that one scientific position is correct and others are wrong). Additionally, many paid editors (and their companies) merely want their article not to be filled with inaccuracies, complaints from blogs, and generally poor writing, and accept that we merely cover what other sources have already said. Are there exceptions on both sides? Yes. Can both sides be taught to act well (i.e., per our rules)? Absolutely. So as long as the WMF or the Ambassador project isn't going to interfere with normal editing behavior, then I think everything should be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 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.

Failures in Troubles restrictions rest at admin's feet

In theory the 1RR is an effective dispute resolution tool in hot topics. If reports were followed up properly, and reporters/violators monitored for how they conduct themselves both before and after violations, then resolution in the best Wikipedia traditions would be possible.

In practice, in the area of the Troubles at least, all the 1RR restricton has done is is codify the already bad practices of the (mainly Irish) established editors in the topic area. As has already been said, with just two or three ardently republican editors (so, basically Domer48, Mo ainm and BJMullen), using 1RR it is very easy indeed to 'win' disputes across the whole encyclopoedia, and lock all of its articles down to the Irish world view, rather than resolve issues in a way that creates high quality neutral works.

All it takes t succeed is a lazy admin with the mindset that all they are there for is to count diffs and issue blocks. What is happening in this area is that the experienced POV pushers are simply giving the mandatory warning and phoning in the reports. They follow each other around to each dispute to ensure this tactic works, and have done so for years, in total disregard for the supposed distaste this site has for such obvious meat puppetry.

The idea that 1RR has encouraged meaningful and respectful discourse on talk pages, for the mutual benefit of creating neutral wordings based on considered argumentation, is frankly laughable. Look at any average talk page at any one of these areas (where it has even been used, as it more often than not isn't). It normally reads as a perfect 'how not to engage others' guide. Evasion, diversion, distortion, cpov, gaming, it's all always there in glorious technicolour. This is why not one single article toiched by these people will ever be raised to the verified level of being some of Wikipedia's best work. But they are of course fine with that, because creating neutral articles is not their goal.

HJMitchell should be commended for his recent actions in blocking one of the regular pushers who tried to win one recent dispute in this manner. But most of you are not as dilligent as he is, and clearly balk at the idea of investigating the events surrounding any one of these reports for an eye to all policies relevant to how consensus is supposed to be reached. Still, that's what happens when you build a site where the 'policemen' are all volunteers, who can amazingly get away with saying 'screw you, I don't have to do shit around here, you're luck I even looked at this for 5 minutes'. Infact it's hilarious to see how often many of you openly declare that you've abandoned this area to hell and won't touch it with a barge pole.

It's not surprising your collective dilliegence is so lax though when you even have an arbitrator who has no issue in enabling one of the regular abusers of this tactic to hide his past identity, in order to present to the more gullible among you, a supposedly clean his block log (which as we all know, is very good thing to have if you intend to spend your time on Wikipedia reverting to 'stable versions' and filing 1RR reports).

Infact, whern it comes to the whole British-Irish topic area, the administration of disputes is frankly laughable. I nearly fell off my seat when I saw HighKing was finally forcibly removed from the whole British Isles topic, having been for years conducting a one man English language modification programme on Wikipedia (although it continues through the diligence of fellow patriot BJMullen). I was not amused when it turned out that HighKing had supposedly been topic banned from the whole topic area all along - when this ban was enacted he had switched from removing the term to tagging it on that very day, a clearly tendentious tsactic that he continued to use for months until somebody noticed. That shows just how crap you collectivly are in dealing with these very determined POV pushers.

