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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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)

IMO, paid editing is a red herring. We should be looking at content, not who produces it. The problem with the Online Ambassadors program is that no one's in charge. They appear to be an independent setup. Somehow oversight needs to be exercised over this program. Right now they appear to be independent. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a proposal regarding greater transparency and community involvement in the Ambassador selection and removal process at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Increasing community involvement and transparency in ambassador (de)selection processes. MER-C 03:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That needs to be split into two RfCs. There are two issues here. RfC/U are almost never used to remove someone from a position. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I might not have been totally clear there, but the process is analogous to formal administrator recall (RFC/U, no improvement => ArbCom). I have edited the proposal accordingly. MER-C 04:13, 17 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)

By blocking the obvious ban evading sock? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 16 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)
• Endorse block The more I see of this user's behavior, the more I'm surprised it was tolerated this long. We need to get out of the business of hosting this kind of volunteer on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Serious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality here. The proper response to being blocked for violations isn't "Helllp! I'm being opppressed!!!". It's "My apologies, and I won't do it again." Do people lash out when they feel threatened, as Polequant says? Indeed they do ... and we do not condone that behavior on Wikipedia. As far as that table goes, by the way, I don't think it's overly objectionable on the face of it, but it has no business being on a user talk page, which is supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the encyclopedia, not as a forum or a billboard. Ravenswing 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto requests assistance

DeFacto is requesting on his talk page that an uninvolved admin take a look at the actions of Drmies and Laser Brain on his talk page. He believes he is being threatened for the table he has added to the page. Drmies and LB believe it should be removed because it violates WP:NPA. Any help would be greatly welcomed. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note to reviewer(s): the current table on the talk page has had much of what appears to have been the objectionable material redacted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite having had WP:NOTTHEM pointed out to him, DeFacto still totally fails to understand that any unblock request needs to address his behaviour, and not the behaviour of other editors. The material he keeps adding to his talk page is thus not relevant to any valid unblock request. It seems to me that Drmies and Laser Brain were each perfectly justified in saying that DeFacto's talk page access should be removed if he again added this irrelevant material, but he is continuing to play games and make a point and I therefore see no reason why this removal of talk page access should not now be implemented. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A major part of DeFacto's behaviour that continually frustrated other editors was his ubiquitous presence. He was always there. Other editors, either through choice, or probably the pressures of real life, came and went. DeFacto didn't. He was always there. No matter what others said, at any time, if DeFacto disagreed, he would respond with more of his ongoing wall of words, forever insisting that consensus had not been reached, and demanding that other editors go away and find more evidence to disprove what he, and increasingly only he, believed. On his Talk page he has continued this behaviour. He has continued posting, in this case a catalogue of what he saw as evil sins against him. I posted there, suggesting that he give himself a holiday. He politely thanked me, and just kept posting. Sadly, I saw a distinctly different and ironic meaning in his heading "In desperate need of help please" to the one I'm sure he intended. DeFacto sees no problem in his behaviour. I doubt that any of us here can convince him that there is a problem. He must remain blocked because of the damage he has done (and continues to do), but we cannot reasonably expect a sudden acceptance of fault and reversal of direction. He should also be blocked on his Talk page. I strongly doubt that he can stop doing what he is doing voluntarily. A block there (presumably of some limited time - maybe a month or two) will be good for both Wikipedia and Defacto in the long term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Action: by both Drmies and LB in the context of this editor's recent history. However as one of its primary subjects, (see above) I didn't find the history matirx very objectionable. We all know that NPA doesn't apply to discussing admins. I also think it's time to close the block review above and put an end to the drama around this editor. I'm sure Defacto will want to have any closing admin's action reviewed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 17 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)

EncycloPetey still hasn't edited, but I think some sort of comment by EncycloPetey would be needed before this could be considered resolved. - SudoGhost 02:32, 17 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)
  • • It's been pointed out to me that Mr. Schmidt's statement that "It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed" is rather plainly counterfactual, given comments he's made elsewhere like "shouting and insults reminiscent of a bully in a 2nd grade schoolyard. However, when one considers the source of those insults, they may be dismissed as sour grapes", "only to have been rudely filibustered by its nominator", and "pointedly ignore its other parts if doing so serves a personal agenda" are far more accurately characterized as impolite, insulting and uncivil than any of the comments he inchoately alleges (without any specificity) have been directed at him. He plays the spurious victim far too easily, like a schoolyard bully who complains whenever his victim fights back. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 16 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)
        • The ongoing repetition of the claim that the relist was somehow unusual or aberrant in policy terms is without foundation. Here, for example, we can see an AFD with a stronger case for consensus being relisted without generating objections [15]. There was something quite odd about the insistence of so many of the !keep voters in disregarding both the copyvio problems and the article's extensive, virtually exclusive, reliance on promotional sources, to say nothing of MQS's peculiar sourcing practices (eg, identifying a press release as a staff-written article in an industry trade magazine ([16], ref5), which at least borders an an outright falsification or his most peculiar argument that an unexamined list of Google search results (not even involving the key term) somehow justifies the article's characterization of the actor as an "iconic" figure, even though the term appears to be parroted the actor's own PR copy. Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
          • "Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate" is a reason why your own response here to re-argue your AFD comments or cast asperisions on me is decidely unhelpful to the issue at hand. The relisting is done, is accepted and is essentially a closed issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move to close this ANI as moot and not requiring adinistrative action. 20:43, 16 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 [17] 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 [18]. 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 [19] [20]. 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 [21] [22] is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" [23] [24] and an interest in serial comma consistency [25] [26]. Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy [27] [28]. 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) [29]. 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.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] [39][40] SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article.[41] 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 [42]

71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word" [43]

--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[44] 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 [45] 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 [46]. 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" [47] [48], 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 [49] [50].) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - A trout to any that think this is a "newbie". Close this joke of a thread already: Dreadstar is not on trial here. What a shame this is. Doc talk 08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, this is not a newbie, and the thread is only stoking drama. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is pretty low-volume "drama" really, and "stoke" implies "fire" which I'm not seeing. Just some people stating their opinions. But, yeah, close away. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Dreadstar is not on trial, the thread boomeranged to the submitting IP and therefore I think it is legitimate to discuss whether or not the IPs are used by a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• based on my comments above, I don't see anything more to be done here and would support a close.(olive (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

• 69 has also tag teamed with 128 in a revert war [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is all pointing to a continued ban evasion with different IP socks, can we start a CU for IP 69 ? I would then add another IP with the same geolocate as 69 to that case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been gone a lone time now. I thought I would check in at some places to see if my break made a difference, then I see this. If you think SA is editing against his ban, do an SPI and check. Quit all the guesses and defending a friend and let the checkusers do what they know how to do. This is past silliness already. I'm sorry, but after reading all of the above about this, I felt the need to say, give it to the checkusers to see who it is. It's not rocket science here, it's the rules, remember! The IP was upset and said things not liked, not true maybe, don't know. But IP's are allowed to edit here and this doesn't make anyone want to edit when they can be accused of being someone else without a reasonable doubt. Just wanted to say what I thought before I leave. I sure hope you all decide though to get this checked out and stop the duck hunt at this point. Have a good day! --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MoodBar Feedback spamming

Resolved

 – Accounts blocked. Developers disabled the function. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I wish more people used {{as of}}; it can make it much easier for us to ensure the encyclopædia is up to date. bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to have a bot run through articles looking for certain phrases that lack the {{asof}} template, weed out the false positives, and then have the bot run through the appropriate articles and add the template? I dunno. --64.85.214.132 (talk) 12:18, 17 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)

That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Wikipedia articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: In Wikipedia, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Night Ranger blocked

So here's the background. I blocked Kumioko for a week (archived thread here) for abusing multiple accounts. Night Ranger (talk · contribs) decided to put sock tags on all Kumioko's accounts and related IPs. Some of these tags were wrong (claiming incorrectly that there were checkuser blocks) but all of them were unhelpful, IMO. Floquenbeam removed the tags, but Night Ranger edit warred to restore them. I left Night Ranger a note asking that he stop doing that, and he responded by putting a "retired" banner with "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" on his talk page, and bunch of "BLOCK ME"s on his user page.

OK, fine, just someone getting frustrated.

So then he returns from "retirement" to put an image of a penis on his userpage. I leave him another note telling him I understand he's frustrated, but to please not do that.

