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

IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

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

---

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2, 66.87.7.109, 66.87.0.137, 66.87.2.142, ‎66.87.2.193, 66.87.0.36, ‎66.87.0.87, 66.87.0.230, ‎66.87.0.210, 66.87.0.254, 66.87.7.209, ‎66.87.0.15, ‎66.87.0.60, ‎66.87.7.149, ‎66.87.0.48, 66.87.7.19 ‎66.87.7.36, 66.87.2.116, ‎66.87.2.110, 66.87.7.141, ‎66.87.7.126, 66.87.2.217, 66.87.7.204, 66.87.2.96, 66.87.4.165, 66.87.4.17, and 66.87.7.158, apparently all the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here [1], but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.

Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?

Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC

You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, the verdict is: let's break a butterfly upon a wheel.  Tigerboy1966  20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Methinks there was an editor some months back who was indef'd for similar activity. That might be in the ANI archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A quick survey of the archives indicates that this kind of thing comes up every so often, and is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This incident, for example. (I found it completely hilarious, but then again I have a very strange sense of humour.) It ended in an indef block; a benign time-sink is still a time-sink. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that's the one. 13 months ago. Wow. Fruit flies like a banana. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked [[User::66.87.2.96]] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using T-Mobile in the UK. I'm in Bristol at the moment. My IP geo-locates to London. 31.110.67.249 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a Virgin Mobile USA phone which i occassionally tether to my laptop. I have not left Michigan's state lines for over two years, yet geolocation on my phone's IPs always comes back to Overland Park, KS because I'm assigned an address out of the Sprint range. ~Crazytales (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to plaster these few IP pages with alternative wikilove messages he or she might use ?. How about a few messages 'Hey you're doing a great job, try this cute message as well'.... Give them your favorite message, they may well pick up on it, one of the messages might take their interest, and you have a one editor welcoming/wikilove/cheersquad committee. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

+1 FormerIP and +1 MelanieN. This place needs more eccentric editors, it's way to homogeneous. Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

well, Penyulap I posted a wel come message earlier and gave cheese burger to the other one but still no reply. There are a whole range of IPs working here.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly didn't upset me, getting a WikiLoveSpam message. I just wish I had been one of the top contributors! I like the idea of showing them some alternative messages (and Penyulap is an absolute ace at creative stuff, mega-impressive mind :D ... I am perpetually astounded at the capabilities). Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky, Vyom25, spam the IP range with wikilove, if you can find anything appropriate, I had a look at what's available on the superbright whimsical skipping in the afternoon-sunshine kind of thing and thought eewww, we got nothing in the wikilove standard messages. Give it a go just the same, cut and paste wikilove so that the IP editor has a larger vocabulary than just barnstars. If he or she has never seen a wikilove message, they can't use it. Spam wikilove, it is the proper response for cases like this. Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tigerboy1966's comment makes me think that people are bringing guns to a foodfight, which is ill-advised, like 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. So it's more a matter of fighting butterflies with butterflies, and I would think it's bad sportsmanship to use a vacuum cleaner on all the butterflies that have been left on peoples pages. Sucking them all up causes more harm than good. Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified one of Penyulap's:

		Good little things mean a lot
		This is in recognition of all the helpful little things you've done. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that I got one that said I was in the top 5% most active Wikipedians. My thought is that we make it so you need to be autoconfirmed and have an account to give barnstars and other WikiLove. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what mine said, too. I kinda like the autoconfirmed + account thing, except for the fact that we do have some people who are regular IP editors (and have been so for ages, some of them on static IPs) and it would be a bit of a shame if they couldn't hand out WikiLove where they see fit. It's one of those swings-and-roundabouts things. Pesky (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• IP 66.87.7.204 has been awarding Golden wiki award appears to be the same person. A lot of editors whom i interact with have been awarded the same (I am not sure if they were the same or different IPs). -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen numerous random barnsters given by 68.87.... IP's in Kansas. This DOES do harm in various ways. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"DOES do harm"... how? The whole WikiLove thing is meant to be light-hearted and fun. If some people treat the whole thing as a bit of a joke it's hardly a surprise. This is like criticising someone for disrespecting the flag of Grand Fenwick.  Tigerboy1966  08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Crank calls are also "light-hearted fun." But if someone does it to everyone in the city, repeatedly, it ceases to be fun and moves into disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We highly encourage IPs to get an account to gain extra benefits. WikiLove should be one of those benefits. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any pummeling. Why don't I hear any pummeling ? I see a notification on the user's talkpage but I don't see any attempt to fix the problem. It's been like a week, with people wanting blocks, and others objecting to them in roughly equal numbers, so the solution will never be found there. A solution that everyone would be somewhat happier with is available, but has yet to be attempted, so the problem can simply drag on in a deadlock, or we just find one of the many solutions that everybody is comfortable with.

Remember Skeptical of Love ? he was excluded from wikipedia, effectively banned (has he been back anyone ? I don't know) and stopped editing because of too much warm fuzzy attention. Whilst it was unintentional for us to exclude S.o.L., the principle has proven itself effective.

Admin action is not required here, regular editor action IS required here. I'm not a party to the barnstar exchanges, so it's not appropriate for me to thank that editor. Further, I don't watch recent changes, so I have no opportunity to respond in the window of opportunity indicated by the contributions page, it seems to last on average at least ten minutes, and up to 40minutes, plenty of time for a pointman to intervene with some WL. Penyulap ☏ 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just made a page for people to vote on what to do to solve the problem. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I usually take a Napoleonic stance on barnstars, but spamming them around just devalues them. Barnstars may not be some vital cog in the wikipedia machine, but rather a drop of grease that helps the gears turn a little more smoothly. As well as the devaluation of barnstars, spamming them is simply wasting people's time. bobrayner (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux, are we supposed to vote below, or at the link? Please don't make people post their votes twice, as seems to be what is required. Please delete one of the voting areas. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The full list of spammers/trolls (for admins, etc.):

66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2, 66.87.7.109, 66.87.0.137, 66.87.2.142, ‎66.87.2.193, 66.87.0.36, ‎66.87.0.87, 66.87.0.230, ‎66.87.0.210, 66.87.0.254, 66.87.7.209, ‎66.87.0.15, ‎66.87.0.60, ‎66.87.7.149, ‎66.87.0.48, 66.87.7.19 ‎66.87.7.36, 66.87.2.116, ‎66.87.2.110, 66.87.7.141, ‎66.87.7.126, 66.87.2.217, 66.87.7.204, 66.87.2.96, 66.87.4.165, 66.87.4.17, and 66.87.7.158. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "full list" is more than 65,000 addresses. As I stated above, this is Sprint's nationwide wireless network with dynamically allocated IPs (ie randomly assigned at each use). The above addresses just happen to be ones the offending editor has been assigned... so far. I found this discussion because I was assigned one of the listed IPs last week and read the 'new message'.66.87.4.191 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes for what to do about barnstar issues

Votes In Support Of Rangeblock

1. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) (Unless and until autoconfirm is in place)
2. (second choice, but preferable to no action) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes In Support Of Showing User How To Give Appropriate Barnstars

1. Pesky (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes In Support Of Wanting To Make It So You Have To Be Autoconfirmed To Give Barnstars

1. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
2. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Vyom25 (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the Above

Me  Tigerboy1966  22:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Close this discussion without taking action. Option 3 is beyond the scope of WP:AN/I, if you want to require autoconfirmed to send wikilove messages, head over to WP:VPP and start an RFC, the RFC can discuss option 2 as well. Option 1 is extreme for something that is minimally disruptive at worst. Monty₈₄₅ 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty, close this discussion without taking action. Rangeblocking Sprint over this makes no sense, no vote is needed if anyone wants to provide the IP with guidance, and a policy change like requiring autoconfirmed status for Wikilove is not appropriately !voted on at ANI (especially when !votes are not accompanied with arguments. very few things on wikipedia are actual votes, and policy changes like this usually aren't among them.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, for heaven's sake, is this still being discussed? Close the discussion, and let each editor do what they will with the awards. All this is doing is giving the offender (if you can even call him/ her that) attention that eggs him/her on.--Drmargi (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely - really this is very, very, very silly indeed. While I am not a terrific fan of these sorts of "random acts of Wikilove" - they are not unduely harmful. Trouts all round and close this thread please!Nigel Ish (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Is this such an enduring, damaging problem that we need to change the way Wikipedia works to prevent it? Oh hell no. I'm with Nigel - this is Frozen Trouts of Seafood Justice time. Ravenswing 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Bullied by an edit warring admin

Nightscream (talk · contribs) has been constantly adding ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) the words "Max Nicholson of IGN compared" to a simple observation stated by a reviewer. The observation merely points out the similarity between a part of the episode and a bit by Bill Hicks. Since this is a simple compare and contrast between two spoken texts, backed up by a RS, it falls under WP:NOTOR. A conversation was initiated on Nightscream's talk page; he carried it over to mine with a snide comment about what is and isn't his job and how he is above the EW law by WP:GAMING (quote: "3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of valid, sourced material"), then shut me down and refused to communicate after asserting that it's an opinion and I'm removing valid sourced material. The material was sourced by me. The addition was initially made by an anonymous IP, and Nightscream kept reverting it ([7] [8]) instead of doing what I did – Google a source. Jc37 (talk · contribs) protected the page and urged us to solve the dispute through talk, but Nightscream quit replying. Now he's bullying me on my talk page into quitting. This is no longer an edit warring matter, it's intimidation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by an admin. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's no 3RR exemption for "clear policy violations", last I checked. Left a 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The source says that the "kill yourself" joke in the episode was "almost eerily similar to a standup bit from Bill Hicks." The content that you're trying to save says that the joke was "a nod to Bill Hicks." I'm afraid I have to agree with Nightscream on this one, there is no source which states that "this joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" as a fact, it's clearly an opinion and if it's going to be included in the article, it should be stated as such. It's also an extremely minor issue, certainly not worth climbing the Reichstag over. How about we all just calm down and move on? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I thought the only exemption from 3RR was a BLP one? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There's been a burgeoning list.Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've just looked at the timing of this issue and self-reverted the 3RR warning. This issue happened three days ago, why only raise it now? Stifle (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't get to a good Internet connection until just now, and besides, the bottom line is that I'm still under Nightscream's threat of being blocked. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

After numerous ECs: There is no 3RR exception except for BLP, and this does not fall under BLP. You may be right abotu the content and wrong in the approach, which is where NS and SW are falling. That given, this is basically a very stale EW report + a warning from an involved Admin. The admin did not block. Is there anything to be currently done regarding this? I suggest we wait until we hear NS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x manyI was going to say the same thing as Scottywong. It's better to have the statement fully attributed (both by ref and in the article) to avoid the possible misunderstanding by a reader that the "joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" is universally accepted. I think this can be solved by a simple case of "if I were a reader.." Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Scottywong (talk · contribs): I didn't write that it was a reference, just that it's similar. We don't have to add the reviewer's name and the fact that he made the comparison, the footnote is more than sufficient. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The text was that "it is a nod to Bill Hicks", which implies that you know that the writer intended this as a reference to Hicks, as opposed to an unintentional similarity. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Unattributed opinions are problematic at best, policy violations when presented as fact. When rephrased, they can be even more problematic. Nightscream was correct there, and so is Scottywong. The warning NS left was entirely appropriate, IMO. And you are making this a content dispute on ANI, not about the admin's alleged bullying. If you want to argue content, go elsewhere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do you mind explaining why it is so important to you that this comparison is not presented as an opinion? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I believe there is a huge confusion. The "nod" diff was by an anonymous IP. My version is here, and it states as follows: "Stan's phone call to J&G, in which he angrily urges the host to kill himself, is similar to the "Marketing and Advertising" bit from comedian Bill Hicks' 1997 album Arizona Bay." What exactly is problematic here? And KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), I'm not arguing content, I tried that with Nightscream and was rudely shut down, which is why I came here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are arguing content, and so is Scottywong. Could we please stick to the issue at hand, which is whether Nightscream acted appropriately by his numerous reverts, and giving the warning? All else is inappropriate on this page except as context, which has been clearly established. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to Scottywong: because it's as clear as the sky is blue, and we have a reliable source that also states that. Nightscream's edit is an unnecessary bureaucratic word clutter. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment to KillerChihuahua: "acting appropriately by his numerous reverts"??? Don't you mean "inappropriately"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just because you have the information doesn't mean it's common knowledge. It would be a good thing to leave the reasonable preamble identifying who has that viewpoint before the quote. Otherwise the text implies it's a widely held viewpoint (which from what I can tell it's not). Trout for you for raising this old edit war after it's been quiet for a while. Trout for Nightscream for participating in an edit war. Happy? Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment for Scottywong Because when this editor gets a bee in his bonnet about something and decides that he's right, [9] [10] he's right, and let's you know in no uncertain terms! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Bravo, Captain Screebo. Now we're resorting to "let's get the editor who dare come here and complain about our administrative brethren". Cue the booing audience! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Look in our brief encounter, I found your behaviour stubborn, rude and self-opinionated, and I let the talk page stalker deal with your aggressive and uncivil comment to avoid getting into a spat. So I was just adding some context in response to SW's question. When you're wrong or consensus is against you, why not just accept it gracefully? Cue round of applause and a self-congratulatory pat on the back! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Something may indeed be "as clear as the sky is blue", but that's not succificent for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• To Bushranger: this is why it is backed up by a reliable source, therefore completely in compliance with WP:V.
• To Captain Screebo: if calling you out on your rudeness is rude, then cue the sympathetic chants. There was no consensus, just Nightscream continuously reverting me in a self-righteous manner. Besides, your attempt to discredit me by quoting an unrelated incident borders on a plain personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From your own talk page, Get some manners and use them. Sound advice, I'd say. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• • If there weren't consensus there, there certainly is now that there's been some discussion on it. You are, simply put, wrong that a journalistic interpretation of the similarity of these works somehow makes it an obvious fact which can be presented as such. Nevertheless, Nightscream should have been mature enough not to edit war with you over it, let alone escalating it to warning templates. That is ideally what we should be discussing, and the actual content dispute dropped (as you're the only one who apparently doesn't agree with Nightscream's interpretation of how we report opinions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I say, put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if you knew nothing about the subject matter and just wanted to read Wiki to get some info on that particular episode and read that statement without an in-article attribution to the journalist who stated it, would it not be reasonable to expect the reader to believe that he comparison is exactly what the episode writer wanted? Before the usual ANI shitfight kicks in, can we all settle down and chill out? Rather than dig up past dirt lets deal with the, content-unrelated, matter at hand. Tea anyone? Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• If we leave out the various digressions that have come into this discussion, the essential points are:

1. Nightscream and Hearfourmewesique have both edit warred.
2. Contrary to what Hearfourmewesique says, this edit was not bullying, but a simple explanation of what the problem with his/her editing is.
3. There is a clear consensus that Hearfourmewesique was mistaken.
4. Contrary to what Nightscream says, there is no exemption to the edit warring policy for "addressing or reverting clear policy violations". (Though, contrary to what some other people seem to think, BLPs are not the only exemption: the policy lists eight different exemptions.)

What is the way forward from here? We could consider blocking one or both editors. Better, though, in my opinion, is for the matter to be simply dropped now, with Hearfourmewesique accepting consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw the message on my talk page regarding this discussion. I think a lot of what I would have said in response was covered by the quite-reasonable reactions already here, so in order to avoid a comprehensive rehash of everything, I'd like to narrow my focus this: The notion that I edit warred; violated 3RR or came close to; and the suggestion that I should be blocked. I'd like to explain my position here, but I have to go out now, and don't know if I'll have time to compose the thoughtful response I'd like to by later this afternoon, later tonight, when I get home from the city (and might be tired), or first thing tomorrow. May I be allowed this time to respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at WP:AN3 or WP:DRN?  --Lambiam 20:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be at DRN when there is no apparent discussion on the article talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The DRN "enforcer" approves of this comment Hasteur (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream's response

Arbitrary break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any "edit warring". Edit warring does not refer to the reversal of clear and unambiguous policy violations, and presenting an opinion as a fact is indeed such a violation, since attributing such claims or opinions to their authors, rather than stating them matter-of-factly, goes to the core of Wikipedia's neutrality. Any claim that is evaluative, interpretive or analytical not only requires the citation of a reliable secondary source, but needs to be explicitly attributed to its author. It is for this reason that The Shawshank Redemption article, for example, does not state as fact that that film is an allegory for maintaining one's feeling of self-worth when placed in a hopeless position. It properly attributes that analysis to Roger Ebert in the article text, and not simply with a citation footnote at the end of the passage. If repeatedly reverting an edit that presents an opinion as fact constitutes edit warring, and is not an exemption to 3RR, then by extension, that would mean that every time violates WP:NPOV by making such edits, and refuses to back down, that I have to hold a consensus discussion on the matter, which is silly.

To provide an additional context for this, keep in mind the South Park articles are frequent targets of unsourced or poorly written ([11][12]) trivia, fancruft, POV and other material by editors, mostly anonymous IP newbies, many of whom can't compose a coherent sentence, and not only have no interest in learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but show outright contempt for it and the editing community here. (One editor once said to me in a talk page discussion "And no, I won't sign my name with four tildes or sign up with a username to Wikipedia in order to ostensibly be taken more seriously. I don't see the need to follow those suggestions either".) These editors often leave less-than-constructive posts or make bizarre comments on the article talk pages, rarely following up or showing any interest in my attempts to explain policy and guidelines to them, and in some cases, violating Civility and even vandalizing my talk page and user page because they don't like it when I try to explain to them policies regarding content and sources. I used to have other editors like User:WikiuserNI to assist me on the SP articles, but I haven't heard from him in a while, and I don't notice a lot of traffic nowadays on those articles from skilled, experienced editors who understand policy and basic article composition. Can you imagine how those articles would grind to a halt, as would the work of lot of the editors who take time to participate in consensus discussions and on noticeboards like this one, if every time some ignorant, quasi-troll who no regard for basic writing or the standards by which an encyclopedia is written, makes some edit that clearly flies in a face of a core guideline, and have I have to come running to those more dedicated editors to say, "Mother may I, is it okay to revert? Can you participate in a consensus discussion on this?" Isn't reverting such disruptive edits, and cautioning those who make them, one of the reasons that we have admins in the first place?