In short, 1RR is a good idea, but it's only as good as the admins behind it. So how about you start doing you jobs properly? Treaty19239 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Sorry, Sundostund, if you think I lack "humor and flexibility". I find nothing funny in perusing your edits. In this response (the first time, I think, that you actually deign to respond here), you are wrong in more ways than I can count, and I will mention only a couple of things: I have remarked earlier that many of your edits seem productive, and if I didn't think so (and didn't actually judge them on content) I could have reverted the lot, which I haven't. Why you'd "forget" to make an edit summary is a mystery to me. I never called you a vandal (nor did I question your manhood, ahem), so just drop that. No, I was not disappointed when you ceased edit-warring (for which you've been blocked before). And I'm not the only one who was bothered by your disruptive patterns, as is attested by the very persistence of this thread. I think it is time that you start engaging with other people, even if they're stiff and not funny (pff), that you stop treating other editors as antagonists, and that you start accepting some responsibility.

  And seriously, you have been removing anything even remotely critical from your own talk page--so why would I think that your edit summary was funny? Cause of the smiley face? It's simple: start explaining your edits. This is simply expected behavior, not some cross you have to bear. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, you proved yourself that you lack humor and flexibility. I don't care about your humor, but it's a problem if you think that edit summary can be important same as edit itself, or even more than edit. I repeat what I said before: Every one of more than 24,000 edits I ever made on WP can be seen, and is open to judgement of other editors. I'll accept any punishment for my behavior and my mistakes here, now and in the future (although I'll give my best to avoid incidents like these in the future). --Sundostund (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• What editors have been asking for is that you communicate--if you wish to prevent further unpleasantness, that's what you need to do. As for humor, I got a joke for you: two Serbs and an Irishman walk into a bar--and they all turn out to be nice guys. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your advice, I'll try to implement it in the future. As for your "joke", it's the best example of "your sense of humor" (which is non-existent, obviously). --Sundostund (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• The funniest part of this discussion for me is that Drmies is actually uproariously hilarious in real life. Aside from that, I can only echo Drmies – communication is really key here on-wiki. Otherwise people can easily read incorrect motives in your actions, leading to situations like this. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Ed, I don't know Drmies in any other way than by this interaction with him, so I have no clue about his real life. I'm not interested in it anyway. For me, the funniest part of this discussion is that my ability to communicate and collaborate with others came under scrutiny. Anyone who know me in real life know very well that I have no problem with that. Cheers, Sundostund (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on Sundostund you got to laugh, don't be such a stick in the mud. I've been told the joke is not racist (even though it mentions two separate races and would make no sense without doing so) and you've been told that guy is a blast in real life. Me I'm pissing myself... Bjmullan (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, you and I obviously don't have the same sense of humor, I don't like the joke, but it's by no mean racist nor I claimed that anytime. I'm not offended because a Serb is part of it, it's just too simple for my taste. In fact, here in Serbia we have many popular jokes involving Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Slovenes etc. and nobody claim they're racist. --Sundostund (talk) 0:07, 16 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)

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: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), 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: [9]). 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: [10]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [11]). -- 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: [12]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [13]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [14]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Block review request

• 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)
• Fine block Nobody Ent 17:43, 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.

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)

My main concern is that this might happen again, and if there's a pattern of this then I certainly think it needs to be addressed. I think the easiest and most satisfactory way to address this is by EncycloPetey acknowledging and understanding that this was an inappropriate use of the administrative tools, and promising not to repeat this. However, as of their last comment on the matter, they apparently don't think that this was an WP:INVOLVED issue, which would seem to suggest that they would have no intention of stopping this behavior, which I think is very problematic. - SudoGhost 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

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) ([15]), 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)