He responds by putting another penis image on his userpage (animated, this time) and announcing plans to remove all the "banned" templates from all banned editors' userpages since apparently they're "unhelpful", and indeed starts doing this. I happen to think that some of those banned templates probably are unhelpful, but Night Ranger obviously disagrees and was clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I understand he was frustrated about the G10s (and he was right to be, sockpuppet categories are not attack pages, especially in the case of sockpuppet categories for editors who were actually sockpuppeting) but this disruption is absolutely not the way to deal with that frustration, and since he's ignored repeated requests from me and other admins to please just behave maturely about this, I believe a block (1 week in this case) is quite reasonable under the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

...and he's just sockpuppetted to evade the block. I've indef-blocked the sock but I'll leave Night Ranger's at a week in hopes that he'll stop digging. 28bytes (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a discussion going on at AN...or maybe Village Pump? Anyways, a discussion about not using the banned user templates or, if they are used, not to delete the rest of the userpages/user talk pages as well? I seem to remember this happening, but I didn't stick around to see what the outcome was. Silverseren^C 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple of related discussions at WT:BAN. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

carlingford lough "international border"

The term "international border" was removed from opening of the Carlingford Lough page. I have tried to revert but this has been met by further revert telling me that I need to discuss the edit to revert back to the original. Very bizarre. I am conscious of not starting an edit war as the page is under 1RR. Please read talk page topic - Remove term "international border". Please adviseHackneyhound (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder what relation this account has to One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). Coincidence, or WP:HARASSMENT? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My money is on the latter. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the only relation is that we both have "hackney" in our names. Please do not diminish this request with an unrelevant point. Sarek, if you are an admin, can you look into this please?Hackneyhound (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What is heavens name is the problem? It is clearly stated that it "forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south.". The word "international" is plain superfluous, as the context makes clear that it is a border between two countries and thus an international border. It may take a while (a few centuries I guess), before it is an internal border. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Needless repetition of an idea without imparting very much additional clarity. It is tautology. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I raise this issue is that a suggested change has already been made to change the location field in the infobox to include "Northern Ireland". This has been blocked so far as we require consensus. The same users who are blocking this useful edit removed the term "international" without consensus because they do not consider Northern Ireland to be a country. This page is littered with inconsistencies and POV. I don't think this edit should stand if no consensus was reached. Hackneyhound (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

24.132.2.224/Misternumber1987

• 24.132.2.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Misternumber1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (per the duck test)

Would someone like to apply the banhammer to this IP/account please? Despite multiple warnings their appalling edits are continuing. Yesterday's examples include this addition about crime in Amsterdam blaming it on foreigners and "loverboys" (I kid you not!), similarlly more about foreigners and crime here, this addition to a film article ranting on about an area used for filming blaming crime on foreigners again and even using Stormfront as a source. Then to cap it all off we've got this addition they've been trying to make at Maryam Hassouni's article for over a month. "Although critical acclaim she had won the Emmy Award. Many Dutch citizens did find the timelife of her acting career and getting the Emmy award too fast. Hassouni barely played then in Dutch Movies & already gained international famous without stepping into Hollywood USA. For winning the Emmy Award she was a guest on Dit was het nieuws, but could barely underbuild her questions threw her career randomly" - really???? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(Tangentially; I'm not at all defending these horrid edits) The term "loverboy" is much more sinister than its light-hearted name might suggest - see De Wallen for some details. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I still don't understand what, if any, difference there is between a loverboy and a pimp though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Loverboys typically are younger men who get girls to fall in love with them and then put them to work. At that moment they are pimps, but it's the stage that precedes it that makes the loverboys. It's a pretty serious issue--so serious that I don't understand why Loverboy links to some hair band. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(shudder) Actually, they really weren't bad at all. Doc talk 13:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to the initial subject, since the IP is still adding unsourced xenophobia to Amsterdam, would anyone like to do the necessary please? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

While it isn't really our place, perhaps explaining to the editor that an Emmy Award for Best Performance by an Actress isn't actually a lifetime achievement award will help? Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I had totally missed this--I just ran into the IP's xenophobia in Amsterdam-Noord (which isn't a Garden of Eden, but I wouldn't blame it on immigrants from Ghana). The IP is blocked, and I'll re-read this thread again to see what else needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• The account is indefinitely blocked: a talk page full of warnings about uploading unlicensed content and BLP violations, coupled with an edit history full of soapboxing and xenophobia--this user is not here to improve the project. I had blocked the IP, which appears to be static for 72 hours. As you know I'm no geek, so I don't know if there's an autoblock that would apply to the IP as well, if that's where the editor was editing from. If the IP needs to be blocked longer (or again, after the block runs out), please take appropriate measures, and feel free to drop me a line. Hackney, I think you've been all over this, for which I thank you; do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick, please

How do I do a mass rollback of everything an editor did? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You get the mass rollback tool - its in my monobook - importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js') - Ask User:HJ Mitchell as I have seen him use it with a degree of regularity. Youreallycan 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I borrowed a mass rollback line from that script but can't find added functionality. I'll ask HJ. Thanks You, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It shows up at the top right on an edit page/diff - I will do it for you if you like - whose edits are they? Youreallycan 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think mass rollback works with Firefox browsers since the wiki software upgrade a few weeks ago, in case that's the issue. I used to have it, but not since the upgrade. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used mass rollback with Firefox in the last few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass rollback works with my Firefox. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the correction. Maybe it's something in my configuration then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And mine. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just be careful with the amount of available RAM on your computer as initiating mass rollback quickly shoots up RAM usage and loads every single rollback action on new tabs. It gets kind of annoying especially when doing 500 rollbacks at a time.—cyberpower ^Talk_Online 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The mass rollback will only rollback the number of edits showing on the current contributions page. In my case I only show 50 contribs at a time, so it's not too much of a load. Rollback last 50 edits, open next 50 edits, rollback...and so on. This is also a nice check for me to make sure that all of the edits are problematic and I'm not reverting too far back in the history. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've only used it once so far. What I do, and find very easy is I drag the open Wikipedia tab out to a new window, have my list show as many contributions that need to be reverted and then hit rollback all. I then drag the open Wikipedia tab back to the Firefox browser which leaves all of the action complete tabs open in a separate window allowing me to easily close them all at once. The drawback of such a mass rollback of over a 100 rollbacks is it slows the computer and hogs RAM as it tries to load those pages at the same time.—cyberpower ^Babble_Online 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There are actually three different mass rollback scripts; User:Splarka/ajaxmassrollback.js, User:John254/mass rollback.js, and meta:User:Hoo man/smart rollback.js. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What do they do differently?—cyberpower ^Soliloquize_Online 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the John254 script performs a mass rollback of all edits on a contributions page. The Splarka allows you to rollback all edits made by a user in a given amount of time (default 7 days). It has an option to selectively rollback edits. The Hoo man script works similarly to the John254 script, only it allows you to mark rollback actions as bot edits (requires sysop flag) and it also permits custom rollback edit summaries. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Austereraj

There has been a long discussion at User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights, and it clearly seems to need a attention from ANI. Austereraj is back with multiple IP's + registered new name, User:Researchfir. Please do what is necessary. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing

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

---

I feel I am getting mistreated by this person and he is abusing his rights. Not only has Ravenswing lied about me editing user pages and swearing, he has also deleted my posts when I brought up the subject and then give me a warning for abuse when I haven't abused since I promised not to last time. If this person has lied about me then he is a liar. I've been on here just over a week and, while I admit I haven't been a total angel, I have already be outed by BJMullan and now had pure fabrication made about me by this guy. He needs sorting as I believe him to be dodgier that dodgy dave from dodgeville He hasn't even had the decency to apologise.--Fightloungemike (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) He also deleted posts on the UK MMA Awards afdl that could have helped in the decision to keep. totally unfair--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend WP:MENTORSHIP for Fightloungemike (talk · contribs) (FLM). As FLM states, he has been here for only about a week. In that time, he has been argumentative, combative, and, at times, abusive towards established editors which has resulted in his own ANI and multiple 4im warnings due to WP:CIVIL. He has also been involved with WP:CANVASSING of AfDs (here and here) to the extent of meat puppetry. FLM has repeatedly apologized for his actions and blamed them on his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. FLM's WP:BLUDGEON debates in the AfDs also shows FLM's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. And now, FLM has started this ANI about an accusation Ravenswing made in the prior ANI and Ravenswing's attempts at keeping off-topic discussions out of AfDs, which to me seems to be a bit WP:MOUNTAIN. At this point, I think WP:MENTORSHIP would be best for FLM to learn about Wikipedia, its guidelines and policies, and learn how to be more diplomatic in dealing with fellow editors. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since Drmies gave FLM a level 4 warning (after which he stated he would make no more personal attacks), following his actions as detailed in the ANI thread above, these are some of his subsequent diffs: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. The last one is a diff of the redacted comments from the AfD he's referring to, which other than Dennis Brown's comment on the personal attack, contain nothing but FLM's personal attacks; how he believes launching personal attacks would materially affect the outcome of an AfD in his favor I'm unsure. The fresh level 4 warning to his talk page came after those diffs.

