Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.114.128.23 (talk) at 11:58, 22 November 2010 (→‎Ban request for — Fly by Night: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins

    Original poster:

    Admins:

    1. A group of administrators is threatening me with blocks. One has abused his administrative privileges by using administrative clout when the discussion got argumentative. In a discussion in which he was a participant I was warned for being tendentious[1], after [2] I had withdrawn from the discussion about a specific point. Later I took opinions on the concerned page then wrote that I had withdrawn from the article page, [3] After my withdrawl a final block warning for being tendentious was issued.[4]
    2. When I was warned for canvassing [5]- for writing to those whose views on the subject were known to me as favourable, inviting them to participate in a discussion, I was not aware that it was breaking the rules, and when it was brought to my notice I immediately stopped doing so.[6], to make amends I wrote to those editors whose views were known to me as unfavourable to make up for the earlier canvassing.[7] [8] After this I was issued a final warning for canvassing.[9]
    3. Earlier I was blocked without warning for 15 days.[10] After the warning expired I wrote on the blocking administrators' page asking hin to justify his action.[11] A month has passed but I have not received a reply.[12] Now this block is used against me to create some kind of criminal record.[13]
    4. An editor learns by the mistakes he makes. Some I corrected myself. I did not repeat mistakes. I have made ammends to the mistakes I have made. I appeal for action against the following administrators.

    The concerned administrators are user:YellowMonkey the administrator who made the first block without warning and without justification, user:RegentsPark who has mis-used his administrative privileges when the discussion got argumentative and user:SpacemanSpiff issuing a final block warning without reason. I do not know what comes first the chicken or the egg, so first I am issuing this ANI and then posting notice on the concerned administrator's pages. If I am breaking rules I will apologise and even face the necessary penalty, but if I am not then the three administrator's should be reined in. They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone's welcome to take a look at the contribution history and the sequence of events. I don't think I need to say anymore, my warning was quite explicit and there should be no confusion on that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contribution record is here as evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After I it was brought to my notice that I was votestacking (out of ignorance), my thanked user:SpacemanSpiff, for his notice. The wikirules are How to respond to inappropriate canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Immediately on receipt of the notice, I stopped without arguments. Please see contributin history. Why then the block threat? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier I was wrongly accused of Forumshopping by user:RegentsPark, unprofessional behaviour unbecomming of an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A two week block for trolling as a first offense with a user who has run up several thousand edits without trouble seems ... stern.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was strange in that, there was no warning at all and Yellowman User:YellowMonkey never once posted to the blockees talkpage or left him a template or anything at all. A few days after the block he did appear to have emailed twice to the blockee but the user didn't see them for some time. Discussion of emails is here. No comment of the general editing of Yogesh but there is a fair bit of disruption in the wake of them. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean User:YellowMonkey, the former arbitrator and functionary, or somebody else? Jehochman Talk 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The email was posted after the block was enforced, not before. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, User:YellowMonkey, corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3-tier diff and link series
    Yogesh Khandke, please avoid lengthening the thread. Please wait for the administrators you have accused of impropriety to respond. If would be helpful if you added some diffs to your above statements so the observers could know which specific warnings or comments you object to. The comments of Wehwalt and Off2riorob while possibly correct may be premature. We don't know if all the facts are on the table yet, so let's be patient until everybody involved has a chance to comment. The user is currently not blocked, so there is no urgency. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC), 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To say it is stern is hardly prejudging the outcome. Either way, we do need an explanation from YellowMonkey.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but let's not start the party without him. For the record, the OP has notified all the admins in his complaint. I reserve comment until YM has had a chance to share his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be waiting a while, given that YellowMonkey has yet to explain the controversial unblock (without consultation with the blocking admin) of Dr. Blofeld which occurred last night and about which several editors asked for an explanation on YellowMonkey's talk page. However, not everyone lives on wiki, we can afford to be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are asking for an explanation for a block that occurred a month ago. That's a lifetime in wikitime and responding to this request may not be easy. Generally, and this is addressed to YK, it is better to bring up the matter when events are fresh. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean during the two weeks when he was blocked without a block template telling him how to appeal it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean during the one month that has passed since his block expired. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YM has served long as an admin and in other positions. I am not aware that YM suffers from lapses of memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither am I. I am also not aware what speculation about his lapses of memory has to do with this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Then there should be no trouble about an explanation of the block, though it took place a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed seeing my comment above (or perhaps you forgot) ([14]). Since the events happened more than a month ago, he may not remember the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking at cross purposes; my point was that YM is likely to remember and be able to explain to us--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure 'cross purposes' describes it accurately but this ain't going no where. So ok. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I should make a comment here. YK was soap boxing and engaging in tendentious editing here. I warned him about that. He showed up on my page with complaints about abusing admin privilege (here) and I explained that warnings are not an admin function. He didn't get that and continued to post on my page I (gently) let him know that he was now being tendentious on my talk page as well. He started an open move request at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga and then went and started an RfC on the same topic (here). So I directed his attention to the policy on forum shopping here. He is clearly being tendentious on the talk pages of British Empire Talk:British Empire and on the move request Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. My suggestion is that he heeds my well meant advice that he realize that it is better to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later (given here). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user does appear to be rather tendentious - see previous ANI thread: [15]. He has been accused of trolling which I think is rather unfair, he is just a far-out Hindu nationalist.
    This [16] was the state of Talk:British Empire before he was blocked. He does not appear to have received any warning. See also [17].
    Any recent warnings of this user would seem appropriate given the user's editing style; what doesn't appear to have been appropriate is blocking him for two weeks with not a word of warning or even notifying him on his Talk, which was basically dead prior to his block. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpacemanSpiff is known to me to be an over-zealous administrator, warning and banning editors without giving in-depth consideration to the matter. He repeatedly violates the basic foundational pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility and refuses to AGF.