Editors should discuss editorial matters, but only when there is not a clear-cut policy violation, and there is a genuine, good faith disagreement on the proper application or interpretation of policy or guideline. Hearfourmewesique had none, as seen in his edit summaries, his conduct on his talk page, and his statements here.

• He argues, for example, that including attributive wording "clutters up the text", which is preposterous. Should we go through all articles on works of fiction that feature analytical or evaluative material, and remove the names of those who provided those viewpoints?

• He argues that when an evaluative claim is supported by a secondary source, then "It's not opinion". So in other words, that The Shawshank Redemption is an allegory for what Ebert says it is is a fact? Do I really have to elaborate on this? This is not about a good faith difference on policy; it's about an editor with an only modestly skilled vocabulary. If he doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then he has no business making any edits that require such judgment, assuming he has any business editing Wikipedia at all.

• When I warned him not to remove valid, sourced material (specifically, the in-text attribution of the claim's author, Max Nicholson), he seemed to engage in what was either willful mendacity, or just sheer obliviousness to his own self-contradictions. When responding with a list of four numbered points, his first point was the question, "The info is sourced by me, so how exactly can you accuse me of removing it?", suggesting that he didn't know what material I was talking about. But then, in the third numbered point, he argumed, "I think the better wording is to state the observation with a footnote. Cluttering the text with redundancies hurts the spirit of Wikipedia." So in one breath, he claims ignorance of what I'm talking about, and in the next, he concedes that he favors removal of the material in question.

• Perhaps the most telling behavior by him concerns the methodology by which matters of fact and reason should be argued by disagreeing parties. If one person provides a claim, and backs it up with some line of argument, and you disagree with it, then you have to falsify the claim, either by showing how the line of reasoning or evidence being employed is false, or how it does not lead to the conclusion in question. Many people, however, do not do this, and instead engage in behavior that is either intellectually dishonest, or just rhetorical. This pertains to Hearfourmewesique thus: I tried pointing out to him that 3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of attributive wording whose absence would violate NPOV, as I pointed out above. Did he falsify my argument? Did he challenge my reasoning? No. His response was the following: "You are still on the verge of violating 3RR, no matter how nicely you put it otherwise." So in other words, he just repeated the original assertion about 3RR, and mischaracterized my reasoning as "putting it nicely". This is the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying, "I can't here you, La-la-la-la-la...." He also linked the word "nicely" to WP:GAME, but because he refused to falsify my reasoning, or even addressed it, he never bothered to explain how it constituted "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia."

With this, I realized that he was neither willing nor capable of conducting a discussion in which he could argue his case with intellectual honesty or coherency, maturity or basic decency, so I ceased my attempts to discuss this matter with him, thinking he'd cease his disruptive edits. (His presentation of himself here as a victim by co-opting a current social movement and histrionically referring to that legitimate warning as "bullying" only serves to further underscore this.) By virtue of both the lack of merit to his position, and his inability to engage in dispute resolution or discussion to show otherwise, both my reverts and the block warning I gave him were perfectly legitimate, and did not constitute edit warring or a violation (or near-violation) of 3RR. If anyone here can falsify what I have said here by way of evidence or reason, please do so. Nightscream (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong. I thought that the only significant problems here were on Hearfourmewesique's part: his/her refusal or inability to accept consensus, his/her belligerent attitude here, etc. I thought that, while Nightscream had edit warred, and had mistakenly thought that "clear policy violations" were an exemption to the policy on edit warring, there was no significant problem there. The edit warring was on too small a scale to be very important, and now that the misunderstanding of the edit warring policy had been pointed out, he/she would realise his/her mistake, and that could be an end of that matter. However, things have turned out to be different from that.

1. Nightscream persists in the belief that "clear policy violations" are an exemption to the policy on edit warring, despite having had it pointed out by several different editors that this is not so. Technically speaking, the edit warring policy does not list any exemptions at all to edit warring, but it lists eight exemptions to the three revert rule, which are in practice treated as exemptions to edit warring. Those eight exemptions are as follows: 1 Reverting your own actions; 2 Reverting edits to pages in your own user space; 3 Reverting actions performed by banned users and sockpuppets; 4 Reverting obvious vandalism; 5 Removal of clear copyright violations; 6 Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida; 7 Removal of material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons; 8 Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page. Nothing there can possibly be taken as meaning that "clear policy violations" are exempt.
2. Nightscream has presented a long diatribe about why he/she thinks that his/her repeated reversions were justified. Time and again I find that editors blocked for edit warring use "but my reversions were justified" as a defence, but to see this defence used by an administrator is disturbing: any administrator should know that you may not edit war even if you are "right".
3. Nightscream evidently thinks that his/her long post is a defence against the charge of edit warring, but a large proportion of what he/she writes is irrelevant to that charge. He/she is essentially arguing at great length "some articles are very badly edited, and some editors edit very badly, so it ought to be acceptable to keep reverting what they do to save time and trouble". His/her arguments might or might not be good points if they were presented in a discussion as to whether the policy ought to be changed, but he/she seems to have completely failed to see that they are irrelevant to a defence against the charge of edit warring according to the current policy.
4. Although I did not agree with the main substance of Hearfourmewesique's complaint against Nightscream, I do think that Nightscream could have handled the matter better. For example, this edit is distinctly contemptuous in tone. An administrator should be more civil and constructive, even when he or she is dealing with an editor they think is in the wrong.

Frankly, I am alarmed that an administrator should behave in this way. We have the following: (1) Edit warring. (2) Uncivil behaviour towards another editor. (3) Erroneous belief about exemptions to the edit warring policy. OK, we all make mistakes, but more serious is the stubborn persistence in the mistake, even when several people have pointed out the error. Nightscream should have checked the policy, and come back and said "thanks for pointing out my mistake". (4) Erroneous belief that edit warring is acceptable if the editor doing it is convinced their edits are "right". (5) The inability to distinguish between the two concepts "what I think the policy should be" and "what the established policy is". (6) Responding to suggestions that he/she had edit warred with a long post that exhibits a combative, battelground approach. What is more, this was done when consensus in the discussion was clearly in support of Nightscream in most respects, with the matter of edit warring being a side issue, which had ceased days ago, and was likely to be simply dropped.

None of this is the sort of behaviour which I think we should see from an administrator. I did think that, although Nightscream had edit warred, and had made a mistake about what policy was, there were no serious problems, and no need for any action, but unfortunately the latest post by this editor has raised very serious concerns. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

see also Nightscream's recent contributions to the talk page at Touré and response to clear evidence of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as your reaction to my explanation about the poor quality of the edits on the South Park articles, I never stated nor implied that "it ought to be acceptable to keep reverting what they do to save time and trouble". While there was a time element involved in my argument (funny, I had a feeling someone would distort the point of that argument) the central criterion on which that statement hinged was the unambiguous nature of the violating edits. I do not argue that reverts should be made when there is a genuine conflict in interpretation of policy, a point I subsequently emphasized above. What I did was point out how perverse it would be to have to ask others' permission, or have a consensus discussion, every time someone clearly and unambiguously violated a core policy, and refuses to back down from it before I reverted it. Again, if every time someone changes the wording of a passage so that the attribution of an evaluative claim is removed, and that claim is presented as fact, and that editor refuses to acquiesce after I initially revert it, that I have to hold a consensus discussion on the matter before I can revert it as a second or third time? Yes or no?

To be fair, when composing my messages to Hearfourmewesique, I did initially misremember what someone had told me about 3RR back in April 2007, when a 3RR block imposed on my was reversed because that article was a BLP. I had not double-checked that portion of my talk page archive. But with regard to your emphasis on the specific list of exemptions at 3RR, please see WP:LETTER and WP:IAR (the latter of which I admit should be changed to "Use Common Sense" instead of "Ignore All Rules"). All policies and guidelines need to be interpreted and applied with common sense, and according to their intent and spirit, and not with perverse adherence to the letter of the law, or to the exclusion of all rationality. A blatant violation of WP:NPOV that occurs when an editor changes a passage so that a critic's observation or opinion is presented matter-of-fact should be reverted, and when the violating editor fails to offer a single cogent argument (which as I showed up, Hearfourmewesique, failed to do), requiring admins to jump through more and more bureaucratic hoops is simply not reasonable.

There is nothing "contemptuous" in tone of the message in question. It is assertive and critical, but polite, and its statements reasoned. If there is a single thing in that message that exhibits "contempt", please point to it. By contrast, your repeated dismissal of my point of view as a "long diatribe" or complaining of my "long post" hardly came across as a good faith attempt on your part to hear my side of the story. Nightscream (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of WP:ER and WP:3RR is to discourage people from doing the same thing again and again without discussion. You might well be right about the content issue, but that isn't the point. The point is whether the issue is at least arguable, and that's why 3RR's exceptions are as narrow as they are. When I find myself reverted, I try to apply some humility and ask myself whether the other editor might be right. I am a little bothered that there is no hint of this in your response. If you find yourself in a similar situation in future, will you handle it differently? Bovlb (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note a couple of other non-admin-like bits of behaviour: In a section below, Nightscream muses that DracoEssentialis may be a sockpuppet of User:129.215.149.96. A stronger such claim is made on Talk:Touré#Users_using_sockpuppets_.28and_meatpuppets.29_in_this_discussion. Now for the non-admin-like bit of behaviour: if you mention someone on AN/I, and especially if you imply they're socking, you drop them a courtesy note on their talk page. No such note was posted on DracoEssentialis' talk page. Second, Nightscream accused DracoEssentialis of a "slimy smear tactic" for pointing out that one contributor to that talk page of the biography of a notable African American had a Ku-Klux-Klan logo on their user page. I wouldn't call that a slimy smear tactic, but reasonably fair comment under the circumstances. Lastly, the idea that DracoEssentialis is a long-time disruptive IP address from Edinburgh University does not make sense, especially as she is siding with the biography subject at Touré, and the Edinburgh IP address is accusing Nightscream of collusion with Touré. So I do think Nightscream could have handled this a bit better; as it is now, the Touré talk page is turning into a slap fest, which helps no one. (I can vouch for DracoEssentialis not being an Edinburgh IP, as I'm married to her, and she was neither in Edinburgh nor at her computer at the times in question.)

So, Nightscream, gently does it. Admins are – ideally – supposed to model behaviour that mitigates disputes, rather than inflaming them. (And the Touré talk page is jolly well, and sadly, inflamed now.) --JN466 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: the problem isn't necessarily with Nightscream but with the editors who have been defending his bad behavior for years. I've pretty much removed any article he shows up on from my watchlist, so I don't worry about it anymore. I recommend others do the same. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas! Seeing your name always brings a to my face. Wikihugs! Draco^E 14:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Viriditas is cool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You’re plenty cool yourself, you know that? Or rather warm and full of empathy. Also, when I first came across you, you had this righteous reading list on your user page with the. funniest. short. reviews. Yes, I've been known to stalk you. Always a pleasure to see you, Anthony. Draco^E 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovlb, I appreciate your thoughtful words, and your attempts to assist in this matter. You asked me, "If you find yourself in a similar situation in future, will you handle it differently?" Again, as I asked above, in what way specifically do you think I should respond? You say people should be discouraged from making same reverts without discussion. Are you saying that I should have a discussion with Hearfourmewesique over what the definitions of opinion and fact are? This isn't intended as rhetorical; I'm actually asking.

JN466, it is not a reasonably fair comment. It's an ad hominem remark in which Draco, rather than falsifying that other editor's stated rationale for including Toure's surname in his article, brought up a completely irrelevant fact, and even omitted that the editor in question displayed that logo to make a statement about supporting unpopular speech. You, Draco and myself may object to that logo on aesthetic grounds, and even object to the wisdom of that editor's rationale, but that does not make him a racist, much less falsify his position on the surname issue, which should've been the focus of Draco's response, had she wished to invalidate that editor's participation or position. This is underlined by the fact that she also cast aspersions on other editors as well, making snide comments about them because their edit counts or edit histories were a bit less substantial than hers. When I pointed out to Draco that she herself didn't have a huge edit history, especially compared to other editors like myself, she responded that well, she's a mother, and has other responsibilities, as if that makes her any different those other editors she maligned. The KKK logo thing, therefore, was just one line of attack in an overall response to the consensus in that discussion that Draco simply didn't like, a response that was one of misdirection. It is for this reason that the logo was irrelevant.

However, JN466, your point about the courtesy of notifying editors named in ANI discussions is well-taken. I apologized for DracoEssentialis for this oversight, though I'm not sure if this would really make a difference to her, given her continued insults, taunts and a new accusation she has leveled against in this message, which is hardly in the spirit of WP:CIV or WP:NPA. Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a fine question and thanks for reflecting it back to me.  :) I don't have a magic bullet for resolving such situations, and you know the editing history better than I do. Yes, perhaps you could have started/continued such a discussion. Article talk pages discussions aren't with just one editor — they raise the issue for everyone. Perhaps you could have come up with some orthogonal approach to the problem text, for example by using {{by whom}}. Or you could have just backed off and let someone else handle it.

The reason I raised this question is because, given your new understanding of the limited exceptions to EW/3RR policy, it's one you'll have to answer for yourself (more) in future. At the risk of being presumptuous, I thought that giving you the opening to express your response here might be the thing that satisfies some of the editors who have expressed concerns above, and resolves this overly-prolonged thread. Bovlb (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying real hard to abstain from further comments, but I'll say this much: Nightscream, I actually told you that we're dealing with text here, and as demonstrated here, comparing and contrasting two texts is not original research, as long as it is backed up by a reliable source. My statement was "the bit is similar to Hicks' bit", with a footnote; it has nothing to do with the philosophical observation made by Roger Ebert in your example, it's a simple comparison of bunches of words (in case "text" is too complex of a word at this point, forgive the sarcasm). You never responded to that, and you're preaching to me about sticking fingers in ears and going "lalalala, I can't hear you"??? This should become the new definition of WP:KETTLE, I tell ya – which also reminds me that both bits being similar lines perfectly with WP:COMMON SENSE, which you are also (wrongfully) implying that I lack. You stopped the discussion, forcing me to revert back based on that, and then started a new thread on my talk page with a threat to block. How's that not bullying? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Bovlb, the problem with "backing off and letting someone else handle it", is that there isn't anyone else, as I mentioned above, at least in terms of competent, literate editors. Just take a look at the contributions that are typically made to the South Park episode articles if you don't believe me. When I so much as take my eye off the articles a bit, I eventually find them filled with unsourced fan cruft, trivia, synthesis, informal wording or slang, bloated plot summaries filled with irrelevant details by editors who can barely compose a coherent sentence, etc. When I neglected to place the Butterballs (South Park) article on my watchlist after initially writing the synopsis, for example, I found four days later that other editors omitted the name of a salient character, introduced a falsehood into a scene that had been correctly described by me when I first wrote it, added their own personal opinion as to a bit of "irony" in the episode, and cited a YouTube video as a source for the claim that the video seen in the episode was similar to a real-life one, violating WP:PSTS. (Someone eventually added a secondary source for this. Here is when I fixed these matters.) Want another example? Check out the bloated plot synopsis of the current episode, and tell me which "someone else" is going to rewrite it. I appreciate the other editors who fix my grammatical errors or who figure out betters turns of phrase or wording for some passages. (Here is one instance in which I thank such an editor for doing this. Please note who that editor is.) But I just wish that this typified the contributions to those articles.

As for Hearfourmewesique's comments:

• The issue is not original research, and hasn't been since April 6, when you added the Max Nicholson cite, during which you called me a "laxy deletionist". OR and synthesis was an issue when editors were adding that material without the IGN source. Once the Nicholson's cite was added, I no longer challenged its inclusion; I merely ensured that it was properly presented as Nicholson's viewpoint, instead of presented as a fact. Whether the fact that you're still focused on the now-passe issue of OR/synthesis is due to an inability to figure out what the central point of a discussion is, or deliberate misdirection on your part, I honestly don't know.

• If we reworded the comments of critics like Roger Ebert in movie articles in a way that presented their opinions as facts, then yes, it would indeed have everything to do with it, which is why I made that quite valid analogy.

• I have indeed addressed your argument about the comparison between the two bits of dialogue/monologue. I did so by pointing out that the conclusion of any comparison is an opinion. I did so in this edit summary, I did so in my block warning to you on your talk page, and I did so repeatedly during this discussion.

• I stopped talking to you for two reasons: One, I figured you had dropped the matter. Two, I felt continued discussion with you was pointless, because you had demonstrated that you were not capable of discussing the matter with intellectual honesty, a proper knowledge of vocabulary, or even any sense of maturity or decency. In the last two bulletted points of my April 20, 05:50 post above, I illustrated your apparent dishonesty and your refusal to approach the disagreement by explaining why my argument about 3RR was false. (This is underlined by the fact that as others have pointed out here, you could've done so had you wanted to, just by doing some double-checking on 3RR that I had neglected to do.) Not surprisingly, you're doing it again now by again repeating the same accusation about dropping the discussion, without falsifying the reasons I gave for doing so.

• A warning to block is not "bullying", by virtue of the fact that that isn't what the word "bullying" means, much as the word "opinion" does not mean "something that isn't supported by a secondary source". Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User promoting a movement

• User talk:완젬스 (redirects to User talk:67.77.174.6 -- redirect has since been removed as a result of this discussion)
• User_talk:Gandydancer#A brownie for you!
• Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street#Possible removal of antisemitism paragraph
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject OWS#The Jew problem on facebook
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street&diff=488372101&oldid=488325297

This user is about 6 months old. In that time he has developed a history of pointing out his real-life ties to the Occupy Wall Street movement and furthermore prodding discussions subtly over to addressing how best to preserve its interests, which often toy with the boundaries of using Wikipedia inappropriately to promote the movement. He also addresses individuals who appear supportive of the movement on their talk pages to announce his shared allegiance, and attempted to determine my own allegiances by asking me outright.

This latest instance, linked in the diff above, made the most troubling statement yet: that he is attempting to keep content out of the Reactions to Occupy Wall Street article because it would hurt the movement, while describing his use of policy-based arguments as a cover for that vested interest. I replied noting my suspicion that he was actually here to make OWS look bad, as his behavior is so blatantly nefarious that it seems like he wants to create evidence that OWS' representation on Wikipedia is heavily COI-influenced.