  Given his behavior so far, I'm not as sanguine as TreyGeek about the ability of FLM to interact in a civil fashion - other newbies have been indef blocked for a good deal less - but if some editor wants to give mentoring him a go ... Ravenswing 17:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did you lie about me Ravenswing? Answer the question?--Fightloungemike (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I personally feel that a block is the only way of demonstrating to FML that bullying tactics don't work here. And by the way FML if you are wondering why the discussion is about you and not the person you reported I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. Bjmullan (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• You would say that since you broke the rules for outing me. There was an ANI about me where you all had a chance to warrant your problems - that is now closed. Can you please keep to the subject at hand - which is Ravenswing lying, deleting posts and giving false warnings. He lied again above saying that I have been abusive since the last warning - I have done no such thing--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• The diff's above tell a different story... Bjmullan (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Best recommendation for FLM right now? WP:CHILLOUT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, there is no abuse since, so you can stop lying too--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fightloungemike, should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent point GoodDay...I should be blocked for having lies made about me, posts deleted for no reason, and given warnings for abusing when I haven't abused since the last warning.--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• If you want, we could all settle this like men out of wikipedia? That's not threats or anything just an idea?--Fightloungemike (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have issued a final final warning to Fightloungemike. Hopefully a word to the wise will be sufficient.  Frank  |  talk  18:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fightloungemike, please dial it back multiple notches, right now, so someone uninvolved can look into this without spending valuable time blocking you and then arguing with you about it. You have made your point now, a dozen times over, I get it so you can stop now. Ravenswing, you mentioned earlier that FLM had replaced people's user pages with "I'm a fucker". I'm not seeing that anywhere. Was it a mistake, or could you point out where that happened? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  The diff was posted by another editor in the ANI thread above, and I noticed it when I reviewed all the other posted diffs. I couldn't find it an hour ago, but there's an oversighted diff removed from one of the pages, and that may be it. That being said, I'm unsure what the good of a "final final warning" is. I've yet to see anything from FLM that shows that he has any handle on civil behavior, respect for Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or willingness to learn the same. I don't know whether demonstrating that we actually do mean final warnings when we issue them would work, but it couldn't hurt. Ravenswing 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  It could hurt a tiny bit if we drive away a user who might otherwise be convinced to contribute productively. Nevertheless, another admin might decide to block anyway. I think FLM has calmed down; whether he will actually be convinced to become and remain civil is well beyond our control. And I've hopefully made it clear that I will block for further such accusations without supporting diffs. We shall see. Regarding the oversighted edit, it appears to be unrelated.  Frank  |  talk  20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  OK, so it appears that Ravenswing was mistaken about this issue. (I don't see any diff like that in the thread, and I've been through FLM's userspace edits and can't find even one instance of it. Perhaps it was in another thread and you confused the two?) FLM, if anyone ever brings up the "you wrote I'm a fucker" on someone's userpage, you can point to this statement in rebuttal. Although I suppose it would be nice if Ravenswing apologized for the mistake, or struck out that portion of the comment, my own opinion is that you're in no position to demand one. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, there is a difference between being wrong, and lying, and I'm fairly sure Ravenswing was wrong, not lying. And for yet another, you've thrown out so many rude and personal comments in the last few days, and rather miraculously not been blocked, that to demand an apology for one mistake coming the other direction defies logic. Let's end this with a simple agreement that you didn't post anything like that, and that you have agreed to change your approach to editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) If we are discussing FLM's behavior and editing practices WP:OUTING, as was done in the oversighted edit, is related. I'm doing my hardest to WP:AGF about FLM's actions and that is why I advocated WP:MENTORSHIP. He's new and doesn't know much of what goes on in terms of being a constructive editor. Regardless, I think FLM has been given as much WP:ROPE as he deserves at this point and truly hope that things will change. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am remaining calm. Can I add that Ravenswing can't find the diff because there never was one. --Fightloungemike (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment from totally uninvolved editor: I can't condone all this, but I can definitely understand it. I can see Fightloungemike's point of view, as a newbie; I can see everyone else's point of view quite clearly, too. I don't have time for any full-time mentoring, but if FLM wants to chill out and chat to the inhabitants on my talk page, he's welcome. My talk page is a Mandatory Truce Zone (all weapons to be left at the door), but I have a load of talk-page stalkers with sense, experience, and one who successfully managed to work with me when I was an overly-passionae HFA relative-newbie myself. FLM: I'm sure you will be of immense value to the 'pedia; it can just take a while to settle in here, and that first bit can be a very rocky road. Pesky (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Pesky - thank you very much for the offer, and I'll like to take you up on it buddy. --Fightloungemike (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome! Be warned – I'm a mad British granny, lol! And I talk a lot (as others will no doubt confirm!) Pesky (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ha ha that's ok, I'm a mad scouser with three mad little girls and a mad wife. we should get along fine ha--Fightloungemike (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • FLM, I'd be careful with that grannie. She's a mean old broad--I've been told. Hey, three girls, that's nice. I'm hoping my number three will be a girl as well. Also, Pesky may actually well be a commoner, so I hope you're a Motorhead fan. (Thanks Pesky.) I'm not going to close this, since I like Mike (and I don't know Ravenswing very well, but they got a really cool user name), but I hope someone will. And on the serious tip, I hope we don't have to keep doing this. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• ROFL! [badass granny tacklehugs Drmies] Pesky (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ravenswing was mistaken about some things and needs to just apologize (his faith was good, his reading of diffs wasn't), but the bigger issue is FLM. I haven't responded to being told I have the IQ of a pigeon (Drmies did a better job than I could), as I understand that FLM means well but is way out of his element here. I think Ravenswing is correct that some mentoring would be a good idea. I do believe last time I recommended a two week course, with a test, which was my way of saying the same thing. FLM probably should be instructed to not create any new articles until after some mentoring. After that, I think he can be an good contributor, assuming he can pull back on the attacks. That would be more productive than blocks, I think, if he would agree to it. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am unable to find an edit by FLM that consists of repeated obscenities, so right now I believe he has a right to be upset by that. However, a slew of other users have an even greater right to be upset at FLM for his repeated insults of those who disagreed with him. He's had repeated warnings (and how many "last chances" does one get?) and continued to abuse people after being asked to stop. I believe in WP:AGF, but after several warnings on his talk page and many more comments at various AfD discussions, I believe he's lost the benefit of the doubt. I believe a temporary ban on FLM is appropriate for his behavior. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignorance can't be claimed after a dozen comments telling him to read the policies and stop attacking other editors. We went through something like this when user Bigzmma started out and he bordered on a permanent ban. After his several short term bans he became less combative and has been a eager contributor to MMA articles. I believe ths same can happen to FLM. All editors need to realize that improper conduct will have consequences. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA is a reason why I think WP:MENTORSHIP would be a better option than a complete block. (I think we may have done Bigz a misfavor by blocking him versus teaching him.) If FLM were told not to create new articles for the time being, as someone above suggested, and with a mentor work on improving existing articles, he will learn how to be constructive editor. The MMA WikiProject has many, many articles that are classified as "start", "stub" or "unassessed". With the knowledge that FLM claims to have about MMA he should be able to improve any of these articles; then, given guidance on citing reliable sources and other guidelines he will learn quite a bit about being a Wikipedian. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As one of the users who was subject to attacks and threats from Bigz, as well as dealing with his many recreations and attempts to sabotage/circumvent AfD discussions, I think his bans were clearly earned (and he's become a better Wikipedian). I don't oppose mentorship, but I also don't condone the abuse FLM has dealt out. Consider a short ban to be the cooling off period others, including yourself, have said he could use. Papaursa (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and a week ago I was feeling much the same as you when you were ready to go on a permanent wiki-vacation (if you haven't looked, take a peek at the crap I was taking on my talk page from multiple directions). The only problem I see is that FLM hasn't been blocked yet and it appears no admin is up for blocking him at the moment. The block should have come days ago if it was going to come. Short of FLM going on another rampage I don't see one happening in the near future. So, I'm trying to come up with a possible resolution with the options that I think are left on the table. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys; FLM's had an invite over to my talk, which he's said he'll take me up on. I have a good bunch of helpful TPSers, including one who could actually cope with me, and between us all, we can give him most of the help and friendly advice he needs here. He hasn't posted anything at all since 20:09 last night (our time), shortly after he responded here last. Blocks should be preventative (y'all know this), not punitive, and as of now there's nothing more to add to what was said earlier. I appreciate there's a lot of bad feeling about, and people want to get it off their chests, but once it looks as though we're settling into something more productive, any more venting (no matter how tempting, and I appreciate that people need to vent sometimes!) is just piling-on, and no longer necessary. I'm sure FLM has calmed down enough to see that a bit of climbing down and apologising might be in order at some point soon, but give the guy a chance! It's 05:01 here at the moment, and he's probably fast asleep. Let's see what we can do without any more drama, shall we? Let my mad crew see if we can help him and everyone else out before pushing for anything else. Pesky (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MiraLatina