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thanks a lot. If the problem continues I won't edit war as much :) As for WP:AMOS, perhaps one day I'll try to reopen the case, but for now I haven't really come across many problems regarding transliteration, and it seems as though reopening the case would rather stir more trouble. We'll see! — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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)
  • And a sidenote in not being able to see inside the relister's head to determine his reasoning, I do agree with Cavarrone that the relisting was not per the instructions set for doing so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From that page, relist a debate when "it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy." Spot on relist. Lots of words <> policy argument. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It all stems down to how the relister judged the discussion's policy and guideline supported merits and, in not knowing the relister's mind, it might be that he felt as you do. That others may have felt points were well made and simply offered "agreements per" rather than restate the arguments they supported in their own words, while not as helpful, is certainly allowed and is something a closer will take into consideration. It could just as easily be argued that consensus was reached. That said, and as all we are doing here is discussing the fine points of something done, undone, and redone, I propose we close this ANI as moot and let the AFD conclude as it will. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 16 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[16][17][18] 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[19] 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 [20] ("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)
        • Thank you, Floquenbeam. Next time, I might take a page out of your book if I run into such stuff. I've never claimed IAR, but this seems like a perfectly valid invocation thereof. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 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 ([21]). 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 [22] 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 [23]. 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 [24] [25]. 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 [26] [27] is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" [28] [29] and an interest in serial comma consistency [30] [31]. Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy [32] [33]. 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) [34]. 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)

Or they might not. There is enough time between then to travel from NY to Boston, never mind electronic ways of appearing to have done so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:20, 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.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] [44][45] SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article.[46] 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 [47]

71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word" [48]

--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)

Rant Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations clearly states only blocked accounts should be tagged; editors are directed to file an WP:SPI if they suspect something is amiss. This fad of editors defacing IP editors talk pages without bothering to file an spi should be stopped in its tracks per it's fucking rude. Someone please indef Dreadstar (and any other tag crazy editor) until they agree to knock it off. Wikipedia: The encyclopedia where anyone can get treated like shit. Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what is Template:Ipsock for? This "fad" seems to have a template that's been around for years. Without looking at the merit of Dreadstar's tags, he's just mistagging the IP's.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly whether they are admins or IPs. Bringing an editor to ANI and to the Fringe NB in the middle of a content discussion which is why we are here, and mischaracterizing the admin and the content discussion is not appropriate editor behaviour. That's the fundamental issue here. Secondary to that, is the possibility that IP may be a banned user.(olive (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Clearly, an anon IP like 76 who exhibits enough knowledge of wiki to bring an ANI and a noticeboard complaint this fast is a former user with an agenda, particularly when it parallels a previous pattern of a blocked user. This is no newbie getting bitten, it's someone who lacks the integrity to get a user name and work according to the rules. And Dreadstar is an experienced admin with a good nose for trouble. IP disruption of articles and topics does need to be dealt with quickly; there's no need to hide behind anonymity. Montanabw^(talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a long-term IP editor, and I read AN/I pretty regularly for the lulzy drama. I guess I just lack integrity. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that we're supposed to rely on "noses" here rather than any form of clearly presented evidence that others may judge by themselves. Has Dreadstar's nose received any official endorsement? Has he ever been a CU, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a years-long vendetta between Dreadstar and Scienceapologist/jps/etc. I don't think an editor who wrote this (admin-only, see deleted contributions) has any business sleuthing out SA's alleged socks. Skinwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I fail to see how appropriate use of admin tools and then later recognizing a writing style when someone is trying to sneak back equals a "vendetta?" The issue I see here is an unwarranted ANI on Dreadstar by an anon IP who has in fact been engaging in disruptive editing in an area that is a familiar haunt of a user who had his account deleted by Dreadstar. Sometimes someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong. I see from that link (just what I can read, the public bit) that another admin previously also had to address SA's behavior, at least, account deletion would suggest that. As for the rest, we all have bad days and sometimes aren't the perfect diplomat in our phrasing (just today, I had to hit backspace several times to remove some words from a comment elsewhere prior to hitting "save page." I did, fortunately). Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The link I gave was to the mainspace article ScienceApologist, not to his user page User:ScienceApologist. Dreadstar did not delete SA's user account. He created a extremely derogatory mainspace article about SA, then deleted it. I see that you are not an admin and therefore can't read the deleted text, but it is quite a bit more than a minor diplomatic failing. Skinwalker (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If he really did that, why hasn't ArbCom desysopped him for "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and all that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the arbitrators. During the discretionary sanction arbitration I submitted detailed (e.g. TLDR) evidence of Dreadstar's behavior[49] that highlighted this incident. They ignored it completely. Skinwalker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just did. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why SkinWalker thinks the arbs ignored his evidence. They posted a decision on that case after a lot of evidence was presented, SkinWalker's included.
• My concern is that an editor who didn't get a result he wanted out of an AE is trying again, here, which seems a lot like poisoning the well.
• The issue here, to reiterate, is that an IP whose edits were against talk page agreement [50] then brought one of the editors who disagreed with him here, posted about that same editor concurrently on the Fringe Theories Notice Board, while posting patently false information about that editor. This is not about a newbie editor who was attacked as he suggests for his editing. Its about an editor who may have used Notice boards to gain an advantage in a discussion and against an editor he disagreed with. That doesn't sit well, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