Whether 완젬스 does seek to create that allusion or if he's actually attempting to use Wikipedia to promote the movement (the latter seems doubtful to me), it doesn't seem to matter much. Either way his behavior appears to be of enough concern to address here. I'm proposing a topic ban for this user, and the IP account he apparently identifies with, from editing any OWS-related articles and talk pages, and from discussing OWS-related topics on any other page. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This quote from the diff you provided certainly indicates an agenda being pushed: " It's just this way because of an election year, and after Nov 6th 2012 I will actually be the first person to reinsert the antisemitism stuff because it's inevitably the right thing to do". If it is the right thing to do after 11/6/2012, it is the right thing to do now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been clear to me that 완젬스 is a False flag operative for some time. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be undoing that redirect on his talk page, in preparation for what I smell to be a block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I love the smell of blocks in the morning! Sorry obligatory reference. :P I am curious why user preferred a Korean username. User seems to be entirely contributing to very high profile current events (Occupy Wall Street (and related articles), Occupy Oakland, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Madigan Army Medical Center (correlates with Panjwai shooting spree)). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure, but the actual reason for the removal is to move that talkpage onto his. He just copy-and-paste moved it there, but I intend to legitimately move it once the speedy tag is serviced. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been having many headbutts with Equazcion for quite some time. I'm feeling very frustrated and extremely agitated today. It's definitely been a blowup & I feel like Equazcion has pushed my buttons and made me react in such a way that is detrimental to myself. I kindly ask if we can let this de-escalate first? This stuff happened within an hour ago, and I'm already stressing out and feeling like Equazcion is stressing my nerves. I never felt this way due to Wikipedia before--it's like hearing bad news over the phone, like you're fired or a family member has been seriously injured. I'm really agitated and I hope we can try WP:Mediation or WP:RFC where I don't feel this much urgency or sense of crisis. The administrator's noticeboard is a very traumatic turn of events, and I am not able to respond well or type well. This really feels hurtful & tortuous. 완젬스 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the comment I pointed out and the discussion he started today came before my addressing him -- my statements only came after them in reply. I'm not sure how they could've resulted from me "pushing his buttons". Equazcion ^(talk) 20:51, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I have escalated the issue to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/완젬스. I think this is a more organized campaign that needs a much closer look. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea -- though a topic ban for this user seems appropriate either way, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:08, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that a block is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. I am very, very sorry for being tilted today. I clearly behaved in a way that was reflective of a poor emotional state. I got infuriated by an off-wiki argument with another facebook user about George Zimmerman crowding out the media coverage. He unfriended me, blocked me, and logged off. I felt so conceited because of the seriousness of how hard it hit me. I smoked a couple cigarettes and I'm feeling better now. I wish to apologize to equazcion and request for this ANI to be transferred to Mediation, dispute resolution, rfc, or a less intensive process. I have full respect for the admins here at Wikipedia, and I want those of you to know I don't intend to cause trouble. If I could curl up into my hole and disappear, I would gladly do so. I want to reply but I don't know what to address? Yes, April 20th was a shameful day for me. I got careless, reckless, and cynical. I've come to realize while smoking the cigarettes that what happened to me on facebook wasn't that bad after all, and I should not jeopardize my standing as a welcomed editor (see my talk page & edit history before Apr 20th) nor should I ever take my status here for granted. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and I hope you guys sincerely believe me that I share the same sense of community here. I've been relatively inactive since March (and looking at my own edit history--my edits dropped off right when I participated constructively in the Trayvon Martin article). I'm a very passionate editor and George Zimmerman becoming a free man again today lead to a furious uproar within me about him being free again, and the peaceful solitude I had from April 13th (when he got arrested) until today (when he was bailed out) took a toll on me greater than I could deal with. It's so hard for me to be powerless and watch the news cycle as it happens. For that, I owe Equaczion an apology, and I humbly request from the admins if I can be allowed another venue to deal with this matter. I wish to proceed but it might be seen as a bad faith apology or be seen as preemptive if I do not first share with all of you how I feel about this, and how I beg of it to be resolved. There's no need to block me unless you think I'll re-engage on the occupy article or its talk page. I just want to apologize, log out of Wikipedia for the weekend, have another cigarette, take my dog on a walk, and crawl up into a ball and go to sleep, so that when I wake up, I can have closure on this process and await a more subdued process such as WP:DR or WP:M or WP:RFC or any other recommendation you have for me. Everybody has that one day in their Wikipedia career that they wish they could take back, and now all I can do is refrain myself from the article voluntarily, give my apologies to equaczion, and deal with the decision that is handed down to me here. I beg for any mercy or compassion because I'm just so distraught, agitated, and powerless. 완젬스 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is hardly confined to today's events, and the topic ban I'm suggesting is to prevent COI or false flag damage, not to punish. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:30, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Having a bias or COI does not merit what you are recommending. The latter accusations (false flag) are equally baseless as the SPI accusation. Take off your hater-boots and quit kicking a guy when he's down. I've been through enough today and I just want this feeling to go away. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the Occupy articles since last fall, particularly the OWS one, and at the time I just thought User:완젬스 was overly eager to support the cause here. He's been warned for months by various editors not to let his pro-OWS views get in the way of contributing, yet he ignores them and seems to have gotten more brazen. Now that I read Equazcion's suspicion about his covert intentions, confirmed by Hipocrite, I have to say in hindsight his posts make more sense in that light. El duderino (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said Equaczion was "pushing my buttons" to make me defend such an indefensible position. I volunteer on the main OWS facebook page, and I was having a very frustrated day (even calling people in the movement "occutards" which I have never done before today). There are two factions within OWS. I am in the pro-Obama faction, and I am very frustrated at the occupiers who throw around antisemitic wall posts (which I have to constantly monitor and police) and create antisemitic wall posts (which if I or someone doesn't take them down in 15 minutes, they spread like wildfire) (i.e. see here) because the "occutards" are not helping Obama and are only making OWS look antisemitic. (this pic specifically) Basically within OWS there are a handful of people who give everyone a bad name, and don't know the purpose of the movement is to help democratic politicians in the same way that the tea party helped republican politicians. The idiots I have to deal with day-in and day-out on facebook are antisemitic, lazy, self-entitled, sheep. They do as much damage as the Occupy Oakland black-block guys who broke into city hall and destroyed a children's art exhibit. I'm a "starbucks liberal" and want a clean, violence-free, antisemitism-free, stigma-free occupy movement. I have immense frustration due to our bad apples within OWS who moronically post antisemitic wall photos attributed to Occupy Wall Street, and for that reason, I can be both for Occupy Wall Street (such as back in 2011 during our rosy days) and be cynical/jaded in having to deal with the punks who give our movement a bad name with antisemitic artwork. Thanks for the first part of your statement because if I were false-flag, then I would only be cancelling myself out. (i.e. erasing the positive work I did last year by my frustrations today or alternatively, last year was a setup for me to be a "false flag" on a scarce handful of days in 2012). Either way, my explanation today is totally in line with all my "venting posts" earlier today. It started with an argument about OWS competing for media coverage against America's obsession with George Zimmerman, and me chastising people who don't realize when our coverage is diminished, then the media's tendency will be to over-report the negative stuff (like antisemitic artwork) and under-report our May 1st General Strike and the 99% spring. I apologize so much but back in 2011, I was "new" in the facebook leadership hierarchy, and since 2012 I have been promoted due to being Korean, since all the high-ranking online moderators were white males. If you want the simplest explanation--just look to my stress level and my facebook promotion. That is the truth of why I'm more cynical/jaded in 2012 about the occupy movement (because I have to constantly deal with the bad apples who make violent/antisemitic/anarchist comments on FB wall) compared to last year when those people who are overworked, overstressed (like I am today) saw me as a gullible fool who would happily volunteer for the extra drama, extra headaches, and extra stress.

My promotion through the OWS channels in facebook has shed light on why I'd try to recruit someone gullible, starry-eyed, and optimistic about the movement too. They'll do free work if you promote them to sysop--and 4 months later, they become tired, frustrated, and disillusioned. (I'm sure becoming an admin at wikipedia has that same "reality check" 6 months later when you wonder why you wanted to become an admin, ever...) That's the real reason why my attitude has evolved. It isn't some sort of complex, pre-engineered plan to hurt the movement. If I could, I would denigrate the saboteurs within OWS who draw negative attention to our limited prime time media coverage through actions including, but not limited to: drug use, violence, antisemitism, etc... How could these people not know better? It's like the idiots who took picture of a suicide bomber's remains and figured it wouldn't hurt the image of our military here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We're here to discuss your behavior on the wiki. These walls of text describing internal supposed OWS issues really have no bearing on this discussion, and only serve to muddy the water. I'd invite an uninvolved party to consider collapsing them. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:31, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Do you still believe in the assertion of false flag? (because the long argument was to show you an alternative explanation of why my attitude in 2011 is different than 2012--the "promotion" I received in the facebook group directly correlates with the stress level of an admin verses the stress level of a regular person). If you will drop your false-flag accusation (and let us civilly discuss bias/coi then I'd be happy to) but if you accuse me of bias, coi, false-flag, and spi, then you will deservedly receive a lengthy response. You're desperate to nail me with anything--just like I described multiple ways to scuttle a maneuver. You are trying to hang me by 4 different ropes. I have apologized. I have explained myself. Please let us wait for the SPI review to take its course rather than your "hater boots" trying their best to engage in unfriendly jesting. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While the user in question certainly has some doubt, Equazcion comments on the talk page of the said reaction to OWS in regards to the removal of the passage is not at all conducive to discussion or constructive either to the issue of the moreval and the comntent. The NPA there of accusing someones stance was exactly what was questioned when the original complainant asked the same question. There is then a followup by the said user which is irrelevant and yet another user who makes a statement that is irrelevant to CONTENT discussions. This is clearly distracting to get consensus on the passage brought for questioning. This would also be more appropriate to the COI boadLihaas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

After skimming through a bunch of stuff in this users contribs, it's blatantly obvious to me that 완젬스 has a conflict of interest, in that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. 완젬스 is instead here to ensure that the OWS movement is represented in a positive light on Wikipedia, and so that the user can receive personal recognition for making that happen, as can be seen by this March 15, 2012 diff. There are other clear indications of the problem on just about all of this user's contributions to date, including some of the statements here in this AN/I thread (or, alternatively, to make OWS look bad, as Equazcion speculates in his opening statement). That being the case, I support a topic ban at the least. (I have a feeling that this person is a sock of someone else, based on some of the comments on their talk page, but this seems worth nailing down regardless... Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for advocacy, after all).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, euphemisms about stress and explaining your ties to a subject do not help you in this case. We only have an interest in seeing that articles remain neutral, without an agenda threatening the integrity of the pages. Explaining your connection to the subject matter and not showing an indication for easing up on your rhetoric concerning these pages only enforces the case for a conflict of interest. I must agree that a topic ban will be prudent for now; please edit Wikipedia, but do not get involved with pages in which you have a personal connection with. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI for user 완젬스

I will hopefully be cleared by the SPI. Can I please ask user:A_Certain_White_Cat to assume good faith? I've acted humbly, respectfully, and deferentially since it was brought to my attention that I'm here at WP:ANI. I want to preface the investigation by saying that I hope your theory that this is an orchestrated campaign can be challenged if your prediction is incorrect. The only SPI problem individual we ever had on OWS articles was user:CentristFianco here. There has never been an allegation about SPI about me before. The only complaints I've had thrown against me were having a pro-OWS bias, which I try to mitigate by only editing sections of the article which are 100% objective (e.g. funding section). I confidently await for the SPI investigation and I have full confidence that there is no conspiracy theory going on. This is just me having a miserable day that I wish I could "undo" but in life, you make mistakes. I just hope my sincerity and honesty will clear up this regretful mishap. I am deeply sorry for my edits today, and they are completely shameful. However, I would never have multiple accounts because that thwarts the consensus process and makes Wikipedia worse off for everyone. Hopefully, this SPI issue will encourage everyone to go further back in my edits than my most recent 50 (March 28th - April 20th) and I can have learned this painful lesson and--pending the SPI investigation--I can be given back my editing privileges. I will not damage or do harm. I'm simply inexperienced and too thin-skinned to have the discipline and maturity which you admins have; but, I'm much more aware of my weaknesses after today. I stopped myself once the ANI was posted, and I've done no further self-destructive edits. I feel good about my initial reaction and taking 15 minutes outside to re-think. I hope the SPI will cast doubt to the idea that I'm a conspiring misanthrope. My personality is much too timid and anxious for that type of deliberate malice. I hope the SPI gives evidence to my side of the story. 완젬스 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. I am following the evidence. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I really do want the SPI to show you that I've been honest here in dealing with today's ANI. I don't want this ANI to drag out or waste anyone's time. There are so many trolls, sock puppets, anon vandals, and other garbage you guys gotta deal with here. I hope to just escape unscathed and disappear from your memory banks. I'm not a bad person at all--just having a really, really bad day which I 100% regret at this point. 완젬스 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"This user is about 6 months old" had me thinking "Awwwww, bless! A genius!" Sorry to butt in ... Pesky (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The SPI investigation found no evidence of sockpuppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was actually closed as an undue request without being investigated. I don't necessarily disagree, as it was sort of a fishing request to begin with, but I just wanted to clarify. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Efforts of Equaczion to truncate my posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Bushranger&oldid=488412395#ANI_issue Please tell Equaczion to refrain from trying to truncate my posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but that's only at WP:Mediation where the mediator has discretion to truncate/edit other users posts and/or move posts to the talk page. He is canvassing now to find a willing admin who agrees with him, but I stand by my argument that if he accuses me of 4 things (bias, coi, false flag, and spi) then he opens up 4 areas for me to defend myself. Also, he will not wait for the SPI to run its course. He has his "hater boots" and I believe he is acting punitively rather than the original issue. This noticeboard should not be a war of attrition or a battle of who can outmaneuver the other person by him having more experience than me. I consider this issue dormant until the SPI investigation is complete or the SPI accusation is withdrawn. 완젬스 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked one admin (User:The Bushranger) for advice on handling this, and he did not say he disagreed -- he just said he didn't want to read through your long posts to figure out what was going on (which, incidentally, is the issue I'm trying to address with these requests). He advised me to ask someone else, and I did. I'm not canvassing for people who agree with me. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:44, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is cruel and unusual punishment to be sitting for 4 hours hitting refresh on my own WP:ANI. I am held hostage by him because he is dragging this thing out so unfairly. Can someone correct me if I am wrong, but I find it unfair that he is so adamant about getting me topic banned based on bias/coi rather than the coi noticeboard or rfc. It's very unnerving and affecting my real life. I'm afraid to take a break because I don't know what he'll do next. This is simmilar in intent to [[SLAPP] lawsuit meant to discourage the other party. He is a veteran editor and I'm barely defending myself from these indefensible accusations. Can somebody tell us whether we should wait until SPI is completed or we should take this to a more appropriate noticeboard such as WP:coi as has been suggested already by an admin? 완젬스 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "cruel and unusual" here is trying to slog though your walls of text... I'm half tempted to propose you be blocked just so that the rest of us could discuss this without it being disrupted by dissertations posted by you! Can one of you please restate what the hell the problem here is, succinctly? Sheesh! (And, by the way, the fact that you feel you have to "sit here and hit refresh" tells me that there probably is a real problem here. Just sayin')
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for the result of the SPI case before investing any further time here. If he's a sock, then that's the end of it. If not, then we can delve into the actual issue. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Since 완젬스 seems confident the SPI will come back negative, and SPIs usually take a while, I think it's prudent to try to nip this now rather than attempt to start it up again in the future (whenever the SPI closes, and who ever knows when that will be). Ohms, if you read my initial post, it states the issue and pertinent evidence. 완젬스's defense is rather unclear to me, and I wouldn't try to sum it up anyway since I'm involved. If you take a skim through his large walls of text it should give you an idea. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks to both of you admins. I've been defending myself for 5 hours and have gone through 10 cigarettes, some red bulls, and plenty of tylenol. If equaczion continues posting in my absence, please let me reserve the chance tomorrow afternoon to defend myself. WP:ANI is a very serious threat to my editing privileges, which mean a lot to me--enough to endure all the consequences to my shameful mistakes and to hopefully grow from this prolonged, embarrassing shakedown. Cordially, 완젬스 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And so these men at ANI,
dispute it loud and long,
and seven weeks have gone by
since I saw this was going wrong

there will be no satisfaction
if you take a drastic action
a little patience and a gentle tone
will show they're learning on their own

the little club I have reviewed,
and can I see the situation,
that the project would be improved
if you gave out invitation

peace and harmony will elude
if we focus on right and wrong
instead of working to include
and we all learn to get along
Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude. If you're really that stressed out about this, you might want to take a break and do something else for a few days. Or, do some things on this list. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, no kidding. The one thing that's really clear to me here is that this guy needs to relax. Geez. That, and a general cluelessness (which can't be helped by anything but time and experience, but it does provide some insight into possible behavior issues).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely dissuaded by this victim act, but I'll let everyone judge for themselves. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I believe you mean "persuaded" not "dissuaded". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

...as in dissuaded from my assertions/recommendation :) Equazcion ^(talk) 03:38, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is, if he's not socking then he should relax and not worry about it. Does anyone know of a case where someone was wrongly determined to be a sock? I doubt it has ever happened. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sock or not, I think a topic ban is in order as his behavior has been problematic, and indicative of either COI or a false-flag operation. After I brought this up, another user thought this might be part of a larger socking scheme -- maybe that's true and maybe it's not, but either way, the issue that brought this here still stands. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:52, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Just say to yourself, "it's just Wikipedia - I should really just relax". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Relaxing is a good idea that is for certain. The other bleeding obvious idea is that if someone is willing to talk things out that we give them a chance to do so in the appropriate less stressful venue. I will tell you right now the problem is not just one editor, BULLSHIT.