Account appears to belong to a PR representative. Makes zero constructive edits, and although used infrequently, all of the edits emanating from the account are of a promotional nature. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Editor isn't very active right now, and the edits on Rosario Marin don't trouble me much. I'm about to have a look at Joachim de Posada. It seems to me that the articles can be helped through normal editing, and perhaps with some help from the kind people at WP:BLPN. If the editor then starts becoming disruptive one way or another, then this board can step in. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• OK, the external links made it clear: all her articles plugged bestkeynotes.com. Will block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

alternate names bias

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

---

• The setup
• We have a tennis player named Sasa Hirszon where it was decided to keep the name at it's foreign diacritic spelling rather than at the English common spelling. Arguments for English were the usual: ATP (Association of tennis professionals), Davis Cup (International country vs country tournaments), English newspapers and English television overwhelmingly use Sasa Hirszon. The ITF (the governing body of tennis) "requires" all players to take an Anglicized English alphabet name upon registration, and has had in its bylaws "English language only" since the 1920s. The obverse reasons for placement at Saša Hiršzon are also the usual: It is his accurate birth-name and it is the name used in his home country. We all know the divisive diacritic arguments that happen at wikipedia and the fact they results go every which way depending on what editors happen to find the vote being taken in a particular week. I'm a follow-the-English-sources guy... If those sources show diacritics then that's what I go with, if not then we go with the English alphabet. Editor User:Joy would need to tell you himself/herself his views of diacritics. It seems to me they are use at all times. I was quite unhappy with this Sasa Hirszon result but it's what happened after that has me perplexed and upset enough to bring this here, because it affects tennis articles of the past and future that work on to some degree.
• The problem
• At tennis project we tell editors to make an alternate name in the first line like wikipedia policy tells us to do. As an example, if a debate lands a player title on his English alphabet name we would put the following to this fictitious player: Zen Zeliski (Franistani: Zĕn Zełĭski). This is to let readers and editors know that player has another version of his name in the Franistani language that could be common depending on the reader. Of course we have redirects from the foreign spelling also. It seems only fair that we also have the obverse if the article name lands on the franistani spelling, so: Zĕn Zełĭski (English: Zen Zeleski). This is what I did to the Saša Hiršzon page Here. It was reverted by Joy where he promptly put in a new section titled "repetitio ad nauseam" to tell me I was wrong. I discussed this with another Administrator who told be what I did sounded reasonable to him, so I went back and changed "English" to what I thought would be more palatable "Common Name" Here. This was reverted by a different editor but confirmed by Joy once again. You can view the full dialog Here. I even suggested we could do something like Zĕn Zełĭski (Alternate name: Zen Zeliski) to no avail. I also suggested, since Joy didn't want any alternate name, that we also remove the alternate naming when players wind up at the English Alphabet version so instead of Zen Zen Zeliski (Franistani: Zĕn Zełĭski) we'd just have Zen Zeliski. That way at least we would have consistency amongst our many tennis articles. I told him I'd need his support if I I remove that from other tennis articles and I got no reply. I find this a ridiculously biased stand by a wikipedia administrator. I had thought of maybe (ITF name: Sasa Hirszon) but that only covers part of the alternate name reasoning plus many casual readers of wikipedia tennis may not understand what ITF stands for. With new tennis editors at the project we won't know how to explain the discrepancy of handling these situations. Would I rather this article be at Sasa Hirszon?, of course... but it's not. Therefore my preference is to have Saša Hiršzon (English: Sasa Hirszon) or Saša Hiršzon (Common Name: Sasa Hirszon) just as we have Andrea Petkovic (Serbian: Андреа Петковић, Andrea Petković). It seems only fair to our readers to let them know and keep things on an even keel and it seems to me that Joy is overstepping his authority. There may not be many administrators here that really have no thoughts on tennis and it's diacritic situation but I'm not sure that matters as this is really a content equality issue on the policy of alternate names. But it affects so many new player articles and I certainly don't want to go through this over and over. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• So is Joy using or threatening to use his admin tools in some way? If not, this sounds like a simple titling/naming disagreement, which is something AN/I can't really help with. 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No he is not. But we are getting different opinions from different Administrators on an issue that could easily turn into edit warring. I came here for a decision on how to proceed when it seems wiki "policy" is being violated by a biased editor. If Joy had blocked me or others for reverting it, then that would be an abuse of power. It has not come to that. If this were a basic silly editor like myself it would be different, but Joy being an administrator is a bit intimidating to figure out where to take it, and when. I felt we went as far as we could go. I thought this wasn't just a content dispute, this was an unbalanced judgement where I had already asked for advice. Are you saying that this would be better served at a place like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or perhaps Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. If you feel that is the proper placement I'll close this and open it at a suggested local. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That being the case I'd suggest starting at WP:DRN. Keep in mind that while administrators may (and usually do) have opinions on content issues, their opinions should be not given more weight than those of any other editor. 28bytes (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Then please close this up (or whatever the term is here) and should you or I let User:Joy know about this, since it was placed on his user talk page? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is the point of adding "(English: Sasa Hirszon)"? That's already deducible from "Saša Hiršzon" and does not add anything of value. If it were "Sasa Hirszon (Croatian: Saša Hiršzon)", that would at least add info on the original spelling. It's deducible one way, but not the other. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Probably best not to get into such formatting discussions at AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Brewing problem

Could someone(s) who has more time than me take a look into a brewing problem on a number of different user talk pages. I happened to make a comment on User Talk:Guy Macon (a user I tried to assist in the past) to User: Hengistmate about distinctions (or the lack thereof) between admins and non-admins, and ended up finding out that there's a whole mass of less than pleasant interactions between at least 5 editors here. I see 2 very experienced users (User:Andy Dingley and User: Biscuittin unhappy with each other (note, specifically, User Talk:Andy Dingley#Undiscussed deletions). I see User:Hengistmate using that discussion as a claim that Andy Dingley is incivil (at least), at User Talk:Borealdreams#Don't let it get you down. (which looked like this before Borealdreams removed part of it on the advice of Guy Macon). Hengistmate is partly upset and Andy Dingley because of a less than civil conversation that occurred at Talk:Tank#Country of Origin. and lead to this discussion on Andy Dingley's user talk; later, he became more upset because Guy Macon warned Hegistmate but not Andy Dingley (see [this since deleted discussion on Guy Macon's talk page, and the followups on my talk page at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Your recent message. and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I was wrong.. Guy Macon also made claims of bad behavior against Hengistmate at User Talk:Borealdreams#March, 2012.

I have no idea what's really going on here. I don't know if everybody's acting badly, and all need to go to their separate corners. Or if just some people are acting badly, and they need to be warned more strongly and/or sanctioned. Or maybe just these people have different interaction styles and aren't dealing well with others. I'm not even sure if all of the above discussions are actually "really" connected.

Of course, the inevitable question is "what admin action are you requesting"? I am not in any way recommending sanctions against anyone. I'm simply seeing a bunch of tinder that looks set to explode, and I'd rather stop it now if there's some way to do so, since, at a first glance, all of the participants seem to have something positive to contribute to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination right now to figure it out myself; thus, I throw it open to this board to see if anybody (including the principles) can make sense of what's going on and find a way to diffuse it. I'll go notify the lot of them now...give me a minute though.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick scorecard of the players:

I have chosen to not have any further interactions with Hengistmate. His actions have not risen to the level of stalking, but he has inserted himself into several discussions where I am trying to resolve a content dispute, all critical of me and none of which he had any previous involvement with. My opinion is that he just wants to pick a fight.

Borealdreams is an editor with a self-admitted COI (he sells a product that is marketed as an alternative to lightning rods) who went into full attack mode when I questioned his COI editing. He offered an "olive branch" and expressed a desire to make a fresh start. which is why we both self-deleted several comments about each other. My opinion is that he means well and has the potential to create a good article on lightning protection, and I would like to assist him with this if he is willing to let me do so. He has misbehaved, but appears to have a genuine interest in improving.

User:Wtshymanski‎ (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) was the first editor Borealdreams went into full attack mode on. Wtshymanski‎'s sarcastic style greatly contributed to that conflict. Wtshymanski is an experienced engineer and he is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues in this matter.

Andy Dingley is another experienced engineer who is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues on the matter of lightning rods. I don't know anything about his conflict with Hengistmate on the topic of military tanks.

User:OlYeller21 (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) is an uninvolved editor who worked with me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Lightning rod in a previous attempt to resolve this mess.

I don't know anything about Biscuittin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one note about the above, Guy Macon: you cannot choose to "not have any further interactions with Hengistmate", and then bring up complainsts against him to another editor as you did in this edit (which is after you told me you were ceasing interaction on my talk page). If the issue is too stressful or unpleasant for you to deal with, you've got to leave him alone entirely; otherwise, you're essentially creating a situation where you can complain about him but he can't raise complaints about you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I participate at WP:COIN regularly and came across this issue when Guy Macon reported the COI here. I dealt mostly with Guy Macon and Borealdreams as the other involved party (Wtshymanski) only left one message on in the discussion and did not respond to a request from me. I reviewed the situation lightly and in my opinion, Guy Macon has attempted to be neutral with both parties. Please note that I haven't read every single edit from all three editors. It would take several hours to understand as the format of most discussion is dismal to say the least. As Guy Macon said, Wtshymanski has been sarcastic and condescending in his responses which seems to have offended Borealdreams who then responds very negatively with clear incivility. I can provide diffs if needed but I didn't plan on writing a report at the moment.

At COIN, I attempted to mediate for both all involved editors, as an uninvolved editor. Borealdreams seemed very interested, Wtshymanski never responded, and after the controversy quickly reignited, I bowed out. Borealdreams and Guy Macon, from what I understand, then came to an agreement and redacted several of their comments at COIN to attempt to get a discussion going. I saw that as a good sign and was/am hopefully that their discussion prove productive.