    I have borne the brunt of his administrative actions when I was still a newbie here when he removed well-sourced content and contradicted himself in the edit summary. That showed that SpacemanSpiff either doesn't read edits/study the matter in its entirety before making use of his administrative privileges or lacks competence. This is a pattern, not just 1 or 2 incidents. He is doing damage to Wikipedia by refusing to AGF and by scaring away constructive contributors. I have asked him to step down as an admin in the past and urge him to do so again. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:RegentsPark has indulged in hounding me See his edits on a issue proposed by me, that is his first edit on the Ganges page in many thousands edits, and he has opposed my proposal.[18], such actions do not behove an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that just in a cursory check of the most recent contributions from RegentsPark I found edits to Burmese and Indian topics, it is not at all unlikely that they would also be monitoring the Ganges article. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check his contribution history, I did to as far back as September 2008, no contribution to Ganges.[19] [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

    Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting ridiculous (and potentially disruptive). I'm willing to respond to reasonable requests, but this is mere delusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that exhaustive list. That doesn't however invalidate what I said: RegentsPark has edited on many different India-related articles. It is not unlikely that Ganges would be on their watchlist. I have lots of things on my watchlist that I've never edited, that are even outside the topic areas that I've edited. However, please feel free to keep digging and assuming bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to add that we are all humans and all have our failings, so administrators should also assume good faith, instead of calling names and terms like disruptive. If you can give user:RegentsPark who is an administrator the benefit of the doubt, even though he needs to be judged by a higher standard, why do you not understand the hurt of a common editor and how he feels threatened with blocks for flimsy reasons, and accusing him of digging as if he is some grave digger? Please be fair and bi-partisan.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    user:RegentsPark asks why I delayed in reporting user:YellowMonkey to ANI, that is because I wanted to avoid official action, but my previous block was brought up as some criminal record which forced my hand.[42] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I do not need the 'benefit of the doubt'. The move notification is posted on WT:IN as well as WT:AT. I would have to try very hard to miss it. You need to get a handle on yourself and think about changing the way you're approaching editing here. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No unsolicited personal comments or advice and stick to the issue at hand, (1)Administrators' haste in (mis?)using administrative privileges, and browbeating editors using them. (2)user:RegentsPark's sudden interest in Ganges, and editing against a proposal submitted by an editor to whom he had issued a block warning. (3)Why is user:RegentsPark speaking on behalf of user:YellowMonkey, he should keep out of any discussion but himself, he is not a third party here and such actions consists of hounding! (4)Action to be taken against such administrators. It is 12.32 am local time, I need to call it a day. Good night. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While I disagree with Yogesh on the move proposal he's making right now, I do agree something smells rotten about these three administrators actions. We've got truly and repeatedly warned disruptive users that pass through here who we can't get blocked for 15 minutes and they had a 2 week block with little to no warning? Yeah. I don't think so. YM's diffs seem clear, as do spaceman's. However I'd like to see some clear diffs on where Regentparks misused his power during a heated discussion. I see one linked warning, but that's hardly sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but I can't see a problem with SacemanSpiff's warning [43] - it appears justified, as the editor does appear to have been editing tendentiously. Part of the problem seems to be that the editor is finding it difficult to distinguish between a warning and an administrative action, in spite of attempts by RegentsPark to explain: neither SpacemanSpiff nor RegentsPark have misused the administrative privileges, as claimed. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about YellowMonkey's block, but concerning recent activity, Yogesh's editing on the Ganges move request has been disruptive and tendentious. It was bad enough when he rebuked an editor for voicing an opinion, but when I saw he started going after editors on their own talk pages (here and here) I understood and supported SpacemanSpiff's warning. --JaGatalk 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, I have no idea as to what the underlying dispute is about but none of those three diffs you link to is in anyway problematic. Rebuking somebody for "voicing an opinion" - usually called "disagreeing with someone" - sometimes happens in the real world. The other two diffs are same thing; evidence that a disagreement exists nothing more. Calling it "going after editors", which implies an attack of some sort is itself a form of personal attack since it violates the part of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks can be Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, check out the discussion and decide for yourself about Yogesh's behavior. I thought he was coming on a bit strong... --JaGatalk 05:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they tried to use their administrative powers or not, things have a greater weight when said by admins. That's a fact of life on Wikipedia and why people often bring things here. When random editor X warns someone that they might be blocked for action Y, the response, if they're not an admin, is many times not what we'd hope for. On the other hand if an admin repeats the warning it's taken with far greater importance. A final block warning after someone has disengaged seems inappropriate. More so when it comes from an admin.