The pursuit of 'someone to blame' is going to cause more problems. If you single out one editor and miss out chastising anyone who had a part, it is going encourage the editors who got away with it to do it all over again. These editors are best left with some guidance and the opportunity to learn how to deal with the problems presented. The group needs someone to keep an eye on them, and I do not mean lurkers. They respond very well to being asked what the problems are, and working through them, I did so before, and it worked well, but I have been distracted and lost interest. Anyone who wants to fix this can just goto the article talkpage and ask, but it would be a LOT BETTER if the brand new wikiproject was to INVITE people to join, where are your invites guys ? is it a private club ? Then the discussion can be held in the clubhouse. RELAX, Relax, relax. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes I do know my poetry is crap and you're welcome to say so. Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with the issue at hand? There's loads of discussion on the talk page, where it's become clear that the user here (no clue how to pronounce a bunch of Korean(?) characters) is either working for OWS and is seeking to "clean up" their articles by removing negative things, or is intentionally trying to portray the OWS movement in a negative light by misbehaving.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Their username more or less translates to "Wan James" Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap seems to be lumping this in with general conflicts that have arisen at the OWS articles. If he takes a closer look at this user though, I think he'll realize that this is a separate and more pressing issue apart from the usual content tiffs that occur there. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:29, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

You pronounce it '완젬스', it's easy 완젬스, 완젬스, 완젬스 ! see ? :) I see pressing issues that there is an editor who is RESPONSIVE and open to learning, if he's not warring, then other editors should learn to either realize that editing is what happens on wikipedia, and if they can't discuss things amongst themselves then maybe they need a little guidance, that's all. It's kind of rare to see any editor with no particular slant on their editing, if that editor is discussing things, sweet, if editors all fail to articulate, then that's all editors, not just one. _{(feel free to smack me ohms law)}Penyulap ☏ 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're completely missing the issue here. We're not discussing edit warring, but rather a conflict of interest problem. This editor seems incapable of editing in a neutral manner. The problem has been discussed extensively, and the user seems unwilling and/or unable to fit his interest in the subject into an ability to edit neutrally. That being the case, a topic ban has been proposed, which seems reasonable to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing the issue, I am seeing two more issues. I agree 100% there is COI. But I disagree at the moment 완젬스 is incapable of learning. I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight. I'm kind of medium at it and there are surely editors better at it than me. Teaching them how to sort the useful contributions and mold the bad ones is worth it in the long run, it's a lot less work, and better quality for the articles as well. He seems agreeable and apologetic when he's corrected, just a bit of guidance for all of the editors on how to cope without intervention is needed. Penyulap ☏ 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, they could cut their workload by 50% by leaving one side of the issue up to this editor and just filtering out what he brings them, in the comfortable knowledge he's keeping close track of everything. Going a block and sock is having a lopsided article possibly, and then you have to work out who is a sock and who is a natural newbie who addresses the same issues. Just keep him/them all in one account and filter it as it goes along, how is this not the easy path ? just add 완젬스 to their watched list and the day's work is done. Penyulap ☏ 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... okay, you really don't understand this. Adding this user "to (my) watchlist" is pointless. We don't let one editor have "one side of the issue." And most commonly, telling someone to "keep in one account" often fails miserably. I'm also worried that you say: "I see there is an issue that other editors need guidance on how to correctly see off this kind of editing without resorting to a block and sockfight." That indicates you only see the problem coming from everyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I see I failed to express myself properly. I don't mean you, I mean someone who wants to take an interest. There are 3 or 4 editors who are dealing with 완젬스, but they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire, but are asking for the fire to be shoveled outside wikipedia's door, where it'll keep burning, and all the smocks will come back inside. It's easy to help 완젬스 to fit in better because he fully engages in conversation. But I see too many editors want to play survivor. So dump community and just vote him off the island. Penyulap ☏ 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this suggestion properly, it's ridiculous. This is not an American court of law, where "justice" is imagined to be found by having each side present their own biased case, allowing the jury or judge to accept one or the other or, occasionally, hew a road down the middle. All Wikipedia editors are expected to contribute here in a non-biased way by providing material supported by proper reliable sources. We don't let one editor take one side of an issue and other editors take the other side and let them battle it out. If the fellow with Korean name that's unpronounceable to an English-speaking editor cannot edit within basic policy, then he shouldn't be allowed to edit. Period. We have nothting to gain by allowing him to frolic here in support of his own political beliefs. And that's the case for every editor for whom a POV is more important that building a reliable and neutral encycylopedia. Get rid of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Little note, a community ban is not what's being proposed; just a topic ban from the stuff he has a COI/etc with. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:23, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this user has repeatedly been asked to quit discussing his personal association to OWS and going even further than thay by suggesting that all the other "good" editors are in agreement with him. I too believe that a topic ban would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you're still not getting it. I knew you meant "anyone who takes an interest," but watchlisting someone's user page is useless. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they're editing. Further, you still don't understand the situation: this user "fully engages in conversation," then does whatever he wants anyway. That's not something that can be fixed with a gentle talking-to, because that's what people have been doing, to no effect. Also, you keep insulting the other people in this situation ("they're not experienced enough to throw water on the fire"). That is getting quite old, and you need to stop doing that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban from Occupy Wall Street and related articles, broadly construed. I'm 99% positive he's a conservative (or at least anti-OWS) troll, but regardless of whether he is or isn't, his editing patterns are unacceptably disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This page written by him makes it obvious he's a troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were able to read that, you're a better man than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Whether an anti-OWS troll or a pro-OWS editor is irrelevant, since in either case the user is not editing with a WP:NPOV. Also, I'd like to point out that several other support !votes are scattered through the previous discussion and should be taken into account. (Equazcion, who proposed it, Ohms law, DarthBotto, Gandydancer and Kevin Gorman just above this.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do not support topic ban (YET) Just an FYI, the editor 완젬스 has stayed within Wikipedia policy in regards to stating a conflict of interest and their intention to refrain from editing the section in question. I believed it would have been best (and suggested at the time or close to it) that he not edit the article at all and this is part of the reason. Conflict of interest means not doing anything self serving. It is THE TOP Project OWS guideline and was written expressly because of the many editors who edit articles with an Occupy related title and who are closely related to the subject. I think what may be happening should not be taken for anything more than what it appears as 완젬스 has been editing at Wikipedia long enough to not be considered an operative to make OWS look bad....if this were true all COI claims go out the window. It becomes a witch hunt in my opinion for, what could well be one faction of a politcal protest, warring over how to define the national and worldwide definitions of OWS. I believe the person who made the suggestion to topic ban to be difficult to collaborate with and who seems less than willing to really discuss content disputes without making claims of behavior problems and accusations such as tag teaming.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• With an editor making posts like this one I have no idea how he can productively edit in this topic area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Haven't got a clue what that was about but have my thoughts.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this user under this username. I recommended to him that he should leave for a while, get another username, and come back as an editor who is there to promote NPOV, not to promote OWS. This user has a lot to offer, if he can do it within the WP framework. He said he was going to leave, then come back with another username and do it differently. I think that he should be banned but allowed to come back with another username. If he can do that and act differently, then he will be good for the encyclopedia. Continuing to be promotional and not doing as he said, however, does merit a topic ban. So I would topic ban him but allow a return if he feels he can reform. If he is an anti-OWS troll, he is doing a mighty good job of it. He is totally convincing in his wiki-clueless oh-gosh promotionalism. B^e——C_ritical 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support 3 month topic ban per BMK, Kevin Gorman and others above; no prejudice against a return and no prejudice against a quick reinstatement of the ban if the problems continue. SÆdon^talk 07:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What are legitimate grounds for a precipitate block for edit warring?

I have to ask, as admin User:Tiptoety seemed to think that diffs to five edits made in two and a half months do, and blocked me (without any prior warning, or any input in the talk page discussions) accordingly - the block has of course been lifted. TenOfAllTrades summarises the diffs given as 'evidence' nicely: [13]

1. 19 April - restored a critical comment about the product's nutritional value
2. 11 April - undid a whitewash that deleted well-referenced mention of the company CEO's legal troubles related to a previous health drink
3. 1 March - removed an unsourced description of a critic as a 'competitor'
4. 27 February - removed the same unsourced description (this is the only revert which Andy repeated, and the only time Andy reverted twice within a seven-day period)
5. 7 February - removed the addition of what amounted to an advertising blurb for a new product.

In the same period of time, Andy has posted five times to the article talk page, relating to the edits that he has made. Where is the fire that your block is putting out, Tiptoety? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is in relation to our article on MonaVie a 'multi-level-marketing' company of dubious repute which promotes vastly-overpriced fruit juices for 'health and wellness' despite a complete lack of evidence for any meaningful benefits. I suggest that a look at the article history, and the talk page, will illustrate why this article is of concern to me, and to other editors (one of whom User:Rhode Island Red is still blocked, along with User:Ed.Valdez who was deleting sourced negative information from the article).

As I wrote on my talk page, it seems to me that this block is sufficiently contrary to established Wikipedia policy and procedures that I have to question the fitness of User:Tiptoety as an administrator. Or have I misunderstood policy to the extent that attempts to maintain NPOV, and requirements regarding reliable sourcing, in articles being 'spun' by multiple SPAs is to be understood as against policy? If so, Wikipedia has a serious problem.

At minimum, we need a clarification of policy here, and an explanation from User:Tiptoety as to how he/she came to make such a decision - Tiptoety's only response so far has been to post a rather dismissive (and factually incorrect) comment on my talk page: [14]. Contrary to the assertion therin, I had been engaged in talk-page discussions regarding the article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, can you explain why, rather than use standard practices for dealing with an editor you believed to be disruptive, you (and others) simply continued to undo his changes (the same ones or different ones), over and over? Can you explain why, given that you've previously been blocked for edit warring and are clearly very much aware of the policy, and yet you continued to revert on MonaVie, you feel that Tiptoety should have had reason to believe yet another warning drawing your attention to the policy would have had any effect? These questions also apply to RhodeIslandRed and EdValdez, if they'd care to answer them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have the memory of a sieve. Could you point to one time you've dealt, before getting your precious tools, with a disruptive editor who was not a blatant vandal? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we please stay on topic - this isn't about User:Fluffernutter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: Can you explain why you consider any of my actions as contrary to policy? And, in answer to your question, if the problem had been a single editor, of course 'standard practices' may be effective - but how long do you expect it would take for another POV-pushing SPA to appear? Articles of this nature are inherently prone to systematic spinning by those with utter disregard for Wikipedia policy, and NPOV can only ever me maintained by watching the article itself: sadly, this sort of thing is a disheartening and thankless task. Maybe I should stop doing it, and leave the articles to the snake-oil salesmen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, from my point of view the entire recent history of the article has violated policy because editors seem to have mostly given up on talking, and have settled on just undoing each other repeatedly ("a series of back and forth reverts", to quote WP:EW). Multiple editors were involved in this, and I think Tiptoety was not out of left field to stop the behavior with blocks, though obviously it's debatable whether that turned out to be the best strategy.

As far as handling POV pushing, there's a couple ways to deal with that if it can be established that it's happening. ANI has recently started handing out discretionary sanctions on articles and topics, if I recall correctly, which means that if a case is made here that MonaVie has a long-term history of SPAs or POV pushing, the article could be placed under 1RR or problematic editors could be topic banned with much more ease than they currently are. ANI has also always been able to topic-ban or block individual editors if evidence can be presented of them misbehaving. Arbcom, obviously, has the same abilities. It would be extremely disappointing if you opted to stop editing the article because of POV pushing or other problems, and I encourage you to not do that. What I'm trying to communicate, actually, is that we do have the ability to handle problem editors. You don't have to do it all yourself (alone or among two or three of you) when we have so many processes that can - really can, I promise - help you address the root cause instead. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter's protestations seem to ring a bit hollow, given that he has made his own very similar reverts to the very same article over the years: [15], [16], [17], [18]. This seems to be very much a 'do as I say, not as I do' situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. some statistics from the MonaVie article contributions history to ponder:

AndyTheGrump: article edits 11, talk page edits 15.

Fluffernutter: article edits 7, talk page edits 1.

I think that lectures on "editors [who] seem to have mostly given up on talking" coming from someone in that situation are somewhat questionable. Not that I had 'given up on talking' anyway, as the article talk page shows. Still, this is all rather off-topic anyway: I still want to hear from User:Tiptoety regarding the more important issue: his/her interpretation of policy, and why it is so far at odds with with other contributors and admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: Fluffernutter's preferred pronouns are 'she/her/hers'. ~Crazytales (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tiptoety seems to be relying on a very broad interpretation of the opening sentence of WP:3RR: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Even assuming an admin can block without warning a user who "repeatedly" reverts over a 2-month period, it doesn't address the caveat about resolving the disagreement by discussion, which, for the moment, I will take you at your word you did. In addition, given the outer boundaries of the policy that Tiptoety is invoking, I would think that a warning would precede a block. Finally, Tiptoety's statement that Andy has been blocked before and therefore he must know the rules, implying that a block isn't needed, is a bit sly as, again, this isn't your standard edit war, and many users, not just Andy, would be taken aback by such a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've unblocked both User:Rhode Island Red and User:Ed.Valdez following the discussion on Andy's TP. I'm not sure if any further admin action is required or not. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically yes, since the autoblocks were still in place. That issue is solved though. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a massive breach of admin authority. You cant decide unilaterally on your own to block someone prer WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a word of community consensus. Should be outright WP:BOOMERANG...but then again ive seen that happen when an admin feels like doing so to no accountability. (a la HJMitchell on me). Its stilly to have permanent admins...should be elected rotationally to keep them accountable an don their toes. Many will very well get reelected but many others wont.Lihaas (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, term limits with a twist. Another in the line of if-an-admin-makes-a-mistake-kill-them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a serious issue as there are hundreds of articles about dubious companies, diploma mills, products, and similar SPA magnets. Yes, discussion is necessary and edit warring is bad, but the standard required by Tiptoety in this case is so unrealistic as to fail the laugh test. Would people please review the history at MonaVie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and comment on how they would like an admin to handle such a situation? I find it unacceptable that an admin should think it desirable to block an editor who has made three edits in the past two months with no warning that such high standards were expected (particularly when each of the three edits is good, and the editor made three good comments at the talk page in the same period). Are there some particular sanctions applying to this topic, or should good editors abandon trying to protect Wikipedia from SPA POV pushers? Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Tiptoety has now posted on my talk page, first with a rather equivocal apology [19], and then, after I suggested that a response here would seem appropriate, a repeat of the apology, and a statement that he/she has "no interest in furthering the drama an AN/I". Frankly, I find this rather distainful dismissal of due process further grounds to question Tiptoety's qualifications to be an admin. A gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy like this needs more than half-hearted apologies, as Johnuniq suggests above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can only second Johnuniq's comments. First off how can any of the three blocks handed out be viewed as anything but punitive? If it truly was a slow edit war (and the evidence for that is lacking) 24 hour blocks are not going to "prevent" anything. As has been shown discussion about the article was taking place on its talk page so the block did not cool anyone off or start a discussion where one wasn't going on. Next, I know that it is nice idea to have a "stable" version of an article but at its basic level Wikipedia is designed so that articles evolve and change over time, thus, the term "stable" is relative. When it comes to articles about politics (current politics anyway), religion and pseudo science experience has shown that it is unlikely that there will ever be a "stable" version. Even if an article has achieved some stability for a few months new SPA's and POV pushers will always arrive. In this case it looks like the admin culled through the edit history and then blocked those that had made changes over a period of weeks or months without thoroughly investigating what those edits were. If an admin is in the pursuit of a "stable" version of an article they should make sure that they have all of the facts at hand before making a decision to block anyone. That involves discussing things with the editors involved. They could then issue suggestions to the parties. Also, I don't see anything that states that uninvolved admins or editors can't start a "Request for Comment" or get a "Dispute Resolution" process underway. Either of those would be better than pulling the trigger and issuing punitive blocks. Blocks like this one can only have a chilling effect on the community at large and that will only embolden vandals, SPAs and POV pushers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh the drahma. An admin made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Even AndyTheGrump makes mistakes. The mistake was swiftly rectified. No harm to ATG. Tiptoety admitted the mistake and apologized. Regardless, ATG maintains full-blown vindictive mode, with repeated po-faced assertions that the mistake - and the choice not to participate in this dramafest - are "grounds for questioning" Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator". Please. Get over yourself Andy. To be AndyTheMagnanimous might even make you feel good! Writegeist (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So admins issuing precipitous drive-by blocks and then apologising (less than enthusiastically) afterwards when called to account by multiple contributors isn't an issue for ANI? What the heck is this noticeboard for then? Or are admins supposed to get a free pass? As for 'No harm to ATG', ignoring the fact that I've had to waste hours sorting this mess out when I could have been doing something more useful, other contributors were also blocked. More to the point though Tiptoety still seems to think that this was some sort of 'judgement call', whereas almost everyone else seems to think otherwise. So yes, I question Tiptoety's "suitability as an administrator" - as I (and any other Wikipedia contributor) is entitled to, particularly when they seem to be so clueless about policy, and so dismissive of requests to adequately explain themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dismissing Andy's report in these terms implies that the other editors who have commented here and elsewhere are misguided and that their comments need no consideration. A quick resolution would start with a consensus that the blocks were wildly wrong (not just a "mistake")—any good editor would have done what Andy did. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. You're missing the point: Tiptoety doesn't have to give a shit. Andy should be grateful to have received an apology; if that isn't enough, Andy should just be re-blocked for his ungratefulness. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he should be grateful that an administrator would give even a weaselly, backhanded apology to a lowly commoner. If that peasant doesn't like it, he should be thrown back to the pillory for such insolent insubordination. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of contributing to "the drahma" (something I cannot often be accused of), I'll weigh in to agree with Johnuniq 100%. As far as I can tell, Andy wasn't even close to edit warring. Judging from the five diffs at the top of the thread, what he was doing was making fully constructive, highly clueful edits. While admins, like the rest of us, do make mistakes and hardly need to prostrate themselves in shame afterward, some of the comments I'm seeing in this thread appear dismissive of the gravity of the mistake. Aside from the block's being unjustified on edit warring grounds, it was also procedurally bad because there was no apparent reason to believe it would prevent disruption. It certainly gives me pause, anyway, and makes me wonder if my lack of blocks to date is due less to good behavior and more to some sort of incredible luck. Or maybe I have a guardian angel. Or something. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, of course. But when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away. When an administrator makes a mistake (and this was a big one) the usual suspects turn out to defend it. The bottom line is that Tiptoey has shown himself to be an incompetent administrator and should be desysoped. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of drahma . . . You lost me there. While the mistake was a serious one, I cannot see that it constitutes evidence of incompetence. In most cases we should be forgiven for our big mistakes as well as our small ones. I draw a distinction, however, between forgiving those who make mistakes and treating the victims of those mistakes in a casually dismissive manner. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it a little more bluntly for you then. It wasn't a mistake, it was evidence of incompetence. The only other explanation is dishonesty, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Either way, do we really need incompetent/dishonest administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 06:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this is why I avoid ANI. My better nature is screaming at me to unwatchlist this and go elsewhere, but the evil demon within goads me to respond just once more. You're making a very serious allegation that cannot possibly be documented by citing only one incident. Suggesting that another editor is incompetent (or, far worse, dishonest) without providing proper substantiation seems to me just about as reckless and callous as blocking someone without cause or making light of such a block. There are human beings behind these usernames, and they deserve better than that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you've never encountered Malleus before. This is his normal MO. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You lot may be afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, but I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I dare say I do disagree with the rollback comparison. "when a rollbacker makes a mistake rollback is taken away" I've made mistakes a couple of times with rollback, a misclick and a misread of something, and I still have rollback. I agree that rights should be taken away from people who deliberately and/or consistently misuse them, but if they're taken away for one mistake, no one will ever have any rights whatsoever (perhaps that'd be a good thing, heh). If Tiptoety hadn't apologised and admitted they were in error, I'd think differently. Everyone makes mistakes. Hard pushed to find an admin who hasn't. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "afraid" of anything. I disagree with you, and find your "fuck the police" attitude towards admins tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This incident leads to a larger issue. What do we do about SPA POV pushers? Our articles on or relating to fringe theories are constantly beset by such editors, and admins don't do anything to help us. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"What do we do about SPA POV pushers?" Let me know when you find out.[20] Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave them a note explaining why their edits are problematic. If they carry on bring them here (or somewhere else). If you can show they've been warned and then they carried on regardless, then that's a reason to block. You're right though that admins should help editors who are willing to defend our articles against SPA POV pushers and give them a little leeway in terms of 3RR/civility. The project needs more editors who will stand up against them, rather than more POV pushers. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please close this? Andy was blocked. He was unblocked because the block was unwarranted. He received an apology from the blocking admin, although it wasn't apparently as abject as Andy felt it should have been. After that, the discussion devolved into an argument of how much blood we should draw from the blocking admin to see if he has an enzyme for incompetence and should therefore be euthanized.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please not close this. As I made quite clear at the start, and others have subsequently also suggested, there are issues other than the inappropriate behaviour of a single admin being discussed here: in particular, we need to clarify what the situation is when having to revert POV-pushing SPAs who refuse to comply with policy (and often refuse to communicate at all). If editors have to risk being blocked for 'edit-warring' due to well-intentioned (and seemingly policy compliant) actions taken out to preserve NPOV in contentious/fringe articles, Wikipedia will have a serious problem keeping such articles policy-compliant. Though BTW, I'd also like some clarification on whether an admin, when asked to explain their actions at ANI declines to do so: per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". I feel that a mere apology on a talk page (of only one of the persons blocked) falls well short of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sympathetic to you on this one, Andy: editors who try to ensure our articles comply with WP:NPOV and who maintain their quality against the onslaught of accounts who are here for one reason (accounts who generally don't know or care about WP:BRD) should get some support from the admin corps, and that support is woefully inconsistent. Sometimes such editors get prompt and helpful responses from admins, sometimes – as in your case – they get blocked for insisting that BRD be followed. Is it possible to sort out that inconsistency at AN/I? Probably not. Would an RfC help? Maybe. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do RFCs ever sort out anything? The only way to sort this out is to sanction administrators like Tiptoey who block those trying to protect articles, under the guise of edit warring. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues, as I see it: I can't imagine there will be much appetite for sanctioning an admin whose first response to being challenged is "It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize." At least I don't have an appetite for it, others may. The broader issue is, when someone with either an axe to grind against an article subject or an interest in whitewashing legitimate, reliably sourced criticism repeatedly ignores the bold-revert-discuss cycle and just re-inserts their changes without consensus, how can editors stop that without making them vulnerable to edit-warring blocks themselves? Perhaps either promoting BRD to a policy, or incorporating stronger language into the edit-warring policy that makes it explicit that bold-revert-bold is the "official" start of an edit war (analogous to the language used in WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative actionedit when you know that another administratoreditor opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversalsreverts without discussion. Resolve admin disputes by discussing.") Or perhaps some other approach. An RfC may not solve it but I think the odds are greater than trying to solve it here, especially when it's tied to a specific admin action. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been a mistake, it was a mistake, and a bad one, which is the issue that's being swept under the carpet here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "swept under the carpet," it's "this isn't enough to block/desysop him for." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think codifying BRD would really help much. In my experience, once we get Edit-Revert-Edit-Revert, the reverting party needs to stop. Post to the talk page, post to the inserting editor's talk page, try to get a dialog going. If the edit is inserted again, without discussion, it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene. The exception being blatant vandalism on BLP pages. In that case, an Edit-Revert-Edit should be taken straight to AIV. Either way, repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble. What looks like clear vandalism to one person may actually be a legitimate edit to an uninvolved party.