After that, I have had no interaction with Borealdreams, Wtshymanski, or Guy Macon. The only interaction I've had with any party listed in this ANI report, is here with Hengistmate. When I was looking over the case at COIN, I noticed this edit by Hengistmate which was very confusing, to say the least. I then asked who Hengistmate was at the COIN report, to see what the involved parties thought of his involvement, and Guy Macon replied that "Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved." After reviewing Hengistmate's edit history, he appeared to have no involvement so I moved on. I won't venture to guess what his involvement is because realistically, I haven't the slightest idea.

That's a summary of all the information I have. I'll watch this conversation and respond if necessary but as far as my interaction with Guy Macon goes and from what I've seen of his interaction with others, it looks to me like he's just attempted to neutrally participate in some inflamed debates. I've had no problems with him at all. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is not an admin, but he has more capabilities than the run of the mill editor. Guy Macon righteously presents himself as neutral, incapable of breaking any rules. Rather, he frequently conducts himself on these pages in a passive-aggressive manner, violating the assumption of good faith required of and deserved by all editors, and decides who deserves 'lessons' and what those lessons should be. He chooses which rules apply to himself on a case by case basis. Although he regularly deletes criticisms from his talk page, Guy Macon is often involved in confrontations similar to this. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I do try to stay neutral, but my attitude is the exact opposite of believing that I am incapable of breaking any rules. I have mild Asperger's syndrome with many of the behavioral and cognitive traits that are typical of Asperger's, and because of this I welcome corrections to my behavior. Qwyrxian in particular has shown himself to be a trusted guide, and when he offers a correction (as he did above) I embrace it and do my absolute best to follow his advice, which I am very thankful for. I would like to invite anyone else who is reading this to examine my behavior and to offer corrections where needed. Positive reinforcement - telling me when I did something right - helps too. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@76.190.228.162, can you please sign into whatever account you use that has dealt with Guy Macon, please? Your 3 edits on that IP don't show any interaction with him. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another issue to deal with again

Resolved

 – Both feuders blocked 2 days; I suggest blocks escalate rapidly if this problem resumes upon expiration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This time, things have gone out of hand again. I didn't know that under an interaction ban, you weren't allowed to revert another editors edit's if there's an interaction ban between the both of you. I'm now getting tired of this. This issue between me and Dave1185 will never seem to stop. First this editor threatens me to report me to ANI [67], then proceeds with an outburst over something incorrect I've done and at the same time accusing me of violating numerous things.[68] Please note that I only recently contacted an interest in Aircraft, hence my edit to the Northrop F-5 Article, and not knowing that you weren't allowed to revert someone else's edits when you are with an interaction ban with them. Point taken, and I don't need to say sorry, since we are all on the learning curve, just like I am with some other editors and some admins. As a result of this, I hereby propose of an indefinite interaction ban between me and Dave 1185 if our differences continue to clash and us hurling vulgarity and throwing silly arguments worth no value. If there's another issue, please note it. Thank you. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a positive reading of things: Abhijay acquires an interest in a big and mean fighter plane, reverts Dave's edits while his mind was elsewhere. Dave responds, to which Abhijay responds, etc. etc. I propose that Abhijay accidentally reverted Dave, that Dave hastily warned Abhijay, that the escalating responses were typed overzealously on both sides, and that apologies from both sides, in as few words as possible, here in this ANI thread, will settle the thing. And we can all move along, and no one will get blocked, and etc etc. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) There's already an interaction ban; it doesn't need to be extended, it needs to be followed. It appears you're clear on reverting now. That said, if Dave1185 continues with this ridiculous, over-the-top, almost cartoon-like aggression, I'll block him from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. I've notified Dave1185. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I think you should just proceed with a block/indefinite block. Given the ongoing problems with Dave's maturity, he's just here to screw around, just like what happened with Spongefrog. Why should we trust an editor such as Dave who with such insolence attacks anyone for making a gentle and small error. I would have to be a complete idiot to not realize if I couldn't see I did something wrong, and yet Dave1185 feigns innocence while at the same proceeding with threats and other things. His comic-like attitude is very disturbing and has even over-reacted to other editors such as Kober when Kober spoke in Georgian. But lets put that to one side. I think a block is suitable for Dave because he's just screwing around, his maturity is a major issue and behaves the same way with other editors (including myself). Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Smell blood, huh Abhijay? Your thoughtless edit started this latest round of The Dumbest Feud In The World^(TM), so now's not a good time to try your luck at Admin Roulette. That's the last time you get to suggest a block of Dave1185, is that understood? I wish I had a dollar for every minute of other people's time you two have wasted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, absolutely, Floquenbeam is right: were I to have made an obvious blunder such as revert an edit of an editor with whom I was under an interaction ban (what exactly would that encompass aside from a ban on all interaction?), I figure my best bet would be a meek and 'umble apology, followed by slinking off for a week until the dust settled. It would not be to follow up with an exhortation to block the guy. Think of this as an analogous situation to WP:AUTO - if his current behavior is egregious enough to warrant a block, no doubt some admin will notice without your assistance. Ravenswing 05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  In the mean time, I'll go and mind with my own business elsewhere. I will stay away from Dave1185 at the moment, and I guess it's now an admin business to take look into the uncivility he's been hurling. Floquenbeam, you carry on with whatever is it you need to do with Dave1185. Now that this matter is now in admin hands, I will not want my entire day to be ruined just because of an editor. Thank you Ravenswing, and other admins present here for your points presented, I hope this will be dealt without my points. In the mean time, I would like to retierate that it was only one gentle error made and it's been realised and dealt with. I want to say sorry for ruining your 'meals' today because of this, and I don't want to upset you guys over this, and neither do I want to ruin mine because of Dave1185. Have a nice day. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  On another note of Dave1185's cartoon-like behavior, take a look at this: [69]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay (talk • contribs)

  I've blocked Dave1185 for 2 days for that gem. Gloating will result in a symmetrical block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...aaaand I've blocked Abhijay for 2 days for gloating on Dave's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the backstory between Dave and Abhijay (I've only had positive interactions with Dave in the past), but in my experience Abhijay has a knack of escalating minor issues into major grudges — see [70] and Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Over-nominating.3F. He claims to 'learn from it' when his mistakes are pointed out, but never seems to. I seriously believe we are dealing with a competence issue and I think we need to consider mentorship for Abhijay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

I've blocked Colonel Warden for his return to lying via edit summaries: notably a claim to have added sources as a justification for removing a prod when, in fact, neither that edit to the talk page nor the corresponding article edit had done anything of the sort. Once, I could overlook. I've warned him about it numerous times, and it was a major topic in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. There's no good faith explanation: he lies in edit summaries. There's no room in Wikipedia for this.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, his actions went against two of the conclusions by an independent closer of that RFC:

• "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with", as his removal of the prod was not accompanied by any effort to resolve this issue, only an effort to mislead other editors about such an effort
• "The use of edit summaries in an accurate manner is imperative, and where needed talk pages should be used to further explain complex actions or to engage in discussion where one's actions are contested.", as his edit summary was blatantly false.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Two not necessarily related statements: I wish you'd proposed this here, for someone else to consider a block. The combination of the talk page with the summary seems to prove your point for this case. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• For the benefit of non-admins, the Colonel's edit summary was "+ links to sources &c." He did put a {{notice|{{find}}}} template at the top of the talk page in that edit, which provides a set of links to find sources rather than actual links to an actual sources. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that deceptive? isn't the edit summary saying he's adding the notice that gives you the links to sources and citations? Not saying Warden isn't ever confusing in such stuff, but the act of de-prodding doesn't require sources, just a good faith belief that deletion would not be uncontroversial, unless this is some unusual case I can't see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the edit, but perhaps this is similar to these edits to List of Banyan trees in India (- prod + image &c.) and its talk page (+ links to sources &c.). Kanguole 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Banyan trees edit was essentially the same as the one Kww blocked him for. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "&c." mean in that edit summary, otherwise its accurate unless he's saying he added sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"etc." It's the Colonel Warden code for "more material that he didn't deem worth summarizing". Yes, a direct parallel: a false claim to have provided sources, accompanying a removal of a prod for which he actually provided no justification aside from his personal belief that the "article has merit". The deprod alone could be argued to be in good faith, but the false edit summary belies that: he did not add links to sources, Milowent.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Caveat: I am very much not a fan of Colonel Warden; I think he's among the top three or four ARS jockeys who've given that outfit a bad name for inclusionism at all costs, between gaming the system, prod removal for the sake of removing prods, and changing their tune from XfD to XfD. That being said, I wouldn't draw any conclusion from that RfC. Plainly there was no consensus reaching even the level of vague admonition - and I'm disturbed by the implication that "acting in good faith" = "he means well" - and you really can't say that there were terms of the RfC to breach. Ravenswing 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• My magic 8 ball tells me that this block will be overturned within 24 hours with a massive chunk of time-wasting drama thrown into the pot as well. Controversial blocks should really be discussed before being implemented to avoid the block/unblock cycle and in any event Warden's recent poor behavior at the ARS RFC throwing labels around as marks of Cain with a real battleground mentality surely should have been included in any consideration of a block (see AN). Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Pending desysop of Kww I will note, for the record, that the edit summary says "+ links to sources &c.", rather than "+ links and sources &c.", and that the edit by Colonel Warden did, in fact, include links to potential sources--if any existed--via the {{notice|{{find}}}}. While the links for "secrets of a small town" did result in a large number of false positives, I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es that directly refer to the content of the now-deleted article. The assumption of bad faith by an admin of an editor with whom he has previously been in dispute is unconscionable: You are not just wrong, Kww, but you are egregiously wrong in a manner that I believe to be incompatible with your continuing to hold administrator privileges on Wikipedia. To be sure, I've blocked Colonel Warden for inappropriate use of edit summaries in the past, but this is not one of them. I expect that, upon reading this, you will unblock Colonel Warden with a sufficiently apologetic edit summary, and resign the tools yourself within 24 hours. If that doesn't happen, I will begin seeking your desysop'ing for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, what appeared on the talk page of the de-prodded (and subsequently deleted) article based on {{notice|{{find}}}} was equivalent to:

  Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, if someone says they added a "link to X", I would expect to see a link that when clicked will take me to X. Not a link that will take me to some search results page that may or may not actually have another link that, when clicked, will finally take me to X. And that "manually added ABC" part is worse: by this logic, it's not misleading to call a plain [71] link a "link to sources" - all you need to do is manually add the thing to search for. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  There was indeed a link added, via the find template, that does take one to sources. Page 2 of the Google News archive search does indeed find three relevant RS'es even without the ABC qualifier, which would have taken far more customizable code to include--excessive for a deprod edit, in my opinion. But that is pretty much missing the point: Kww has been involved in a number of disputes relating to Colonel Warden in the past, such that I would have expected he'd let someone else do the block per INVOLVED, and when shining a bit of light on the edits and edit summaries shows, at worst, an edit summary which can be misinterpreted, it becomes obvious why such discretion is the best idea. Remember, this is not an edit to the article saying he added sources or links, this is an edit to the talk page after he'd deprodded an article, which included links for other editors to find links to sources, something that isn't required at all in the WP:PROD process. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Not taking a position on the block, but an editor with the experience of Colonel Warden surely knows that a link to a search query is not the same as a link to a source, and he really ought to stop labelling one as the other. Kanguole 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with this. Linking to Google is not the same thing as providing sources, which is what CW's edit summaries claimed. Reyk _YO! 10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think, bearing in mind that (apparently) CW has had issues with similar before, a reminder to be extremely careful about not leaving ambiguously-worded and possibly-misleading edit summaries would be in order. Even if posting an edit summary which could be read as meaning "sources added" is entirely unintentional, it's something to be avoided, to remove any shadow of doubt. Pesky (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't disagree at all that a less ambiguous edit summary is appropriate ant optimal. I'm familiar with the "misleading edit summaries" Colonel Warden has previously been reprimanded for, and this isn't like those. He's almost in a a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: by being more communicative on his PROD removals, he's opened up new ways in which his edit summaries could be misunderstood. If he'd ignored the RFC/U advice and simply removed PRODs without providing rationales, as is allowable by the process, he wouldn't have been subject to this criticism. I may be biased by my C programming background, though: a pointer to a pointer is still, itself, a pointer, so I have no problem with understanding how Colonel Warden might have chosen to phrase things as he did. At any rate, the proper way to clarify such edit summaries would be via the talk page, I'd expect. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, you're trying to assume what his edit summary meant when, as Jclemens says above, he likely meant adding the Find template. Therefore, the edit summary wasn't deceptive, kinda overturning the whole point of the block in the first place. Are we done here? I don't even consider this incident something of merit. At the very least, you need something on the level of moving tags to the bottom of the page. At least. Silverseren^C 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't realize the supposed deceptive edit summary was to the talk page and not to the article proper. Seriously, Kww? You're already involved in the first place, considering past history with Warden, and you use this pretty much useless "incident" to block? I can fully understand why Jclemens is calling for a de-sysop. Silverseren^C 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders. He's done this kind of thing time and time again, using deceptive edit summaries and removals of tags without doing anything to correct the underlying problem. Was this single edit blockable? Of course not. Was this edit a continuation of the pattern of deceptiveness and bad faith editing demonstrated in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden? Certainly. My involvement with Colonel Warden has to deal solely with his misbehaviour. Has it been ongoing? Certainly. Has it been lengthy? Certainly, but that is because he works and edits to disrupt the deletion process, and, so long as he has other admins covering for him, this will never stop. His RFC came to a standstill because of apologists that tried to interpret falsehoods as misunderstandings. They interpreted blatant misrepresentation of source contents as innocent mistakes. If an editor has a five year long pattern of being a poor misunderstood soul that can't seem to properly express the reason why his edits don't line up with what the summaries claim they are, it's beyond simple mistake.

As for bringing it to ANI first, all that would have happened is that Jclemens would have protected him in advance instead of later, and the heat of the ANI thread would be no different. Desysop me for blocking an intentionally deceitful editor? I hope it will be hard to find an editor that will even unblock an intentionally deceitful editor.—Kww(talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jclemens, your comment above "I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es " is a complete red herring. That's not what Colonel Warden did. He added a bog-standard template and a canned statement that said not to put a prod back on the article because he believed the article to "have merit".—Kww(talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're criticizing him because he gave a rationale (not required by PROD), and added an alert box with standard resources for finding sources (again, not required by PROD). Hmm, interestingly enough, being more communicative about his de-prod reasons seems something entirely in line with the closer's suggestions at the RFC which you cite as him having violated. Also, neither revised criticism is commensurate with his edit summary being a premeditated falsification designed to deceive proponents of article deletion. At the time the edit with the disputed summary was made to the talk page the article in question was not facing any deletion process: As you can see by reviewing his contributions for 8 March, he first undid the PROD, then responded pretty briefly to TPH's query about it, added the rationale and disputed edit summary, and promptly afterwards replied to TPH's follow-up. If anything, this demonstrates Colonel Warden's being responsive to queries about his de-prodding, although his second response was far more helpful than his first. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re: the assertion that I would have shown up to defend Colonel Warden had he been discussed here before a block, that is ironically false. I don't watch ANI, but I do have Colonel Warden's talk page watchlisted, and have had it listed since I first blocked him ~18 months ago. Had you brought it up here first, I would not have noticed immediately upon returning to my watchlist, and may never have done so. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unavailable until about 2PM EST. I'll return to this thread at that time.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It is not necessary to provide sources when removing a PROD - anyone can contest a PROD at any time without having to make any improvements to the article at all, and the next step is to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. As for the edit summary being a "lie", I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant some good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and why are we blocking someone now for something that happened 8 days ago? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - per Boing! said Zebedee. I also feel that I must add that in my experience Colonel Warden is an editor who does a great deal of interesting, high quality editing across a wide array of topics, and is also one of the most decent and helpful editors in the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)]
• Oppose - as per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. Kww, that action was unacceptable. Didn't you know that there is something known as a talk page of a user to discuss their edits and what they can use to correct it in the future? Blocking him is just gonna him a hard time and might make him leave the project. As for a summary being a lie, meh, If I was you, i'd assume some good faith and if it were a long-term pattern, I would have proceeded with warnings. And Kww don't assume he was doing the wrong things. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment - Some of the discussion above seems to be going above and beyond on the assumption of good faith, making the claim that Colonel Warden was not claiming to have added sources to the talk page when he merely added a search link. In my run-in on this issue, Colonel claimed, "This and the other topics are best discussed on their talk pages so that other editors may participate. I have provided some links to sources there." Yes, technically the wording does not directly claim to have added sources, but the implication was clear enough that I asked about it (and noted several cases where there wasn't even the search link: "The articles are not being discussed and you have not provided sources (you provided search links Talk:Natural_cleaning_product, the last discussion by other editors there was 3 years ago). There is no discussion whatsoever (and no sources from you) at Talk:Detection. At Talk:Dol Amroth again, no sources from you and no discussion in over 2 years. Talk:Locating has no sources from you and no discussion whatsoever. Again, you didn't add sources at Talk:Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity and the last discussion is 6 years ago. Talk:Mildenhall Cricket Club does not exist, so it certainly has no sources from you or discussion by others." Colonel ignored the issue (as well as several attempts to discuss non-admin closures of AfDs on shaky "Speedy Keep" claims), removing the topics with the comment, "(wipe rant &c.)".

On the other side of the issue, we have a developing assumption of bad faith, directed at Kww. Yeah, there is reasonable room for discussion on blocking before discussing the issue here. However, Kww brought the issue here for discussion immediately after the block -- there was no attempt whatsoever to avoid discussing the issue. Yeah, I was slightly surprised to see the block come down seemingly out of no immediate cause (though I can certainly see cause for a "Wake up!" block on Colonel). So I can see someone hitting Kww with a wet minnow. Desysoping, however, is as out of scale as taking Colonel out behind the barn and putting him down with a rifle.