69.86.225.27

This IP editor has admitted to being the "home address" of one of the year-blocked edu IP socks of SA [51]. The 69 editor has edited as recently as Feb this year, despite the block on the edu address. Based on the use of the word "flapdoodle" [52] [53], I think it probable that the 69 IP was SA as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Congratulations, officer, turns out that house you serached w/o a warrent did have drugs in it!" Forgive the hyperbole, but can I please just say "!!" and have it jog our collective memories? Am I alone in thinking that voracious DUCK hunting does more harm than the (actual) socks? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there's no warrant needed to look at someone's contributions on Wikipedia. They're all public to begin with. On the other hand, you might want to protest against "banned means banned" instead, but this is not the venue for it. (And if you still doubt the self-admitted socking, the 69 and 128 IPs participated in the same AfD, although they had the integrity of not double !voting [54] [55].) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 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)

And I've just nailed another vandalbot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another:User:KingMolestia. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and blocked User:WikiPrefix 2 hours ago, I've hidden the feedback dashboard contribs of the latter, but the edits are not rollbackable (or I'm not savvy enough to do it). Help would be appreciated, as I'm on smartphone (User:Lectonar).109.45.0.93 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't possible to rollback or delete them. I am in contact with the developers at the moment to try to get this fixed quickly. (I've also created an edit filter to stop the vandalbots that were attacking pages.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the developers have disabled the moodbar to stop this flood of vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to hide MoodBar comments, but only one at a time; not efficient for that type of spamming. Maybe Special:Nuke could be adjusted to take care of MoodBar comments too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism-only IP, personal attacks on another editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week. — foxj 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IP address 50.53.216.65 has made three edits, all of them offensive, the most recent one today. Two are on another editor's user page: here and here. The history of that user's page is also fraught with vandalism from other socks. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. If this recurs, the best board to report this to is WP:AIV rather than this one. However rathr than being bureucratic about it, it seemed quicker to just do the necessary here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The bureaucracy is very discouraging. This IP has been used only intermittently, so 1 week is unlikely to be noticed. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks aren't designed to punish, they are designed to prevent. — foxj 16:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So wouldn't blocking longer prevent this from happening in the future? Especially when the edits are so sporadic/intermediate? A week block seems more punitive than preventative in this situation.--Zaiger (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fightloungemike

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

---

User:Fightloungemike is being reported here for having little or no regards for the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The main areas of concern are canvassing for the keeping of OMMAC 1 using an external website. After this request we had the following new users appear on the scene and voting to keeps the articles: Brashleyholland, London84tfl, Starwar1, Redbaronfury. The Afd can be seen here.