I honestly find the WP:DR system rather ineffectual in these situations, especially RfCs. The latter tends to just drag on with no resolution until one side gives up out of frustration, or starts inserting the material again. I'm just not sure what we could effectively replace DR with outside granting admins more broad leeway to block (which would just make things more tense than they are now). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV? AIV is completely the wrong place to go. POV pushing isn't vandalism. It can be equally disruptive, but it's different. It's not in the scope of AIV at all. I don't know what experience you've had, but having whoever reverts need to stop results in an easy way to game the system and push disruptive text in. Guideline or not, WP:BRD provides a base point. As you noted, DR is often ineffective. If we're set to punish those that revert, AndyTheGrump is right in saying the articles will go to "snake-oil salesmen" or the equivalent in whatever the dispute is. CMD (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As a comment, an admin who has made one mistake, unless it's absolutely jumping the shark, shouldn't be subject to desysopping; I suspect all of our admins can pass the Turing test and are, therefore, not expected to be perfect. If there was a pattern of administorial misbehavior, then perhaps, but that does not seem to be the case here. Consensus is it was a bad block, the admin involved apologised (where they apologised is irrelevant; they apologised clearly in a place where the person being apologised to clearly would see it, insisting they apologise more elsewhere is just hauling to the pillory), and the heat:light ratio here is threatening to rise. {{Trout}} the admin in question and close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All mistakes are not equal; I note that you make no distinction in that respect. There's an absurd assumption here that you can just reverse a bad block and no harm done. Let me assure you that's very far from the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be several misunderstandings above, regarding what happened, and when. Firstly, The Hand That Feeds You states that "repeatedly reverting the edit is just asking for trouble". As the diffs show, it wad different material that was being reverted, except for a single case. It is also untrue to suggest that we are referring to "an admin whose first response to being challenged [was] 'It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize'". Tiptoety's first response was to attempt to justify the block by referring to my actions as edit-warring, falsely suggesting that I had failed to try to resolve the issue through discussion. It was only when I raised the matter here that Tiptoety apologised: and only to me - no apology to the others blocked, and no apology for the trouble this ridiculous set of blocks had caused others to sort out. Tiptoety's refusal to discuss the issue here, combined with an editing pattern I find rather troubling in its limited scope, suggests to me that we do a problem with an out-of-touch admin, and/or a clear misunderstanding as to how we should be dealing with POV-pushing SPAs who are unwilling to work within policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is claiming that because Tiptoety made a mistake their admin bit should be removed. There are three issues (it's #1 and #2 which call into question Tiptoety's suitability as an admin):

1. Tiptoety's apology was one of those dismissive "...correct my mistakes if I make them. It appears I have made a mistake, and I apologize" apologies which superficially ticks the CIVIL box but which reveals that there has been no thought at all about the matter.
2. Tiptoety has declined to participate in a very reasonable ANI discussion. There is no need for a protracted back-and-forth, just one clear statement on the underlying issue.
3. What are good editors to do when faced with POV-pushing SPAs? The above suggestion that "it's time to hit AIV or ask an admin familiar with the page to intervene" is totally unhelpful. The AIV suggestion is a grave misunderstanding of the purpose of AIV (read the box at the top), and there is no mechanism to find an admin familiar with the page. Also it is not reasonable that those defending the encycopedia should spend half an hour writing reports for every one-minute addition of unsuitable content (of course some time on talk is necessary, but it is not reasonable to require a lengthy analysis for every edit).

Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, that wasn't an apology worthy of its name from Tiptoety. It was a very poor triple block all reverted on first inspection by other administrators and, 3, yes, I agree such actions degrade users ability to defend NPOV edits - Andy's edits as displayed by Toat were in no way blockable - I wondered , who asked him to do it? was there any off wiki requests, or on that chat log irc thing, it was hard to see why he did it but at least this exposure will stop him doing it again in future - I have on multiple occasions when attempted to apply policy to edits a COI SPA has been just reverting and failing to discuss had to just say, what the hell let them add whatever they want rather than get blocked.Youreallycan 23:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:EDITWAR:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.

To answer the original question, anyone who participates in an edit war can be blocked per policy. The admin in question has already apologized (even though he may have been right per policy), and while the sincerity of said apology has been called into question (those doing so may want to read WP:SORRY), the fact remains that one was given. My suggestion for dealing with the POV pushing that resulted in the original edit war is to revert obviously dubious material and if said behavior continues the user(s) involved should be reported for WP:3RR violations or general disruptive editing. This doesn't even require a noticeboard post, it can be pinged to any online admin. N419BH 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't right on policy, and there was no edit war. I find this defence of a clear abuse of power to be most unsavoury. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its wiki lawyering nonsense. Ping ! - Who was it that asked Tiptoety to look at the article and was that user involved in editing the article, I have asked User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question if it was him - its incredulous that Tiptoety wandered by and blocked three users for this. Youreallycan 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the merits of this case. The thread is so long WP:TLDR that no light will come out of it. I have answered the original question as posed in the section title of when a block may be issued for edit warring and am attempting to provide a path to a resolution. I am not going to spend a half hour or more reading this thread and an additional two hours investigating the exact merits of the case, and I suspect neither is anyone else who is not already involved. Note that I said the admin in question "may" have been right, not that he actually was. If the apology is to be believed (and it is my opinion that it should be) then the admin has admitted he made a mistake and there is nothing further to do here because there is nothing further that can be done. If we expected perfection from our admins and desysopped for a single mistake then we would have none, because as humans we all make mistakes. If the parties here feel and can provide evidence for a pattern of poor use/misuse of the tools the proper place for such discussion is the talk page of the admin in question first, WP:RFC second, and WP:ARBCOM third. It is my understanding that the first step may have already been taken, and if it has and the parties feel the issue is not resolved I would encourage them to consider filing a RFC if they believe such behavior was particularly egregious and part of a pattern of disruptive/misuse of the tools. If it wasn't and was merely a mistake, then I would suggest everyone move on. N419BH 00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you say its too long and yet you come from nowhere, edit history to post two long posts - welcome back - what exactly is your involvement here in this topic? - Youreallycan 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you move on N419BH, as you have admitted to having no interest in looking at the facts of this case. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - There is clearly more to this than meets the eye - the focus should remain on the administrators actions, the weakness of policy to protect experienced good faith users from such poor administration is a topic for another location. Youreallycan 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus on admin actions: "Admin are free to act according to their personal judgement. They are accountable to none." Close this thread now. Moving on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken and your last post here was also completely mistaken, All users are accountable here, Youreallycan 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Some administrators clearly do believe that they're accountable to none, but they're very much mistaken. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins are accountable to the community and are bound by policy. If you feel Tiptoey has lost the confidence of the community to utilize his tools in compliance with policy file a WP:RFC/U. He's not going to get desysopped via an ANI thread. N419BH 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no honesty here. An RFC would achieve nothing, as editors like you would once again turn out to support this admin without any interest in the facts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to contribute to a thread which explains what happens on wikipedia you can go back to cloud cuckoo land. Admins can do whatever they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't. If you all wish to continue to complain feel free to do so. You are not going to accomplish anything here. I do not say that as a matter of insult I say it as a matter of fact. I mean no disrespect or ill will toward any of you. If you wish to hold Tiptoey accountable file a WP:RFC/U and see what happens. If this is a single incident and you know nothing will come out of a RFC/U I would suggest dropping the stick. N419BH 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are unresolved issues regarding this issue and User Tipotoety should rather come and answer them -Please don't close the discussion down with demeaning yada yada comments Youreallycan 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey has indicated that he will not enter this discussion; which is completely within his choice to do so. I would suggest asking him regarding the specific issues on his talk page. If he doesn't answer that's also within his choice but I would imagine if you ask him in a cordial and polite manner he will answer you. N419BH 01:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, he doesn't give a shit and he doesn't have to. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that Andy, Malleus, and Youreallycan are "right" here (which is starting to happen frighteningly often, recently). All the ducking and hiding, excuses, and blame shifting (nevermind what appears to be a sockpuppet of someone), are certainly not putting the administrator and his friends in a good light here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two comments, one with my checkuser hat on, and one off, from reading this thread and doing my own digging. First, with it off, the block of AndyTheGrump and Rhode Island Red are, IMO, bad decisions that have properly been reversed. Second, with it on, the two POV-pushing accounts are socks confirmed by checkuser. AS such Ive blocked Ed.Valdez and YorbaLindaOCMan indefinitely. Courcelles 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Too little too late. Will AndyTheGrump's block be erased from his log? No, of course it won't. Will a record of Tiptoey's bad block be added to his log? No, of course it won't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  What's a bit surprising/concerning is that Tiptoety is also a CU - shouldn't they have realised the duck like nature of these socks and checked before blocking anyone? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for AN/I resolution 0001: "The Wikipedia community deplores User:Tiptoety's block of AndyTheGrump. This block violated Wikipedia's blocking policies. Further violations of Wikipedia's blocking policies will lead to a referral to ArbCom with the recommendation of desysopping." Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Before commenting on the merits of the proposal, I'd suggest that mention of the block of Rhode Island Red (also trying to maintain NPOV) should be given, and I'm not sure that I'm convinced that on the evidence that Tiptoey had, the block of Ed.Valdez was actually merited, without at least some effort to engage in prior dialogue: he(she?) was at least posting on the talk page. A block for sockpuppetry is another matter, but at the time, this wasn't a consideration. As for the 'resolution' it seems to me that what is actually most problematic wasn't the blocks themselves - which though clearly wrong in at least two cases, might be put down to an error, but the complete failure to engage in any dialogue before. From looking at Tiptoety's edit history, he/she seems to be almost exclusively involved in reverting and warning IPs engaging in simple vandalism/test edits etc, and in checkuser/sockpuppet issues. Less than 1% of Tiptoey's edits are on article talk pages, [21] which suggests to me a reluctance to actually engage on substantive issues regarding article content - less than ideal for an admin, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

why? "Every admin can do whatever the fuck they want until some resolution is passed reminding them to keep the promises they made?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I must've missed something. Who (or what) the hell are you quoting?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's simply rewording the proposed "resolution" into plainspeak. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the ArbCom can pass resolutions under Chapter 7, but we can refer cases to the ArbCom based on previous conduct. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit warring → Is there a reason why we should not trash this entire policy (given that it has been declared that an RFC will clearly not resolve anything and that the entire policy is unenforceable)? --MuZemike 07:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide diffs regarding this supposed 'edit warring'. Nobody else has... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my entire point. If wiki-politics is going to decide what is or is not edit warring, then why have a policy in the first place? --MuZemike 07:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Strip Tiptoey of their admin privs unceremoniously after all of their service, and transfer those privs jointly, de facto-style, to Malleus and Andy. We lose one admin, but gain two, just like that! No RfA or anything. Because: they know better. They will never make a similar mistake. And if they did; they'd be extra "forgiving". I just know it. Doc talk 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even better idea. Read the discussion. Look at the evidence. And then make a meaningful contribution. And for the record, I have no wish to become an admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got an even even better idea. Drop the WP:STICK. You aren't going to get him desysopped here. If you really feel that wronged, file a WP:RFC/U. N419BH 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And a better idea still: Fuck off go away and troll elsewhere, whoever's sockpuppet you are. I'm not trying to get anyone 'desysopped', I'm trying to get a serious problem at least looked at by contributors (admins or otherwise) who actually consider Wikipedia article content more important than the vacuous dramas of ANI and the rest. A POV-pushing sockpuppet was attempting to spin an article in favour of a bunch of dubious characters promoting a 'multi-level-marketing' scheme based on selling vastly-overpriced fruit juice as a cure for anything and everything. For my pains, I got blocked from editing. Do you think this was a good thing, or a bad thing? Unless you have something to say regarding this I don't give a toss what you think - Wikipedia can manage well enough without the 'contributions' of those who seem to think that this is some sort of juvenile role-playing game. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not trying to get Tiptoey desysopped? Good. You've made more than enough comments regarding their ability as an admin: do I need to spell it out for you? Perhaps not trashing them here, and moving along, would show more good faith in regards to that editor. RfC/U is down the street. Sticking to the issue would probably be better than asking for heads to roll. Doc talk 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With over 8,000 total contributions and two good articles, I am no one's sockpuppet, and no troll either. I have been busy in real life for the past several months, and noticed this thread and attempted to inject some advice into it after logging in to make a couple edits on an article I pretty much wrote the present form of. Several respected editors, admins, and a checkuser have given you roughly the same advice. You're not going to get anything accomplished here. I am sorry if you do not like it but you're not going to get anything else out of this thread. Policy has been explained, the admin has given an explanation and an apology. What more do you desire? N419BH 08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What else do I desire? That people who can't be bothered to look at the evidence and the prior discussions keep their opinions to themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Small-browser Break

I'm sorry, but everyone should inhale deeply. Andy started this discussion to open a dialogue and help find a solution to his problem. This whole thing has turned into a mosh pit: It's loud, painful, and extremely hard to pay attention. There are plenty of editors who have been making positive contributions to this discussion, but there are others who are coming in and making pointless entries. At this point, I agree with N419BH; an RfC/U is the best course of action, and then escalate from there if needed. This discussion is starting to degrade, and from the looks of it, a solution will probably not appear here. Ishdarian 08:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's to be expected. It's ANI. But let's see the likely outcomes here:

1. Nothing. We haven't the power at ANI to formally rebuke an editor for messing up; a time-limited block would be pointless and punitive; and the editor has already apologised.
2. Involuntary desysopping. We can't actually do that either, it would be wildly OTT for a one-off of relatively limited damage (the block, wrong as it was, was reversed in two hours) and there's no precedent for it, but the usual ANI dramamongers are calling for it.
3. Voluntary desysopping. After Fastily's retirement, maybe folk think that hounding admins into retirement on ANI is a worthwhile tactic. We probably want to do everything possible not to encourage this.