IMO (FWIW), Colonel needs something larger than a wet trout: the inclusionist stance is what it is, the failure to explain why an article should be kept (unexplained removal of prods, wikilawyer-ism "Speedy Keep" arguments, &c.) are annoying. Attempts to claim that ze was somehow being "helpful" with the search links strike me as inconsistent with the rest of Colonel's actions. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to add sources (or make any improvements at all) to contest and remove a PROD, so all this talk of "he didn't add sources" is irrelevant. That he added a search link is a bonus - he had no obligation to do that whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But since he said that he added links to sources (in this edit summary), it is reasonable to expect that he actually did so. Jakew (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be more precise to say that added "links to find sources", or "links to source searches", but he did provide resources to source the article on the talk page after his de-prod, something that is not required. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I've got this right, Jakew. CW de-PRODed an article, which he was perfectly entitled to do without making any changes to the article itself or having to help look for sources in any way, and he then added a search link to *the Talk page* that would actually help people looking for sources (which is more helpful than is mandated) - yet because the accompanying edit summary was perhaps ambiguous, you think think he deserved an indefinite block? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the legitimacy of the block itself; I'm just pointing out why it's relevant that he didn't add sources. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) What I would like to know is this. The deprod happened on the 8th. Since then it spent a week at AFD where I closed it as "delete" with no opposition on the 16th. A day later CW is blocked for an action he took on the 8th in an already deleted article. Kww, what I want to know is this, exactly how was this bought to your attention and what ongoing disruption was this block meant to prevent? If this sort of thing is still happening couldn't you have found an example more recent in an article that still exists? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  This post documents that the block occurred after the talk page was deleted:

• 2012-03-16T00:21:01 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Secrets of a Small Town (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Small Town)
• 2012-03-17T02:11:31 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Return to deceptive edit summaries: quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith)
  

Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. On request by CW I've userfied the article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and block KWW for blatant and outrageous disruption. What arb com may want to do is their lookout; we should do what we can. What Kww should have done in this situation if he thought a block necessary was propose it here, and, if the consensus supported it, have someone else impose it. If there ever was an involved editor on subjects relevant to deletion and AfD, it's Kww, and the long lasting disagreements cannot have been under the impression he was a neutral party. Col. Warden's arguments are sometimes a little far-fetched, but this is best dealt with by refuting them--as was done in the AfD that gave rise to this. If someone thinks they are outrageous enough to block, it can't be someone who inevitably opposes him. And I would regard this as an exceptionally bad block no matter who did it. Blocking over what is said at AfD is best reserved for true disruption--there is normally a great liberty of speech here. In this particular case, the quality of the block is particularly debatable. It is not usually good practice to link to the results of a search engine, but it is occasionally necessary when the material cannot be cited otherwise. Certainly in AfD we often cite the results of a search engine to show there are multiple references available , or to show that there are no good references available. In the heat of a time-limited debate, to add such a link to the article in question is not unreasonable--one would convert it later--and to say one has added a link in these circumstances is not an untruth. And Col. w. indicated it was a link to sources, which actually makes everything totally proper If we start blocking far untruths at AfD , we would equally blocks those people who say falsely there are no Reliable sources, or that something isn't notable if the community decides otherwise. I will not overturn the block myself, because I'm as involved with Kww as he is with Col. W. However, if Kww seriously thinks he was not too closely involved to block the Col, then I am not too closely involved to block him. The situation is exactly parallel. There is only one thing that could have saved the situation for Kww, which is to unblock immediately and never do anything of the sort again--anyone can do something rashly. I'd say unblock and apologize, except that there's no point in forced apologies. But that Kww actually has the lack of judgment to defend his action shows that more is needed. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, neither kww or CW participated in the AFD in question which I closed as a unanimous "delete" 2 days ago. What he did was "drop out of the sky" and block him yesterday for something that happened before the article was nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Block per Boing! said Zebedee and Rangoon11. From my experience with CW in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel, I'll say he is a prolific contributor who edits in good faith, well-aware of policies and guidelines, and aims to build a good encyclopedia. An indefinite block of an established editor without seeking any community consensus is unacceptable. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block of Warden. If it was anyone else, would Kww be acting that way? I think he does have it in for certain people and should be desysop. Dream Focus 15:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn or shorten block While it is certainly unhelpful to leave unclear edit summaries when removing prods, an indefinite block seems like overkill, IMHO. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block of the Colonel. I've had run-ins with the Colonel before, as both Kevin and the Colonel know, and in past debates I've usually come down on the side of Kevin. I must not have been paying attention on two occasions: the Colonel's RfC, where I would have voted for action against the Colonel, and Kevin's RfA, where I would have voted to support. For the first reason, I wouldn't dream of blocking the Colonel (unless something weird was going on, like his spouting racist comments or draping penises over people's user pages--apparently it's a happening thing), and for the second reason I find myself in a bind here: I think this was not a good block to have been performed by him. I like to claim, regularly, that this "involved" thing is overblown, but in this case I think it is not. I won't support a desysoping, but this was a bad block. Sorry Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

• Your scrutiny is invited. Spartaz, you were correct, at least partly--the dramah is already here. I have never overturned someone else's block before, but I will now, for two reasons:

1. In my opinion, User:Kww is way too involved with the Colonel to have made this block. An indefinite block of a longtime (albeit controversial) editor for a controversial reason (not outright vandalism, etc) must be done with at least some sort of consensus.
2. Kww's rationale, "quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith", is not correct: such is not apparent to me at all.

I made the decision to unblock after reading over all the comments here, and while it's a bit early still, there is a clear consensus that this was not a good block. I don't want to move towards taking the bit from Kww: I think the block was a mistake, not a hanging offense. But that's just me. Kevin, I'm sorry to go against you, but I know that at least I can't be accused of having a long history of supporting the Colonel. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, I think you've done the right thing here. I'm surprised that Kww expected that his actions here would have been perceived as uninvolved. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Paul Erik, unblocking was the appropriate action here. Kww, I must say, I came to this discussion without any strong opinion of the Colonel either way, and your WP:BATTLEFIELD response to those of us commenting ("I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders") is extremely disappointing. Your further comments in that post give the distinct impression that the nominal reason for blocking the Colonel (that he uses an edit summary of "links to sources" rather than a more accurate one of "links to find sources") is simply a pretext for sticking it to someone you don't like. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support of unblock - but awaiting further evidence of a pattern of abuse of admin tools and/or diffs to other measures of WP:DR before commenting on the desysop. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For those that ask "why 8 days", it's because it's been a while since I did a spot check of Colonel Warden's behaviour. It only took a few minutes to find his first false edit summary, and that happpened to be the one that had been mentioned on his talk page. For anyone that actually monitors the Colonel, it shouldn't be surprising that his actions could, if one squints really hard and apply massive doses of good faith, be interpreted as only accidentally or unintentionally misleading. I'm absolutely certain that his edits and descriptions are completely intended to mislead, and he carefully leaves just enough ambiguity that, when caught, he will be able to claim that it was just a misunderstanding. It's not a misunderstanding: he's a smart man, and knows that we have admins that will use any flicker of doubt to allow him to continue his misbehaviour. It is quite apparent to me that the Colonel considers being truthful as less important than having articles kept. If you wish me to call the "non-collaborative editing" as opposed to "not being a good faith editor", I'll accept the semantic distinction. The truth remains simple: he takes steps intended to disrupt the deletion process, doesn't honestly describe his edits, misrepresents his own actions, and has been caught several times falsifying references. His actions show absolutely no sign of improvement over the years.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how these "false" edit summaries caused damage? Silverseren^C 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, false edit summaries can be very bad. The most extreme case would be replacing an article with a giant penis with the edit summary of "spelling" and marking it a minor. A bot would likely catch that though. A better example would be PRODing an article with the edit summary of "grammar" and marking it as minor hoping to get an article deleted without anybody noticing. (which is why I always check article histories before deleting uncontested prods). What Kww is claiming CW does with edit summaries is possible but unlikely because CW, or anybody else, is not required to provide one to justify a PROD removal. He could use the edit summary "bing bing tiddle bong" if he wanted to. That's why, at least in that case, I'm more inclined to believe it was a mistake or misunderstanding. There is plain and simply no incentive for CW to "lie" when removing a PROD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. I was referring specifically to the edit summaries we're discussing here, not anything else. Silverseren^C 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lying undermines the basis of collaborative editing.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's it? That's your entire reason? Nothing to do with vandalism or anything like that, just the spirit of collaborative editing? And you blocked for that? Silverseren^C 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Collaborative editing relies on accurate representations of identity and position. The reason I come down so hard on socking is because it is deceitful. This is just another aspect of deceitful behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Any comment on the concern that you're not objective enough about the Colonel to be blocking him? 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a myth that WP:INVOLVED somehow requires an exclusionist admin such as myself to go beg an inclusionist admin to block a disruptive inclusionist. I think that's the reason that people object to me, as an individual, placing this block. I would block any editor that I believed to be intentionally deceitful, whether the motivation behind the deceit is to add material or remove it. People are also getting wrapped up in the terms of this one edit. I'm not looking at it that way: I see it as simply another step in a long-term pattern of deceit.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, while I admire your dedication to honesty, I'd ask you to re-read the comments above from various folks above (with consideration to WP:IDHT. There's a pretty strong consensus that your block was wrong in this case. I appreciate that you brought yourself here for the action to be reviewed, but in order for that to be an effective measure - it means that you should be taking the advice that's offered onboard too. Please rethink this approach. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't undo Drmies's unblock. I don't know how to deal with the Colonel so long as he has protection from people that believe his useful contributions outweigh deceit.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider also that while multiple editors, myself included, have found Colonel Warden's edit summary phrasing suboptimal, or even inaccurate, there is little to no support for your interpretation that his edit summary was "deceitful". Your repeated use of that phrase, attacking Colonel Warden's motivation, may be construed as a personal attack. Please tone down the rhetoric and admit that your interpretation isn't the only possible interpretation of his edit summaries. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If this was once, it would be "suboptimal". He's been subjected to RFCs on this very topic, where the consensus of the RFC was that his edit summaries were extremely problematic, yet, it continues. It's difficult for me to justify my block without stating the reason for it. If I did not believe that he was intentionally doing wrong, I wouldn't have blocked him. "Deceit" isn't rhetoric: it's the core justification for the block. That you are able to examine a multi-year history of this problem and still use words like "suboptimal" is a big part of the problem we have in dealing with the Colonel. You've been around long enough, and are in a position that requires sufficient detachment, that you should be able to look at this long term pattern of misbehaviour and recognize that it is intentional. I'm not certain whether you are denying that it is intentional or saying that even if intentional, it doesn't justify a block.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still able to AGF that this is an error, based on his attempts to expand his communications and the opportunity to make an error while doing so. The various reasons have been articulated above: the content wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made, the edit summary wasn't egregiously at odds with the edit made, the edit was made on the talk page where sources (if any) would need to be inspected and transferred to the article to have any effect on future deletion discussions, no one had pointed out the ambiguity in the edit summary to Colonel Warden before... the reasons go on and on. If anything, your reasoning is more and more problematic that more you expound upon it; you appear incapable of or unwilling to evaluate the edit summary in a detached and neutral manner--you're importing past disputes into your interpretation of this action. I would encourage you to reread carefully the posts by those who normally agree with you on such issues but are finding fault with your interpretation in this case. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made"? Only because he had removed the prod while providing no explanation as to why.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it wasn't about this one specific edit/summary (which in itself looked perfectly fine to me), but was instead for a lengthy period of alleged deceitful behavior which you knew would be controversial, and you have had significant disagreement with CW yourself in the past, then it seems clear to me that you should have brought the problem here, providing diffs for a sufficient number of examples of the alleged deceit, and sought a community consensus, rather than indef block yourself while providing a very lame example of "the last straw". I think that was a poor misjudgment, and I think it is disappointing that after seeking a review here, your response is to really not listen but to continue with an adversarial attitude towards community consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've simply explained my reason for having blocked in the first place. I have not attempted to reinstate the block, nor have I directed any criticism towards the admin that unblocked him.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock not quite sure that a desysop of KWW is justified for one such incident, but would be if a pattern emerged. Block is totally out of order both for the 8 day gap, and its stated reason, and for being an isolated example. Even if the RFC had closed with a requirement that Col Warden not do such deprods then after this time an isolated example would justify a note on his talkpage not a block. We should remember that the Colonel Warden RFC failed to come to consensus because some of the proposers tried to to use it to create a defacto policy that the removal of prods requires a rationale to be stated. That view was pretty thoroughly rejected, the RFC became contentious partly because it is deeply inappropriate to try and change policy by criticising some for following policy; An RFC on a proposal to make t more difficult to decline prods would have been a less contentious way to change policy, and I'm pretty sure such a proposal would have been rejected. Suggest KWW unblock Col Warden and apologise to him, then consider himself involved re Col Warden in future. ϢereSpielChequers 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kww can't unblock - Drmies already has. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kww, I did not comment here as part of some process of being a "defender" of Col Walden nor to provide him "protection". Please consider the possibility that observers of your actions here really do, on balance and on review of the previous RfC, find the commentaries of JClemens and others above as more compelling than your arguments justifying your block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be discussed more