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, but in this case the warning from SpacemanSpiff was more general - it mentioned the canvasing, which had stopped, but the other issues raised in the warning - especially badgering oppose votes - were (and are) ongoing. If it was just about the canvasing then I'd agree, but it was about a general pattern of tendentious editing, which seems a justified issue to raise. However, whether or not it should have been worded is a final warning is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to say this because I've a lot of respect for YM, but the block in question appears to be shaky and is pushed into the "bad block" realm by the lack of notification, which is mandated by policy and this is not the first time I have found YM to be unresponsive when faced with questions about his admin actions, though it is the first time the action I've questioned has been a block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment on content: it is not at all clear to me that Yogesh was "soapboxing and being disruptive" at Talk:British_Empire#Sepoy. It seems to me there is a very legitimate question of terminology at the bottom of this dispute that Wikipedia should be neutral about -- the British speak of "the sepoy mutiny", while Indian sources speak of "the First War of Indian Independence". [44] It is quite possible to find a neutral term, such as "1857 revolt", and I see no reason to stuff British terms – in the article's editorial voice, rather than marked as British usage – down Indian editors' throats with warnings for "disruption", when we are writing about Indian history. On the positive side, none of the three admins has contributed content to the article, or has a significant talk page history at the article. I'm over to the article talk page ... --JN466 05:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S: See India's First War of Independence, and note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857 in mainspace. --JN466 06:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yogesh Khandke is a patient and mature editor who shows respect for WP policies. If he inadvertently violates a rule unknown to him, he is quick to make amends when pointed out. His only 'problem' is the cultural gap that exists from being an Indian editor editing from India in an English Wikipedia dominated by Anglophone people. He needs to know when to persist, when to back off and needs to learn the general etiquette of the Western world. According to userboxes, SpacemanSpiff is an Indian editor who has migrated to California. RegentsPark is in New York. It is ironical that these editors, instead of helping Yogesh bridge the cultural gap, are going after him. Perhaps it's just being callous or perhaps it's the acting white phenomenon or something similar to the zeal of the new convert. Whatever it is, it is damaging Wikipedia by scaring away assertive, persistent and constructive contributors. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting in a note that being an editor from India does not mean you are alien to Western etiquette. Personally, I can't find enough of a 'culture gap' to warrant any of my edits being put away due to naivety. I have had first contact with User:RegentsPark over two years ago, and he is anything but callous or whitewashed. - Amog | Talk • contribs 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please it is not about black or white. The three administrators have displayed inadequate understanding of their jobs, and have acted unprofessionally in my case. I request adequate action be taken against them. Please refer to the diffs above. Sorry for interrupting the conversation. Please base comments on the evidence submitted by me in the form of diffs above, and not experience elsewhere or at someother time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • About your point #2, you were warned not just for canvassing, but for badgering users (non-supporters included) on their talk pages. This edit cannot be seen as a way to "to make up for the earlier canvassing" as you have stated. While I do not fully agree with the way your ban was handled, I am not comfortable with the way you have handled this issue as well. This is certainly not proof that an edit like this constitutes hounding. Also, your continued insistence that the issuing of warnings are an abuse of administrative power come off as unnecessarily naive for an editor with your edit count. I am not an administrator, but have issued over a thousand warnings in my editing history. - Amog | Talk • contribs 18:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think at this stage, we are waiting to hear from admin YellowMonkey, who has not yet responded, to explain administrative actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't we propose something for the AN/I community to support or oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC/U maybe? Or should we keep it relatively informal and just look for a consensus on the propriety or otherwise of specific actions of YM that have been questioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The most obvious proposal I would make is to see how much support we have for having SpacemanSpiff step down as an administrator since his actions seem to me like they are driving away potentially constructive contributors and this is impacting the quality of articles under the India project. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's stick to YellowMonkey, and let Zuggernaut start his own thread. I would agree with the informal aspect, and possibly the start of such a determination will prompt YellowMonkey to engage in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've started a new subsection with what I think is a neutral statement of facts and policy. Let's see if we can get some kind of consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way