The is pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, that there are problems with that article which require a good deal of judgement when handing out blocks, and that Andy didn't do anything wrong regarding that article. He's been unblocked. There is no longer any immediate need for further administrative action here, and ANI is absolutely the last place that a proper analysis of how to prevent this happening again should take place. So I don't see that there's any point in keeping this open longer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The one thing about this that bothers me is the plain acknowledgement that pretty much unanimous consensus that Tiptoey screwed up here, and the attitude is basically: "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes". This person is entrusted with quite a bit of responsibility, and all of this certainly destroys any trust that I have in him. Arbcom is most certainly not going to do anything about this, since he's (heavily) associated with them. The completely dismissive attitude that Tiptoey has is completely understandable here, considering all of the protection that he obviously has. So, is this guy protected, and untouchable?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiptoey is not untouchable. We can make the "oh well, hopefully he won't make any more mistakes" a bit more formal as the official closure of this thread. Then if this happens again, we can go to ArbCom, point to this discussion and the new incident. Then 1 + 1 = desysopping by ArbCom. ArbCom won't protect anyone when presented with a clear cut case, that would undermine their credibility and may lead to ArbCom being abolished (obviously, if many editors and Admins get fed up with ArbCom, ArbCom cannot exert its authority on this project). Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like empty rhetoric. I've already outlined what we could do here. In reality, the "do nothing" option carries a significant amount of baggage in terms of grudges community memory, and if screwups occur in future this will inevitably be taken into account. We don't really have any "slap on the wrist" remedies of any formality below ArbCom. We've gone without such for a decade. ANI is not the place to discuss introducing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC

I've been informed that this block germinated from an IRC discussion. Is that accurate? Can we get logs, please? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

? So somebody invoked the sneaky "off the record old pals act" to consider administrative action which turned out to be a travesty of a decision to block a good faith editor? Block them both for the same time that ATG was blocked so that their record is tarred to the same degree. Shameful. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Worrying indeed. How were you 'informed'? SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fluffernutter#Question - there is no diff on wiki. - Youreallycan 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This puts the whole thing in an entirely different light. Given that Fluffernutter (who had previously edited the article - reverting POV-pushing - but had at no point attempted to engage in the ongoing talk-page discussions) not only instigated the block, but then chose to repeat the false assertions regarding edit-warring first on my talk page, and then in this discussion, without making her prior involvement clear, I have to call for the scope of this discussion to be extended to Fluffernutter's bad-faith actions, which clearly precipitated the affair, and have led to much of the subsequent discord. Regardless of the merits of Tiptoety as an admin, Wikipedia clearly doesn't need self-serving shit-stirrers like Fluffernutter. Or if it does, it can do without me, and hand over article content to the SPAs, magic teapot salesmen, and bleach-gluggers. Seth Finkelstein, in a somewhat toxic depiction of Wikipedia in The Guardian, once described it as "a poorly-run bureaucracy with the group dynamics of a cult". [22] On the evidence presented here, he was right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - a user that had only reverted and not attempted discussion or posted to the article talkpage (User:Fluffernutter asked another admin off wiki to take action against users that had done all the things that User:Fluffernutter had not. The admin then took action and almost unanimous is that action was badly wrong (all reverted by other admins)- what a pile of trash this place is sometimes - the admin (User:Tiptoety) couldn't even apologize without being 'upity'. - and this is all we know ... what relating went on between them that encouraged User:Tiptoety to make this poor judgment, we don't know. .. personally, imo - they are both very poor administrators and I didn't support either of them at RFA and I still don't, and for such disruption as this, I support removing the bit from both of them. Good faith users need to know that they will not be abused by such poor administration using off wiki requests as this sorry episode. Youreallycan 15:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page and I would ask that people please stop conflating "asked for another admin to look at the article" and "ordered a henchman to do exactly what I wanted so I could pull the strings and secretly take over Wikipedia." One of those happened; the other didn't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You should do your business on wiki then - In that aspect you failed completely. What admin action did you think was required then, blocking of the sockpuppets ?- Why didn't you attempt any on wiki or on talkpage discussion? - Youreallycan 16:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All he did was ping an uninvolved admin to look at the issue. This is perfectly normal and IRC is probably the fastest way to find an admin. That's why the Admin channel exists on IRC in the first place. N419BH 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an editorial issue, there was no urgency. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Never said there was. He pinged an admin to look into it. The admin who did utilized their judgement and blocked three people. Two of those people, in hindsight, shouldn't have been blocked. They were unblocked and the admin offered his apologies. Said apologies were rejected and now we have this dramafest at ANI and on ATG's talkpage. N419BH 16:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@N419 "the fastest way to find an admin." you said. Sounds like urgency to me. Leaky Caldron 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:N419BH - Your intense involvement out of nowhere editing is inexplicable imo - others have questioned in this thread, who are you a sock of - are you related to User:Fluffernutter in any way, are you a sock-puppet of User:Russavia ? Youreallycan 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• - Why should an admin that is involved in editing (only reverts) the article but has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue on wiki or on the talkpage ask another admin off wiki to have a look and take action? - Youreallycan 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see a "non-editorial only" restriction in point two of meta:IRC/wikipedia-en-admins/Guidelines. The channel is allowed for open requests to review actions or situations on-wiki. I also don't see Tiptoety claiming off-wiki consensus as a grounds for the block. He took full responsibility for his actions and did not claim to be representing a decision made off-wiki. More specifically, it was Fluff's choice to ask anywhere he desired for an independent review. Talk page, IRC, email, WikiReview, etc. MBisanz ^talk 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• One of the primary issues is that User:Fluffernutter's off wiki IRCAdmin request was his first and only attempt at anything other that reverting - that is not how its supposed to work - the resulting administrative action by the responder User:Tiptoety was below the standard required of an administrator - Youreallycan 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why? As I've said, I don't see a specific ordering of "You must post on the talk page before you can request a review privately" in any guideline or description, but I haven't read them all in exhaustive detail. MBisanz ^talk 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dude, your defending the indefensible - you go to the talkpage if you have issues - its the primary good faith location - in this case it didn't happen at all - You are defending a user (User:Fluffernutter) whose only input on wiki was to revert - no discussion in any way at all and whose actions resulting in this disruption. - Youreallycan 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm defending the ability to ask for an independent review in any broad-based forum. Just because something is the primary means to do it does not mean other means are unacceptable. If it was unacceptable, there would be a specific page describing talk page primacy and explaining how and when to seek other forums (Like noticeboards, listservs, IRC, etc.) MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bollocks. What the hell are article talk pages supposed to be for then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• See here. They are one of at least three options for editors wishing to discuss an article. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• IRC and email should be considered after things already seem to not be going anywhere on the talk page. If it was done in this case instead of engaging the other involved editor(s) first, I have to agree with Leaky Cauldron at the top of this section, who refers to this as an "off the record old pals act". That is precisely what this looks like. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:21, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• They should, but I don't see a rule saying they must. It's like the difference between getting a rename and abandoning an old account. You should get a rename, but it isn't prohibited that you just register a new account. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, if we are going to regard off-Wiki communications as valid here, how are we going to prove that there wasn't any discussion going on where an 'edit-war' is being alleged? (Not that this is relevant in this case, considering the fact that the discussion was going on on the talk page). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you mean, how will we know of the neutrality of the off-Wiki communication, then by the declarations of the participating parties, other parties present, past records, etc. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• So where are the 'declarations' regarding this particular bogus block then? I've not seen any? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User_talk:Fluffernutter#Question looks sufficient to me. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't a 'declaration', it is self-serving spin - and repeats the lie that I was involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There doesn't need to be rule expressly prohibiting this in order to question the action. We examine these things on a case-by-case basis. I'm glad there's no rule for it, and I also think in this case it was inappropriate. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea - why not log the IRC channels so when these types of things happen, at least the harmed parties can see what was said and who was involved. I'm sure the knowledge that there are logs will improve the tone and general behaviour there. I think the last time this was suggested, there were threats to indef block anyone who posted IRC logs on-wiki, but perhaps people have matured since then... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been threatened with physical violence for suggesting that IRC be logged.[23] I don't think there's a lot of maturity in those parts. Skinwalker (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I understand that you are royally pissed at being blocked, and the consensus is supportive of the notion that the block was flawed. (I don't know whether that helps to mollify, or adds fuel to the fire.) You've received an apology, which was both belated, and perfunctory. You've stated, I think, that you aren't looking for a desysop. Can you identify what you would describe as a satisfactory outcome?

As a mild tangent, I glanced at your block log, and it looks long, but I think appearances are deceiving. I suspect the community is not disposed to expunging block records, but this looks like a good example where it may be warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is Tiptoety and Fluffernutter complying with WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". And doing it here, with full disclosure of what exactly was said, and what actions either of them took before the block was made. Did Fluffernutter check the talk page history before contacting Tiptoety? Did Tiptoety check it? Only when we know what happened can we decide whether any further action is required - as I've said before, Tiptoety's edit record seems to suggest a reluctance to engage in talk page dialogue, which may indicate that he/she would be unwise to engage in admin actions beyond his/her usual fields: immediate reverts and warnings, checkuser matters etc, without taking a little more care. Fluffernutter needs likewise to accept that a more honest approach over this issue might have prevented much of the acrimony - and ensure in future to make clear any prior involvement in issues she is commenting on: we really need more transparency here. There is an ongoing discussion regarding clarifying/revising Wikipedia:Edit warring policy (see Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#slow burn edit warring and lack of warnings), which should address the matter, and hopefully, make this sort of thing less likely to arise again. And yes, I'd like the block struck from the record - particularly as some admins apparently seem to think that the existence of one block is sufficient reason to impose another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Without understanding precisely how it would work, I would oppose expungement of blocks. Such a thing would be contrary to the practice of documenting just about everything we do and everything we undo. That said, at the moment, Andy's unblock has this comment: "General concensus seems to be that a block was not warranted". I would favor something more official, some agreed-upon designation for an unjustified block such that it would not only be clear (the comment is kind of mild) that the block was unjustified but also that policy prohibits it from being used against the editor for any purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in summary, this is yet another IRC failure, where one IRC bud asked another IRC bud to block a guy for him and he did it? Why are the buds still admins, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, can you just fucking stop wailing about IRC? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind logging in? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules

I'm uncomfortable that as currently written the 3RR rules can be interpreted in a way that leads to blocks being applied without an attempt to resolve things in a more amicable manner. That isn't to say that I regard these particular blocks as ones that I would have done. But I would like to propose that as a response the the incident above, we shift the 3RR rules to a presumption that perceived breaches should usually be responded to with dialogue first and blocks as a last resort. So I've drafted a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#slow_burn_edit_warring_and_lack_of_warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)

22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)

12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)

22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)

22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)

22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)

22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)

22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)

22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)

21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)

20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)

13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)

10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)

10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)

10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)

13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)

22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)

10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)

09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)

09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)

09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)

09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)

23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)

20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)

• Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty₈₄₅ 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't look at the dog article but Arzel's participation on its talk page looks tendentious to me. In addition, looking at Arzel's overall edit history IMHO shows a long-term battleground editor and wikilawyer. Articles to which Arzel has contributed 20 or more edits: Fox News Channel: 172 edits, Tea Party movement: 144, Fox News Channel controversies: 138, Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 127, Michele Bachmann: 116, RealClearPolitics: 92, Tea Party protests: 64, 2011 Wisconsin protests: 62, Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): 60, Seamus (dog): 42, Brian Kilmeade: 37, Political positions of John McCain: 36, Herman Cain: 36, James O'Keefe: 35, Tom Emmer: 34, Steve Doocy: 33, Matrix scheme: 32, Glenn Beck: 31, Gretchen Carlson: 31, Elizabeth Kucinich: 31, Restoring Honor rally: 31, Debbie Schlussel: 30, Joe the Plumber: 30, Media Matters for America: 30, Hydraulic fracturing: 29, Kevin James (broadcaster): 28, Scott Walker (politician): 26, John Boehner: 26, Sean Hannity: 25, Political activities of the Koch family: 24, Rick Santorum: 24, Meg Whitman: 23, The O'Reilly Factor: 23, Tim Pawlenty: 23, Koch Industries: 22, Mitt Romney: 21, Bob McDonnell: 21, Fox & Friends: 21, Keith Olbermann: 21, Political views of Bill O'Reilly: 21.

  Looking at the edit summaries in contribs gives a clearer picture of the edits. Arzel is versed enough at wielding WP policy that I don't see clearly outrageous individual diffs, but there's a lot of removals of sourced material (of varying quality) unfavorable to conservatives, some of which I'd call dubious, along with occasional insertions of stuff unfavorable to liberals.[24] I believe this pattern fits the WP:TE description of editing that is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. Others familiar with this sort of pattern might have further inferences to make. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you've made exactly one edit on Wikipedia (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Wikipedia to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: [25]. In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Wikipedia: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: [26], so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino ^(abides) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but you're not correct. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Darn, that was my second guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting RANGEBLOCK

Persistent editor who has been removing categories & using multiple IP addresses to avoid a block. This problem has been going on quite some time & both myself & User:Murry1975 have tried talking to the user to no avail along with a number of other users who have been reverting. There seems no intention of the user of stopping & with the emergence of two new IP's this week that is why I'm requesting the rangeblock. Note that along with constant removal of sourced categories there is other forms of vandalism. Here is a list of the different IP's 86.46.148.17, 86.44.247.148, 86.46.131.76, 86.42.8.99, 86.46.142.51 ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Random note: IP's are Dynamic, not Static. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I and Duckisjammy have tried to reason with the IP. Some of their edits are good edits, others fail to follow guidelines or just plainly ignore them. They removes sourced catergories [[27]] and adds unsourced on BLPs [[28]], also adding POV comments [[29]] and unsourced "facts" [[30]] . He displays a unco-operative approach [[31]] "Irish International and passport holder. Self identifies as Irish. Grow up", and [[32]]"Included is offical source. I am getting sick of having to edit this because of someone's stupidity.)".

Their behaviour has resulted in blocks on the IP including [[33]] after the appeal failed he hopped IP and done it again [[34]] even after stating in his appeal "I believe I have been blocked for improper reasons. I merely edited the Wikipedia page of Stephen McPhail to correct the fact that he isn't FROM Westminster. He is FROM Dublin. He is not ENGLISH. He is IRISH. He was merely born in Westminster. The Clash' lead singer, Joe Strummer was born in Turkey. Maybe you should edit his Wikipedia page, to state that he is Turkish. Otherwise, it is upsetting to see Irish people referred to as Irish. I would simply like my privileges back, so I can edit football stats. I will do nothing else. I would be much obliged." which was turned down. He has been at this since at least December [[35]]. It is disruptive on the project and in general his behaviour needs to be addressed. Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• The level of disruption caused by the block evasion does not justify the collateral damage of a range block wide enough to be effective as the edits have come from multiple /16s subnets. Monty₈₄₅ 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am getting sick and tired of people abusing their privileges on Wikipedia. I am doing nothing wrong. I didn't even know what an "IP" was until a few months ago when I found out it refers to someone's internet address, so I am not "evading" a block intentionally. All of my edits are very constructive and I would like to point out that when I edit something and PROVIDE A SOURCE, Murry (who has been stalking me for over 6 months) reverts it, out of spite and maliciousness.

As for removing categories referring to ie. James McClean and ie. Darron Gibson as Northern Irish, I am doing absolutely nothing wrong. They hold Irish passports, identify as Irish and are referred to as Irish on multiple sources.

Now if you want to try and take away my civil rights and refer to people as something they aren't, I have no problem setting a legal precedent.