The second breach is the continual use of personal attacks against other editors. See here, here, here, here, here and here. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• yes, I did ask other people to vote - but I had no idea at the time that this wasn't allowed. The people I asked are a few MMA fans, who have a vast knowledge of the sport (journalists etc) and who I knew would appreciate wikipedia having OMMAC pages. Personal attacks? Stating the obvious more like. Wikipedia has a bunch of editors voting on MMA articles when they don't know much about MMA. I promise to no longer say anything about the other editors on Wikipedia anymore, but the policies on this place need changing. I apologize to the car-mad Bjmullan for calling him a worm. I'll also apologise to the worms when I next see them.--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Careful. Saying recalcitrant, combative things "Personal attacks? Stating the obvious more like." and "I'll also apologise to the worms when I next see them." is a fast track to WP:SANCTION-land. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holy moly. I guess we can forgive the canvassing, but those personal attacks are unacceptable. I have left them a templated final warning with a brief note: I hope that will be enough. Some eyes on the AfD will be helpful as well. Fightloungemike, you can try to bully people into agreement, but experience shows that it rarely works. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• The problem here is that Fightloungemike does not understand the guidelines, policies and culture here. Wikipedia isn't a forum where you can vent like that. While I admire his passion for the topic, he needs to learn to read the actual policies more carefully, and not reply to every comment in the thread (a problem I occasionally have, so I understand). Wikipedia isn't a free for all, no matter how much it looks like that at times. He would benefit from reading about assuming good faith, and learn to step back just a little. If I could choose a "punishment", it would be a 2 week course on guidelines and policies, with a written test. That would at least solve the problem in the future. Hopefully, he will just admit that he was upset and took it too far, apologize for the name calling, so no further action would be needed. Maybe go outside, read a book, watch a cartoon, just get away for a few hours and give yourself some distance from the situation. The AFD will still be here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Judging from Fightloungemike's comments after Drmies' warning, it doesn't sound like he particularly gets it. That being said, I'm surprised he didn't get a wake-up-call block. Calling those who oppose him worms and replacing the user page of opponents with repeats of "I'm a fucker!" - more than once - is not the mark of a passionate editor. You don't have to be familiar with Wikipedia civility rules to act like a civil human being. Ravenswing 19:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, I hadn't seen those user page edits, sorry. (BTW, I doubt your optimistic reading of human nature and civility: a lot of people don't care anymore--people don't even cover their mouths anymore when they yawn in class.) As far as I'm concerned there's no need to block at this time: edits since the warning reveal some misunderstandings and a heated spirit but no NPAs that I deem blockable. In the meantime, someone (whom I may have called a "meathead", for which I gladly stand trouted) saw fit to out Fighting Mike (or whatever), which doesn't help. Folks, settle down. It's just a couple of articles. An insult is easily reverted, and further insults will be blockable instantly. As for those AfDs, not all admins (despite rumors to the contrary) are morons, and most of us should be able to gauge what's valid in an AfD and what isn't. Your servant, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What a great night - accused of having the IQ of the pigeon, called a worm, accused of underhand tactics, the the warden on The Shawshank Redemption and a Meathead, and all I'm trying to do is improve this project. You know where my talkpage is and you can apologise there. Bjmullan (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And while your at my talkpage Drmies you can also apologise for this racist joke as it turns out I'm also Irish. Bjmullan (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BJ, I'm an Irishman myself (my brother's name was Patrick), and I didn't see that as a racist joke; if anything, it was mocking racist jokes. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (looking forward to Saturday, of course)

I'm the kind of anti-racist who gets attacked by neo-Nazis, but there is NOTHING racist about that joke at all. GiantSnowman 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've already apologized to you BJ, you can apologize to me now. Oh and I have never deface any users page at all, so that is a blatant lie by the person above. I'm very passionate about MMA, more than anybody could believe. After 18 years in the sport - it's safe to say that MMA, along with my daughters, is my life.--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, nobody could doubt that you're passionate about MMA; indeed, it seems to be your biggest problem in understanding that most of the human race does not care a rotted fig about them, and probably half of humanity never even heard of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• MMA is the fastest growing sport in the world and people have predicted it to be the biggest sport soon. That is why these articles are important. Just because you don't know your Anderson Silvas from you Lee Murrays doesn't make it not important to people--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sweet Jesus--the torture never stops. Orange Mike, you are completely correct in your reading of my "joke" (which is the worst I've ever told, though the one about the people with the speech impediments who all share a hotel room in Brussels is pretty bad too). Bjmullins, if I offended you by telling an obviously non-racist joke in a context with which you have nothing to do, also given that I've never met you before and didn't check your user page or your DNA, let alone your entry at ancestry.com, then I truly apologize. As for calling you "meathead"--well, what would you rather have: a rather honest assessment of your meatheadish outing of an editor, or a block for harassment (check out where WP:OUTING redirects to)? Take your pick.