Another thing I didn't notice at the time, but Ron Ritzman pointed out above. The edits in question by Colonel Warden were made 8 days prior to the block. Regardless of the reason for the incident, I find this fact to be completely unacceptable. Silverseren^C 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Um... Last I checked edit summaries aren't required at all, unless something has changed recently. So what's the story with blocking over edit summaries? I don't really care about Warden being blocked, or KWW's admin status, but... whether or not editors are being blocked over (otherwise normal) edit summaries is kinda important.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• He was blocked for attempting to deceive people via edit summaries. That's a different thing than omitting one.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kww seems to have appointed himself as a "monitor" of Col. Warden. I suggest he not be allowed to interact with Col. Warden at all. If a monitor is needed, a neutral editor in this discussion could be nominated. Yopienso (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Agree an interaction ban is needed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Is there a neutral editor? I wouldn't block CW even though I recognize he does use deceptive edit summaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Give DreamFocus the bit. Seriously, I think there's plenty who are uninvolved enough to block the Colonel if a block is warranted. While all this delete/include drama takes up much of the airtime here, not every admin has a stake in it or a history with it. On the other hand, I can think of one editor who will probably put me in the pro-ARS camp for my unblock of the Colonel, but I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - interaction ban and a clear statement that KWW is considered WP:Involved in regards to Col W. I find it incredible the block was in regard to edits eight days ago.Youreallycan 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - full interaction ban - it's clear from KWW's multiple broad-brush comments above about deceitfulness etc that they have very strong, very fundamental, negative feelings towards the Colonel. Combined with the misjudged block itself I struggle to see how KWW can be relied upon to objectively judge Colonel's behaviour in the future. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to agree not to block him again, I can voluntarily do that. If the consensus is that I should have gone through the RFC process again, please don't put a ban in place that prevents me from doing so in the future.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Duck duck, go

Inconclusive checkuser findings aside, I'm overpowered by the smell of duck in this SPI. I'd block "Encyclopedist J" myself, if it weren't for the fact that I'm sleepy and might be misjudging something. (But I really doubt it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is awfully an abuse of the Power of Priviledge, Hoary and though I give you credit for letting me know of this matter beforehand. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible technically means quite a few things. But it surely cannot be the reason for a block. Wait for future behavioral evidence. Till then, nothing can be done. Wifione ^Message 14:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment by "Encyclopedist J" above -- or, if it has been rewritten by the time you read it, the comment as it was originally made -- wonderfully exemplifies an observation that Equazcion and I make in the relevant SPI. ¶ Being the edit-warring sockpuppet of a blocked user can be the reason for a block. ¶ (And good night.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe WP:DUCK is an excellent reason to do something. There's already plenty of behavioral evidence. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:44, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

*Comment IMO the user would qualify for a block for edit warring based on nothing more than his recent activity at Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Encyclopedist J is definately CentristFiasco. Compare with this edit by another sock. Check out "Causes," "Methods," and "Sides." It's all identical. Also, the username. One of CentristFiasco's other socks was Mr. J. Lane. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DUCK says block. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now; despite him shouting "It's rabbit season!" I rather think it's duck season. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would second Amalthea's findings. My view = technically possible and behaviourally likely. Good block. WilliamH (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy's uncollaborative behavior

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs)
• Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is locus of dispute.

Radiopathy's behavior recently has been quite bothersome. The following problems need to be addressed. I first tried to handle this without bringing it to others, but he didn't wish to engage constructively, so I am seeking advise on how to handle this. The following problems are happening:

• personal attacks: Calls me "ignorant" [72] and an "idiot" [73].

• Refuses to use sources to back up his preferred version of an article, ignores sources when he is provided with them: (see discussion at links above)

• Changes comments of other people to give them new meaning: [74]

What is most problematic is the refusal of this user to abide by both established policy like WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS and refusal to provide any evidence or sources that his preffered use of language in an article is correct. When faced with source material to back up something, he insults me and then refuses to provide his own. I am fully willing to consider sources provided by him, but his stance appears be that he doesn't have to provide any. I am concerned with how to handle his beligerant and uncooperative behavior here. I am looking for opinions on what needs to happen here. --Jayron32 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

3+ years experience and over 12,000 edits = this editor should know better. I left a link to WP:NPA on his talk to review. Hopefully it was just a matter of him having a bad day; but we'll see. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but the insults are of minor concern. The real concern here is his refusal to provide sources for his position, and his dismissal of sources others have provided. The issue is that he states his position on the matter is correct merely and only because he states that it is, and that sources others provide are irrelevent, because he says they are. This position is not compatible with Wikipedia's core values, for refusal to collaborate and for refusal to engage with source material in any way. Wikipedia articles are not written a certain way merely because Radiopathy states that they should be written that way. What I am looking for is outside input as to what should be done to handle his obstinancy in this matter. Calling me an idiot is of no great consequence. Refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic principles of how to solve disputes by using source texts is. --Jayron32 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bzbzbzbzbzb

• Bzbzbzbzbzb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history

Someone please block this vandal and clean up the history of that redirect; it's fixed positioning vandalism re Jews and 9/11 and it click-hijacks all pages using the redirect. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Solipsism-blocked by 28bytes; that edit he made will likely be revdel'd soon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and history deleted, but that should really get fixed in the edit filter. Thanks for letting us know about this Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought this was fixed in the edit filter a few weeks back by Anomie. CU the account and your prior blockee. Alarbus (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)