Now, stop harassing me and stop abusing people's Wikipedia pages. It's going to stop one way or other, very soon.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.148.17 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... and the comment about "setting a legal precedent" was loud enough of a WP:NLT violation for me to act on at least this IP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You done nothing wrong thats a joke, please note that the IP has made threat towards User:Murry1975. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

[36] basically the same as above "Keep harassing me, and there will be consequences. Regards." Clear legal threat now. If the range is too large what other options are there? Murry1975 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have calculated a few tight range blocks that may stop him. Implementing now -- Dianna (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has tangled with this uncooperative individual, I endorse Murry1975's statements above. Numerous attempts to talk to this editor have been ineffective. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, indeed, there were consequences, and indeed this sorry mess has stopped ... just the one way, though. Ravenswing 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC Close or some suggestion

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

---

Tau (2π) still needs an Admin (or anyone uninvolved would probably be ok) to close an RfC there: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment (previous request [37]). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Infobox classical composer TfD closure

{{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. Silverseren^C 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Silverseren^C 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. Silverseren^C 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, its hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

20:02, 21 April 2010 - MSGJ moves draft template to mainspace as part of uninvolved-admin close of RFC. 10:34, 22 April 2010 - PotW nominates template for deletion. 17:23, 1 May 2010 - Plastikspork closes TfD as keep 15:16, 17 December 2011 - PotW nominates template for deletion as unused. 15:56, 25 December 2011 - Plastikspork closes TfD as delete and deletes, but promptly restores and moves to draft space to preserve history. 19:29, 25 December 2011 - PotW replaces deleted article with redirect to {{Infobox person}} 21:49, 7 January 2012 - PotW tags the draft article as "{{Db-multiple|g4|g6|g8|rationale=Draft/ test version of subsequently created, and deleted {{Tl|Infobox classical composer}} }}" 22:08, 7 January 2012 - AngelOfSadness deletes the draft article 17:52, 22 March 2012 - Magioladitis nominates the redirect for deletion as unused, along with several others. 10:46, 23 March 2012 - PotW !votes keep. 15:32, 31 March 2012 - Ruslik0 closes all as keep. 04:22, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa asks Plastikspork to undelete the template/draft. 04:31, 20 April 2012 - Plastikspork undeletes the draft and histmerges it with the redirect. 19:50, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa undoes the redirect and restores the RFC-approved template 20:05, 20 April 2012 - PotW tags it as db-g4. 20:45, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa replaces Infobox musical artist on Terry Riley with Infobox classical composer. 20:50, 20 April 2012 - Antandrus declines the speedy, "being used" 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW reverts Terry Riley back to Infobox musical artist 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW nominates template for deletion 20:30, 21 April 2012 - SarekOfVulcan closes discussion as speedy keep

Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI timing

Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC) We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [38] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Part of me 2

Part of me 2 (talk · contribs) has received several notices about verifiability/NOR, including blocking warnings, but has again edited contrary to these policies. Perhaps a block or other action is needed. —Andrew_stalk 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• A block for such disruption is possible. No edit summaries, no communication, etc. But they made a lot of edits to various Ugly Betty articles, and at the very least someone should assess whether those are positive or not before I'd commit to such a block. Their edits to Glee (TV series) were not, apparently, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Yes it's concerning that he never says anything but his talk page isn't as bad as some I've seen. Also, I wasn't impressed with this piece of "advise" he was given which was completely bass ackwards suggesting that he needs to get permission to make any edit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was digging through the contribs late last night and then got sidetracked with a separate issue of my own here, so didn't get to finish this at that time. It's hard to tell if the edits are just unsourced or stealth vandalism, or just enough of one to hide the other. I notice that they have already added two more edits that had to be reverted[39] since this ANI started, so they have had the opportunity to come here and just haven't done so. The more I look at the edits, they less likely it appears they are just unsourced, however. Some of these edits are of the same type we found with Tolea93 earlier in the week, Drmies, just injecting numbers that are hard to prove or disprove without doing some research. Dennis Brown ® © 10:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• note Just to bump this, I notice that the editor has come back, but has opted to not come here and explain. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Source information inquiry for OTRS ticket # 2012031210010214

In order to process an OTRS ticket I need to know the author and any other relevant information as to the source of the following images:

• File:Millennium_Gate,_gallery.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_room_exhibit.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate_Arch.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_rear_exterior_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_exterior,_lake_view.jpg
• File:Millennium_Gate,_philanthropy_gallery.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_interstate_behind_it.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_background_view.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument.jpg(The local version not the image on commons)
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_skyscrapers_background.jpg
• File:World_Athletes_Monument,_residential_view.jpg

Thank you for your time, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• User:Tabby146. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would advise being very careful with that OTRS ticket based on the block log and talk page of that user. N419BH 04:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They were all described as "sent to me personally" by "Rodney Mims Cook, Jr." (i.e. apparently Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., a person to whose bio article the editor in question also contributed), evidence "will be provided on request". That evidence was requested and wasn't provided in time, so they were all deleted as "no evidence of permission". The editor in question seems to have been socking after their indef-block, with a new account called TabithaClark (talk · contribs). TabithaClark has made identical uploads on Commons, but with different authorship claims:

• File:Millennium Gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg is commons:File:Millennium gate, philanthropy gallery.jpg (this was identified as a copyvio from [40]
• File:Millennium Gate, entrance hall.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate Arch, entrance hall.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior, lake view.jpg is commons:File:Millennium Gate, lake view.jpg
• File:Millennium Gate, exterior view.jpg is commons:Millennium Gate monument, sunset view.jpg

All these Commons uploads are now marked "I took this photo while touring the millennium gate monument", so something doesn't add up. TabithaClark has also re-uploaded other items that were previously identified as copyvios, e.g. File:Rodney Cook Jr.jpg, claimed as "own work", earlier uploaded by Tabby146 as File:Rodney-cook.jpg and identified as taken from http://www.rodneymimscook.com/. Several of the Millennium Gate images are also on [41]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The relevant files have been tagged for speedy deletion on commons. N419BH 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The above images have been deleted on commons. Since the permission email was not sent from an email address associated with the two online sources mentioned above, I have replied accordingly. Thank you for assistance, MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request For Blocking IP:90.218.99.61

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

---

This User(IP:90.218.99.61) has done two edits in recent past on April 21, 2012. Both edits were totally unacceptable with intense inclination towards Chuck Norris and deleted or added content that is unacceptable. Having fear of more unwarranted edits/ Vandalism by this IP address I request blocking of the IP:90.218.99.61.JPMEENA (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really warranted at this time. Two minor instances of vandalism from 11 hours ago and they have been warned. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And you were supposed to notify them that a report had been made here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have notified him/her. Further vandalism even after this will surely make him/her liable for blocking. JPMEENA (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter for AN/I. In cases of vandalism please report to WP:AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Tagging problems during heated editing at 1929 Palestine riots

There is a problem at 1929 Palestine riots - bringing it here as it involves a number of experienced editors, the consensus building atmosphere has broken down on the talk page, and it doesn't fit in to other obvious notice board categories.

In the last two years, only 70 edits in total were made to the page until the last week when 11 users have made 115 edits so far. There is a very heavy talk discussion, and many open disputes. However two experienced editors involved in the discussion have removed two instances of tags from the article which were intended to give readers an indication of the ongoing dispute:

• [42], relating to the whole article, despite a clear explanation and 15 open parallel talk discussions here
• [43], here relating to a specific unresolved dispute, despite clear discussion here

The addition of these tags was done with the guidance in WP:TAGGING in mind, but the two editors mentioned appear to disagree that these tags were constructive. Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit which occurred on 17 April 2012, the reason was explained to you; three sources were provided to substantiate the information. You at no point explained why this information was 'dubious' despite being requested to explain yourself by different editors several times. Indeed, you still have not responded to this simple request. The reason you gave for the other edit was this, you did not identify any NPOV concerns which editors could seek to rectify.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I am glad you cited this particular contribution to the talk page discussion, as I think it is a very good example of the issues we are facing with the article at present (and why in my opinion it is appropriate to use a POV tag until such time that we able to resolve them). The contradiction between sources was outlined in the first post in the thread [44] and then subsequently by several different editors [45], [46]. Can you not see why it is problematic to ask at the end of the discussion what the contradiction between sources is, and to subsequently use a lack of response as justification for removing the POV tag from the article? Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are misleadingly quoting people's comments which were said before other sources were provided. Please re-read this diff again, in which the problem cited was that the information came from an "isolated tertiary source". This problem was rectified and three other sources were provided. Or re-read this diff that you cited. The editor asks, "Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110", and in response to this more sources were provided.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The detailed academic secondary sources (eg. Morris 1999) that cover the topic do not support the figures, nor does the Shaw report that, the official British investigation, on which historians rely. Your reliance on tertiary sources for these figures when we have a number of far more suitable secondary sources gives the impression that you are fishing around for sources that suit your narrative, rather than looking for the best sources on the topic and accurately representing them in the article. That you have now found three such sources rather than the original one makes little difference, Zero's criticism in the the diff you cited applies to all three sources you have brought, "it looks very odd to cite the Shaw report repeatedly, then jump to a poor tertiary source for one specific bit of information in contradiction to the report, then continue with the report again. If Bregman was a strong secondary source that states the report is wrong or cites some alternative primary source, there would of course be a place for it." The source is no longer "isolated", it now has the company of two sources of similar quality, but the contradictions already noted still apply. Dlv999 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You keep on reiterating this that the Shaw report is in conflict with other sources but you have refused to elaborate why this is so, despite many requests to do so. Please look at the discussion. Onceawhile's asks "Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110?", and "Please provide sources that underpin this." Zero notes that, "it is a poor tertiary source" and "it is just an isolated tertiary source making an unusual claim". In response, several other sources, including a BBC article, are then provided at which point, Onceawhile claims that,"The bbc link would not be the first time that the bbc's history articles were incorrect (their anachronous usage of the term "Palestinians" is a clue)" and decides to label the content as dubious without explaining why this is the case. At this point neither you or Onceawhile bother to answer several requests to explain your newfound objections.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the only reason why that point is still open - to be responded to - is because there are so many other points open at the same time. The article is red hot at the moment, am I am hoping to let it calm down. Many objections have been raised, and I could raise many more about recent edits. Some editors who have been supporting your editorial position have dealt with challenges on the talk page by sidestepping the issue. Just because a great deal of WP:wikifogging has taken place doesn't mean the issues are closed. The "6+110" issue is a good example of this.

The key point here is that the article remains very much under dispute. Whoever is right or wrong editorially will be ironed out in due course. For now, there is no justification for experienced editors to unilaterally de-tag the article while all this is still going on. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be a content dispute and as such ANI is the wrong venue. WP:DRN would be a better bet. SÆdon^talk 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "1929 Palestine riots". Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Kwamikagami

Article moves, deletions, problematic fact insertions, and then deletion of dispute and cn tags. Kwamikagami seems to regard linguistics as his/her possession.

January 2012

• The article nasal consonant is moved to nasal stop [47]
  • all interwiki carried over, bots change the links in other language WPs to en:nasal stop and when then nasal consonant is re-created as article, they are all wrong.
• The template:Manner of articulation is altered to link to Nasal stop and not to the general concept anymore [48].
• The template:IPA consonant chart (!) is changed, now linking to nasal stop. [49]
• Introduction of plural article names in phonetic articles, which is against common use, by moving:
  • Nasal click consonant -> Nasal clicks [50]
  • Glottalized click consonant -> Glottalized clicks [51]

April 2012

• The article palatal nasal that gave an entry point for 1) voiced palatal nasal and 2) voiceless palatal nasal is deleted before discussing it anywhere [52]
• Then the article voiced palatal nasal is moved to the ambiguous title palatal nasal
  • if you are lucky you still find your way to voiceless palatal nasal
• The article voiced nasal that gave an entry point for voiced nasals is deleted before discussing it anywhere [53], claiming "No content."
• Inserting the claim The palatal nasal ... in the International Phonetic Alphabet ... this sound is ⟨ ɲ⟩ [54]
  • when "disputed" and "cn" tags are added, because the view is contested, the tags get removed by Kwamikagami
• Removing the sourced term voiced palatal approximant from palatal approximant [55]
• Removing tags
  • Dental nasal: "disputed" and "cn" [56]
  • Pre-stopped consonant: "cn" [57]

Can please someone stop this user! HTML2011 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• For starters, you failed to notify him that you have come to ANI. If you read the top of this page in the instructions, it clearly says that you MUST do this. I went ahead and did this for you. While you ponder that, I will continue to read through your contributions and interactions, which at this point, do not look very encouraging. Dennis Brown ® © 12:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are 126 articles that have been edited by both of you in the last few months, a remarkable coincidence, although I'm not sure what to make of that yet. You are both passed WP:3RR territory here [58] and appear to be edit warring here[59]. There may be other problems that I just haven't found yet. As to the merits of the edits, that is beyond my pay grade and not an issue for ANI, so I won't address them. Since none of the edits that I've looked through are obvious vandalism, this appears to be a case for WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but would prefer another opinion before taking it there. I've issued 3RR warnings to both editors and strongly suggest they discontinue this back and forth reverting until some discussion takes place. Dennis Brown ® © 12:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As a professional linguist I looked at Palatal nasal and the "dispute" is ridiculous from a content standpoint. Kwami is correct in the content issue. I removed the "disputed" tag since there is absolutely no dispute among linguists and provided official references from the International Phonetic Association to demonstrate it. Then HTML added this comment to my Talk Page, a clear example that he is unable to interact on a civil level with anyone who disagrees with him. --Taivo (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't doubt you and already had a sneaking suspicion, but my concern is the behavior of the two editors. Edit warring is clearly against policy here, even when your edits are factually correct. HTML2011's overall behavior is disruptive, but as an admin, Kwamikagami surely should know better than to get into a revert war. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, and hoping both editors can come here and communicate that they aren't going to continue this war and instead go through the proper channels to resolve disputes, as a way to avoid sanctions against both editors. It is my hope that they both are wise enough to do this, soon. Dennis Brown ® © 13:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• I forgot to add that I'm a little concerned about a block Kwamikagami made [60] that might have better served Wikipedia had an uninvolved admin instead performed, but will reserve judgement at this time. Dennis Brown ® © 13:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Notice At this point, I'm asking an admin to step in and temporarily block User:HTML2011 who has managed to continue reverting[61] after my warning on his talk page[62] and here. Please note that I don't have a mop or I would myself. We can hash the rest of this out afterwards. Dennis Brown ® © 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Blocked for 48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still concerned about User:Kwamikagami who also violated 3RR, did the block on this user (linked above) and was blocked for edit warring 6 months ago. [63] Not sure what to do, but I don't think sweeping it under the rug is going to make it go away. He doesn't have any edits since the ANI started, and would like to hear his side of the story, but I think that more experience and maybe a tool box may be needed once we have more information. Dennis Brown ® © 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It it keeps getting worse. One condition of his previous unblock was to not edit Dwarf Planet and he accepted this [64], yet a look at the first page of history on that article shows his edits, including two reverts [65] and [66]. Unless Materialscientist backed off this, he appears to be in violation of his unblock agreement by doing the exact same behavior that got him the block to begin with. Dennis Brown ® © 14:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's normally a big red flag when an admin blocks someone they're in a dispute with themselves, though after a look at the block summary ("blanking my user page, edit warring over my talk page after request to stay off") and the admin's talk page history, it doesn't seem too concerning. In the future Kwami should probably request another admin have a look instead, and he definitely should have reported the block here for review after making it. But I don't think this was the kind of situation where the admin used his privileges to implement his way. It was pretty cut-and-dry blockable abuse. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:00, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the blocking the editor, but in view of the clear 3RR violation and previous block (and potential and continuing violation of that block) I wanted to put everything I found on the table since he appears to not understand that there needs to be a wide gap between his actions as an editor and as an admin. Dennis Brown ® © 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit warring is troubling, and I'll also note that I'm not crazy about the block notice he left. Gonna wait for Kwami to come comment now though. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:28, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over the histories and am saddened by what I see as Kwamikagami is one of the best editors we have IMHO. Looks like he tried to take things into his own hands and things spiralled out of control. Sometimes a request for outside comment is just essential, as we can see here. He makes massive amounts of edits almost every single day so don't worry, I'm sure he'll stop by soon. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kwami's use of admin tools to gain an advantage in disputes is, to put it mildly, not an uncommon ANI subject. This is long past RFC/U time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

The block was for edit warring on my talk page after vandalizing my user page and repeated warning to stay off or be blocked. Another editor (one I don't know) told him his behaviour was inappropriate,[67] and he responded with this.[68] I've known admins to block people for vandalizing or edit warring on their personal pages before, and it was considered kosher, which is why I didn't come here. I also followed up with a block notice here.[69] Informal, but a standard tag wouldn't show up after self-reverting—he'd already told me to stay off his talk page.

As Taivo said, the tags are ridiculous. They appear to be spiteful. I see I did exceed 3RR on the template. I'm sorry about that. (It was over a link HTML2011 knew to be wrong: it appears he may want the appropriate article moved, but he's not started a discussion or move request, and disrupting the template is not the way to get it there. But it wasn't highly visible enough a template to justify doing it myself.) Before I went to bed I had asked the WP:Linguistics project at his complaint section to keep an eye on the IW's he was edit warring over, as they had the potential to disrupt 35 other WP's. That was important to revert immediately; if the bots had started trying to harmonize the IW's, it would have been a real mess to clean up.

— kwami (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have to ask the obvious, if you knew you were getting into 3RR territory, why didn't you come here, WP:3RR or just ask another admin to look at it and get involved? Why would you knowingly get into an edit war when it could have easily been reviewed by someone else? I'm not calling into question your judgement as to what should or shouldn't be in the template, but you have to admit, your judgement in getting into an edit war and not getting an uninterested party involved, after a previous block for edit warring, well, wasn't good. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was tired, past my bedtime, not feeling well (which is why I'm only making these two edits today), and didn't want to open up a formal request, with effort of gathering histories and diff links. I had lost track of the articles, as there were quite a few undiscussed and inappropriate edits I was reverting. In other words, I just messed up. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Nyttend and User:Cabj1905

Over the past 24 hours or so, there has been a dispute between Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cabj1905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over UFC 145. I'm posting to get a 3rd opinion, as I was asked to block Cabj1905 but saw a more extensive dispute and didn't want to take any unilateral action without another opinion.

Yesterday, Cabj added scores from the matches: [70] Then, Ricardo1701, who is evidently uninvolved in the dispute, added the same type of information: [71], [72] A little while later, Nyttend removed all of the scores added by these two with the comment that "this is not a score blog": [73] And an edit war ensues: [74]: Cabj reverts with a standard summary [75]: Nyttend reverts citing BLP (which I don't think is entirely applicable in this situation). [76]: Cabj re-adds the information. [77]: Nyttend reverts citing BLP again. [78]: Cabj undoes Nyttend's edit. [79]: Nyttend rolls back Cabj's edit. [80]: Cabj undoes Nyttend's edit.

Nyttend asks me to block Cabj: [81]

A discussion ensues on his talk page and mine (here and here), in which I decline to block at the time, and put a template on Cabj's talk page asking him not to put uncited information in the encyclopedia.

Ultimately, this boils down to the question of whether or not BLP applies in this situation, and how severe the violations of 3RR were.

Thanks for your input. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• That's odd, most discussions about MMA topics are very peaceful ;) Short answer is: Scores don't belong there without citation and it isn't a BLP issue. I would rather see both parties come here and agree to this than block anyone. That would defuse this situation quickly and we can all go home having learned something. Now let's see if that happens. Dennis Brown ® © 16:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They have been at least somewhat communicative with me, but quite hostile towards each other. I notified them and whatnot, so we'll wait and see, I suppose. (Can you tell I don't enjoy handing out blocks?) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't like recommending them either. I have been plenty involved in past MMA disputes as an outside observer and found that sometimes you just have lay it on the line in plain english. Blocks in MMA events aren't nearly as effective as one would think, and in this case, both are mistaken so if they both can just acknowledge it, we can cut a little slack and move on. Dennis Brown ® © 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on Cabj's page, but to Nyttend I just want to say that while I understand why you think it may be a BLP violation and believe you made the claim in good faith, I don't think the score itself is. It shouldn't be added without reference via WP:V, but I don't believe that sports scores by themselves are "personal" enough to quality as a BLP concern, thus they wouldn't qualify as a shortcut to blocking. Dennis Brown ® © 16:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There's some 3RR violations on both sides. I'm not thrilled about the idea of Nyttend asking a particular admin instead of just going to the 3RR board either. Especially when there's nothing extreme here.