  OK, so one editor tells me I got no sense of humor, another accuses me of telling racist jokes--and the nicest words have come from the person to whom I gave a final warning for NPAs. I think it's time for another session in the pool, which is at roughly 70 degrees. You all have a choice: you can carry on with this here and see who gets blocked first or who can make the biggest ass of themselves (not you Orange Mike, though perhaps your Orangeness is a blatant attempt to brown-nose me since I'm a Dutchman--ha! as Dutch as the Lumberjack), or you can let this die a slow death and do something useful with your fingers, like cook dinner or plant gardenias. Let me summarize: Bjmullins has been chastised for outing someone. Fighting Mike has been chastised for calling other editors bad names. If Mike does that again he'll be blocked, and I think he knows that. The AfDs will run their course--and in the meantime the wiki won't be broken. Cheers everyone. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things Drmies, trying getting my name right and if it's a choice between being called a Meathead and a block, I'll take the block every time. Next time use Dutch rather than Irish in your jokes.... Bjmullan (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nice Peter Aerts reference. I'm not going to call names anymore, you have my word. People need to realize that I could be a valuable commodity on Wikipedia when it comes to MMA - My knowledge of the subject is scary/geeky. I'm sorry to everybody--Fightloungemike (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

2.224.215.196

• 2.224.215.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP has continually made edits to several The Bold and the Beautiful pages ignoring the rules of Soap Opera WikiProject. And despite warnings and warnings, they've ignored everything. And at this point, it's tedious. I tried simply reporting their IP, but they told me to come here. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Newsy anachronisms

As a frequent copyeditor, I often see potential anachronisms of the form "X is currently . . .", and have commented on one here. Is it not high time WP barred such constructions, which have potential to be a serious blight on the project? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language; note that Wikipedia:Time-resistant grammatical forms redirects there. Dru of Id (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. So there is the option of tagging offending statements with the template {{as of}}, which generates a patrollable list that is capable of regular review. I will make use of this in places where the problem can't be edited away. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjenks, as right as you are, the MOS is not enforceable via blocks or bans, at least not currently. I personally think that anyone using the phrase "going forward" or "having said that" should be banned from the community of mankind. You could propose an edit filter that blocks the word... Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, an edit filter might be appropriate? grins, ducks, runs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He'[s going around tagging images that were uploaded by the copyright holder (or files sourced to the US Govemrnent) and released either into public domain or under multilicense GFDL and creative commons as "missing permission". [56], [57], [58], and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes [59]. There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm ^X 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above:

• I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
• I have restored the two categories in question as a result of [60]. I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama.
• The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.

What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.

Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:213.148.166.210

This guy is an IP user. He keeps messing with pictures on the Russians infobox article, because of conspiracy theories he believes about Vladimir Lenin.

I've already told him that he believes these, then he should start a "conspiracy theories" section on the Vladimir Lenin article or perhaps on the talk page. Shouldn't be too severe of a punishment, but it's just not good.

I've also explained to him, that Wikipedia is a place for neutral information. Not bias information against Jews. But however, he is allowed to make a Wikipedia post regarding the awaraness of conspiracy theories which is why I told him to simply start an article about Lenin conspiracy theories.

User:213.148.166.210

PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

You must go and tell 213.148.166.210 (talk · contribs) that you are talking about him here. leave a note on his talkpage. Penyulap _talk 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)