Even if adding negative box scores was a negative-blp issue (it's not, so long as it's true), that is not a pressing disaster that needs a fast resolution.

New scores are getting added all the time, they almost never are referenced (and if they were, almost never are checked). Of all the factual changes out there, I let most score changes pass unless they're clearly erroneous (when someone's career points go down, or when someone scores 100 home runs in a game).

I don't see anybody questioning the veracity of the edits here. I find Nyttend's interpretation of those scores from a boxing/mma match as "BLP" as particularly over-expansive. That worries me a bit.

However, while there is a technical 3RR going on here, but I wouldn't support a block on any parties if this is all it is. All need to disengage, someone needs to verify if those scores are correct, and if they are, then they should stay (what other boxing series would describe a fight without the score?).

I'm a little surprised this deserved escalation at all. Shadowjams (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I saw in the history, Ricardo added a citation to the scores later. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have preferred to have seen Nyttend actually participate here since he was the one that asked an admin to make a block, but I don't see a need for further action. All the points that needing to be made, were. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 10:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the scores, why is the event even notable? On the basis of those sources you could have an article for pretty much every professional football match played in the UK. Why aren't they in a "List of..." format? WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOT#STATS were policies last time I looked. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Glad you asked. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and feel free to jump in. 2012 in UFC events is one of those lists you speak of. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• To summarize briefly, there's a cabal of MMA fans, spurred on by a couple of activist MMA forums, that's hit Wikipedia hard in recent months. They feel strongly that every MMA event ever, however obscure, is notable and articleworthy, and their fundamental contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines is palpable. (I know, the same hyperbole that shows up on ANI all the time, but even so.) There's been serious disruption at AfD, on the MMA WikiProject and in certain disputed articles. At this point, the number of indef-blocked sock- and meatpuppets is into the dozens. Ravenswing 13:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was trying to lure him into going there and helping out, but you had to go and spoil it by telling him the truth. ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Let Me Be There and If You Love Me (Let Me Know) are both being vandalized repeatedly with false information on who sings the backing vocals. Even after I added a source verifying it as Mike Sammes, the article is still getting vandalized with someone removing the source and changing the name to Navin Harris.

Nothing so far has worked. An IP block won't work since the vandal is on a dynamic IP and half of the edits have come from totally different ranges. Protecting the page only works for so long, because the vandalism comes back immediately after the lock expires.

I don't want to keep playing whack-a-mole with the article and repeating the lock-unlock-vandalism cycle. The only other thing I can think of is to blacklist the phrase "Navin Harris", whom as far as I can tell is not a real person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I notice these are all coming out of Malaysia Telecom, but no way to easily range block. Sounds like you've already been the semi-protection route, but not sure what else can be done except longer protection. Dennis Brown ® © 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• As a side note, I found a "Navin Harris" who could easily be using Malaysia Telecom, off wiki. Not going to out him, however, and let you draw your own conclusions. Dennis Brown ® © 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• But as I said, I don't want to keep this up. We're just playing whack-a-mole here. The cycle is always lock, unlock, revert vandalism, re-lock, unlock, revert vandalism. Blacklisting the name "Navin Harris" seems to be the only way to outright stop it so we're not just repeating repeating repeating repeating repeating. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Would putting "Navin Harris" into the edit filter work? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is beyond my level of expertise and experience, so I would invite input from more experienced editors. Dennis Brown ® © 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to address content, this and this refer to Navin Harris, but the first has a reply comment that says it was Mike Sammes. The first could conceivably be an RS, but not the latter. Sammes is listed at discogs.com with the credit as well as two source sites, but there is no Navin Harris. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources were likely copying info from the Wikipedia article while it was vandalized. The Navin Harris credit was on Let Me Be There for quite a while. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

TPH, I assume you know about abuse filter (aka by its sanguine name, "edit filter"...), I think you should talk to some of the people there. Its been a while since I've dealt with it, but there are blocks in place for persistent stuff like this. It's a question of tailoring the rules, which will probably be hidden. I can help with the regex on it if need be. But I don't have edit-filter rights myself. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• The solution, once again, is requiring Sign-In-To-Edit. Why that isn't standard operating procedure at WP is beyond me. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  That would only make our job harder. Publicly displayed IPs allow all kinds of connections between peristent vandals to be revealed. It's been the hallmark of SPI for a longtime. Checkuser is simply too small a group and too cumbersome a process (as it should be... i'm not complaining about it) to handle the multitude of vandals we have. That they edit by IP is one of the greatest blessings we have because it makes the patterns much clearer. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Carrite: the reasion it isn't SOP is because WMF lolno'd it when a petition was submitted to them to require it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just indef semi the two articles? Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hurz4711 conflict of interest

User:Hurz4711 is a new user. Their first ten or so edits were to work on article for an ecommerce application called Lightning Fast Shop in their sandbox (see history). The created the article, which was then speedily deleted (Lightning Fast Shop). In response they then went on to propose deletion for seven other ecommerce applications listed at List of free and open source eCommerce software. I reverted these, citing a conflict of interest, but the user has since restored the proposals. My addition to the talk pages was incorrect in that the user has not added deletion notices to every rival application, leaving a few intact, but it does seem a clear case of a single-issue user adding a page of something they're connected with, and then attempting to interfere with rival pages as a result of their's being removed. Greenman (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly a tantrum, and as described. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin]
• How about evaluating these prods on the merits? Is it not possible that this new user has now become aware of WP policies because of their recent experiences? I took a look and Hurz4711 may have a point. Here is the list of articles in question: VirtueMart; osCMax; Interchange (software); Bots (edi); Batavi (software); Ubercart; and Arcavias.WTucker (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• I forgot to mention that Greenman neglected to inform Hurz4711, but I took care of it. Then someone knocked at the door, distracting me for a while. I'm not saying their PROD list is without merit, but it is amazing how some editors can have an epiphany when it comes to deletion policy once an article they created is deleted, and suddenly tag anything similar. Since the circumstances are questionable and the content is as well, AFD might be a better option than PROD, to put more eyes on them. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  I do not disagree. I do disagree with stomping on a new user who has just had an epiphany, though. Regardless of their motivation, if their argument has merit, it should be considered. This is more likely to develop a productive editor for the future than closing down their early attempts without evaluation.WTucker (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not completely sure anyone stomped here. I see 6 hours difference from his last sandbox entry and his article deletion, although I don't have access to know how long the article was around before being tagged. His action still appear to be very "reactionary" (if you prefer a more neutral term), even if there might be merit to some of his tagging. I was hoping Hurz4711 would speak up here, as I would like to hear their perspective. Even granting that the editor genuinely had an epiphany (a very generous assumption) his timing and potential COI issues justify bringing the issue here. We do agree on AFD as the better choice (unless there is reason to believe that the tag is clearly in error), which is good, as we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would prefer someone even less involved make that determination and send them off, assuming no one objects after a time, but I have no issue if you prefer to do that yourself. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  We are basically in agreement. I do think that reverting the PRODs without evaluation; bringing them to ANI; and then describing the user's actions as a "tantrum" is something akin to a stomp, though. At least I would feel it was were I the receiver. Let's let the admins at it since this is their board.WTucker (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was strong, granted. And admins aren't really needed here as no special tools are required. No one is asking for sanctions, just a review. Once more time has passed to allow for dissent, and clear consensus still exists for the solution, it is better to just implement it. If an admin thinks this is a bad idea or against policy, they will speak up, otherwise, they have other things to do that do require the mop. I don't think the solution suggested is controversial, although since I suggested it, it is better to have someone else implement it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Here is the thing about WP:PROD, once an editor contests it, you have to bring it to WP:AFD. The PRODs were contested.--v/r - TP 03:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  True, that is clearly established and I should have remembered it and pointed that out. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• After Lightning Fast Shop has been deleted because of multiple reasons (lack of interest and advertising), I went through the other e-commerce systems (TBH, somewhat emotionally) on List of free and open source eCommerce software and found that more of the half are exactly the same (or worse) as my proposed page about Lightning Fast Shop. Even if I can't understand why this is of any harm for WP, let's take Arcavias for example. This is nothing than pointing to a commercial website. I, for instance, have just linked to the community page of LFS. So, why is LFS supposed to be deleted but Arcavias not? The others I proposed for deletion have similar issues, IMO Hurz4711 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would be what you're looking for. I'm not saying tagging those articles was wrong, but sometimes one subject will cut the mustard, while another will not. We still have articles slip through the cracks at times, but that's what CSD, PRODs, and AfDs are for. I'm not saying you were right or wrong with the PRODs, but once an editor removes the PROD tag you can't PROD it again. If you believe those articles don't stand up to policy, then WP:AFD is your next step. Ishdarian 08:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, no on is saying that Hurz4711 adding the PRODs the first time was against a policy, but considering the totality of circumstances, reviewing mass PRODing here at ANI was the right thing to do, as it did look a little unusual. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple IP vandalism

I've taken this to the Admin intervention against vandalism page but it's ridiculous to have to keep going there every time this guy changes his IP. We've been having a lot of vandalism of Formula One race articles - mostly changing the reasons why a driver has retired from a race. These retirements are sourced and accurate, but this guy is basically changing all of them to incorrect information. A few of these IPs have been blocked for a short time by various admins, but the guy keeps reappearing with a different IP. Is there anything that can be done?

• 31.185.32.164
• 31.185.217.42
• 37.152.228.94 (currently blocked)
• 87.112.131.18
• 87.112.171.111 (was briefly blocked)
• 87.112.26.178
• 87.112.95.26
• 87.113.148.184
• 87.114.241.179
• 87.115.172.120
• 87.115.174.141 (currently blocked)
• 87.115.25.25 (was briefly blocked)
• 91.125.24.60 (currently blocked)

Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you have only a couple of choices, WP:RPP for all of the articles (how many are there?), or range blocks, but in just the list you show you have IP addresses that start with 31, 87, and 91, putting aside the other lower parts of the address. Others know more about range blocks than I do, but it doesn't look like a viable option.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are around 150 articles affected, which makes life a little difficult when it comes to protecting them. I definitely see your point about a range block being a problem. Hopefully someone can come up with a solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Can filters or protects be applied (at the technical level) to specific articles in a WikiProject or to a specific category? If possible, that might do it. MSJapan (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd/problematic behavior from User:Luke 19 Verse 27

I recently came across said user and find his edits to be odd enough to request some outside input. Among other things, he:

• Edit wars on multiple pages to include his at times nonsensical edits. (Rex Harrison, L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Furry fandom, Kony 2012)
• Called the subject of a picture in one of our articles a "tit-wearing-weirdo in the woods".
• Demands for more pictures at Talk:Human feces.

All this gives me the picture of a user who is here to intentionally disrupt, and I'd like some input from the community about what to do here. --Conti|✉

They remind me of University of Hawaii/United States Army Information Systems Command (USAISC), Fort Shafter, Honolulu, based Lutrinae/Modinyr

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Lutrinae

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (KJ, Cambridge ed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, many of his edits are disruptive and could be considered vandalism. I'd give him a warning and consider blocking him if he carries on this way. Deb (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've raised the username (with no response) and so has User:In ictu oculi, though no username change has happened. I understand what he's getting at with it, but it's still provocative. I expect he's only here to disrupt, but I haven't seen anything which I'd block for yet, he's walking the line. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Was I reading that right in that he wants more shit dumped onto that article? --MuZemike 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• The edits to the Rex Harrison & Ron Hubbard articles, and the edit notes accompanying them, do not suggest someone who is here for anything other than irritating people.TheLongTone (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Those edits would, in isolation, be perfectly normal copyediting. In particular, the lead should serve as a full summary of the article's key points, and the current lead fails to do that. Tag-team edit warring over such with summaries like this certainly hasn't helped matters, though I would agree that at the very least this editor should be strongly advised to take editing more seriously. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Yea, if one mixes serious editing with "trollz and lulz", it will only be the latter that gets noticed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm comfortable speculating on whether this user is here to "intentionally disrupt" as Conti suggests above, but I have found them to be amiable and perfectly willing to engage in discussion about their edits. They might stand to stick more to WP:BRD, but as you can see from their edit history, they have been editing pages where there are normally more than a handful of editors willing to tango. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Footwiks

• Footwiks (talk · contribs)
• FC Seoul‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This could probably benefit from outside intervention. Issues of edit warring and ignoring the consensus of a 3O because "its just your opinion". Korean speaking would be helpful - one of the issues is whether a source appropriately supports the content as written in the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm korean and my english is poor. So I can't explain this circumstance in detail. Anyway, Somedays ago, TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) picked holes in FC Seoul‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He is not korean and also can't read and understand korean at all. But He ignore korean newspaper references. I think Redpen is god. He can't read korean, But He juded korean newspaer is unrelible. He also picked holes in fluffy expressionsins. They are common knowledge in Korea. So I didn't tag a references But He can't understand it. 13:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs)

What we have here looks to be a lack of understanding of what can and cannot go into the article. Footwiks, "fluffy" expressions as you call it or peacock expressions as it is known here, are not allowed into any article, unless they are reliably sourced. That is to say that you need to find a source, which has been judged to be reliable. Any type of media, for example Chosun Ilbo or Yonhap, would do. From the history, I see you've been adding ilovefcseoul as a source and it has been reverted by Curb Chain and RedPen. Ilovefcseoul is a blog and blogs are often not counted as a reliable source because there is no editorial oversight, meaning no one checks what is being published. Newspapers, like Yonhap, have editorial oversight to make sure that what is being published is true and not just rumours. There is nothing wrong with using Korean sources, it is only allowed, by policy, if there are no english sources around. However, if FC Seoul is the best team in Korea then I'm sure Yonhap or Chosun Ilbo would have reported on it and would have an article on it. If you can find that, then there would be no problem in stating that they are the best team. Common knowledge in Korea does not mean common knowledge everywhere else. Blackmane (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Colapeninsula

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

---

I have never considered reporting a user before, but telling me to "fuck off" to the "Youtube comments section" and "reading some Wikipedia policy documents on the way" is certainly too much. This is the edit I am referring to. I certainly understand that my comment wasn't friendly either, but I had two good reasons for this response: First, the user has completely ignored everything that our reliable sources and our notability guidelines say, something that should be crucial background for every Wikipedia editor. In particular, neither are 2 to 3 sources significant coverage, nor are a comics book for boys and a schools book (that's 2 sources in total) reliable sources for the topic (the situation where different of course if it were a common textbook example for pupils... maybe). Second, and more importantly, the user didn't even bother reading the abstract of his own link, which is freely available! As I said, I didn't expect a friendly reply, but telling me to "fuck off" and all that was too much. Nageh (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for using the word "fuck". The rest of my comment stands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind the use of that word, it's the context in which you used it. Nageh (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem like an AN/I issue. He commented. You commented and were rude. He responded and was rude. No administrator action needed to discuss if a source is good or not. WP:WQA if really needed...but I'd just let it go or discuss it on your own talk pages. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You really think this is a way forward? I replied in the same way, if only to make a point. Feel free to ask me to redact it. Nageh (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether you redact it or not is up to you, but obviously you're on pretty weak footing running off to ANI to report him for said comment when you immediately responded in kind. I agree with Onorem that admin invervention is hardly necessary here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• No action is needed, nor likely to benefit any party. Both editors realize that they were not civil and they are discussing it. It happens, we are all human, but the key is to move on. Redaction isn't necessary. I would remind both parties that "He started it!" is not a defense when it comes to incivility. The best way to deal with it is to ignore the tone and focus on the merits of the discussion when it is a single comment. Both of you should just forgive and forget this one, singular slip of good judgement. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Arimand

'New' user. Self-identifies as a racist (and paedophile?), with a swastika infobox. All edits propagating racist material. Needs prompt ejecting as obvious troll, and probable sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversight of edits might also be advisable per WP:DENY. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend an SPI check with our old friend Mikemikev as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They're hiding behind proxies, but I've blocked them as an obvious troll. TNXMan 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for blocking User:Arimand. I am not troubled the User self-identifying as racist and pedophile. I think it is the User's edits that should matter. Looking over User:Arimand's edits I don't yet see sufficient cause for blocking. I think that blocking at this time is premature. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is sarcasm, right? ~Crazytales (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:CHILDPROTECT. This is official policy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of WP:CHILDPROTECT. Thank you for linking to that. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed his pattern of aggression and personal attacks, e.g. [82], [83], [84].

KW was blocked for previously 1 week for incivility, at the start of April (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz), and the problem was the subject of an RFC/U in October 2011: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BHG's quotation of KW was exceptionally dishonest - quoting [85] to be a pledge to engage in disruption is beyond the pale. I understand that the way you play the game is to needle at the opposition until they snap then present a biased picture on IRC (thanks for at least doing this one in the open!), but as usual, it's poor form, again. Where's that cartoon about the dog? Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What's all that about? I don't use IRC, and was not trying to needle.

I was merely pointing out that the creation of the category in question followed previous contentious appearances at Cfd by the same editor over categories related to that band, and that the category creator had already been engaged in what he called "horseplay", i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You may not share my conclusion that the latest creation was also pointy, but please drop the accusation of dishonesty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "BrownHairedGirl has a problem with honesty or intelligence today" can be considered as anything other than a personal attack. And in an area where KW has been previously blocked for a week for similar behaviour. Perhaps KW thinks it's subtle, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I tried to stay out of this, but felt compelled to read some of the previous history, and well, here I am. KW seems to just cross the line in his comments regularly, including the three examples given. Whether or not he was provoked isn't particularly material, as I pointed out to someone else in the discussion above. The degree to which these instances are considered personal attacks might be a little bit overstated, but the long term pattern is brutally clear. Elen of the Roads summed it up neatly with her comment "Good contribution isn't a free pass" at the RFC/U. It is as if he is compelled to take things just one step too far in every comment. His contributions to content here are appreciated and numerous, but if his actions prevent others from contributing because they are forced to seek sanctions against him on a regular basis, then those contributions are diluted. I'm frustrated when an otherwise good editor risks participation because of their inability to remain civil because there is no easy answer, and often we lose otherwise good talent. I would reserve further comment until I hear KW's perspective on the issue, and will simply hope that history doesn't have to repeat itself in the tone of his replies. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)