    Somebody explain WP:FORUMSHOPPING to Yogesh; he started 3 subsections, went to Wikipedia talk:Article titles (unsuccessfully), and now wants to take it to talk at WP:COMMONNAME. The strategy to disperse this mission over many different pages in the hopes that somewhere the mission's accomplished isn't very helpful. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried. But YK is much better at writing lots of words then reading them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sub-sections were started for the very reason you have started a sub-section has been introduced here, the length made editing tedious. Wikipedia talk:Article titles is the discussion page for WP:COMMONNAME. so that is the only other thread, there I began the discussion there with information that a move proposal was on[45], WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about hiding different threads, I on the other hand opened the thread with information of the other thread. I have even offered to close the thread on talk:Ganges[46], so that it is easier for editors, does that still make me a forumshopper, which is in my opinion about hiding and deceit which I did not resort to. I need to call it a day it is 1.54 am local time here. Good night.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Forum shopping is not about 'hiding and deceit'. It is about raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages. Initiating a move request on an article talk page and then raising the issue on a WP space page when you aren't getting the answer you want is forum shopping.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RegentsPark, that is unfair. Yogesh Khandke has done two things:
    1. He has proposed to move Ganges to Ganga, in line with an overwhelming preference in Indian English for Ganga. This preference is present on Indian government websites and in the English-language Indian media.
    2. He has asked that Wikipedia:Article titles should not give "Ganges" as its key example of when not to follow local English usage in Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. You can hardly blame him for that -- if the article is moved, the guideline has to be changed too, and indeed editors could argue that until the guideline is changed, the move would be -- naturally -- against the guideline. --JN466 21:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    {ec}} I am sorry, WP:COMMONNAME redirects to Wikipedia:Article titles. You are talking about one page. --JN466 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not a particularly big deal because it is not an egregious example and, given that he's trying to undo it, I think he gets it (but, apparently, he would rather not admit it). But, raising an RfC ([47])on a topic while a move request proposed by you is ongoing, and when you perceive that the request is not getting enough traction (User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke#Ganga), is forum shopping. It is better to wait till the move request is closed and then raise a more general question on the AT talk page (rather than raising the same question). --RegentsPark (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my bad, I didn't see that it's the same page. Yogesh, the subsection was started because I raised a related issue, not the same issue.
    That being said, I nonetheless do see a problem with the way you approach this; your stance/opinion is very clear by now. What I've seen is your re-hashing the same argument over-and-over again, as if nobody had heard you, jumping into almost every other vote. This is not a spoken conversation; what you've written is on record, everybody can read it, re-typing it is thus a waste of time, and, quite frankly, annoying. We've heard you. It just so happens that others disagree with you. You should just step away now, let others say whatever they want to say, and then come back next week or so; unless you have something new to say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    YellowMonkey's block of Yogesh Khandke

    FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Disruptive edits and usage of abusive language and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#YellowMonkey isn't following the protection policy or guidelines with their protections. were the two most recent ANI threads I could find on YM. There have also been numerous notes on his talk page from admins (including me) and concerned non-admins regarding his protections. He has a tendency to semi articles for 6 months where most admins would go with a few days but that's an issue with his protections, not an individual block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad block An admin is part of a community, and must follow community expectations. One of those expectations is informing the subject of administrative action the reason for the action, and in the case of a block, how to see review by another admin. YellowMonkey just left Yogesh hanging on the phone. To say nothing of the fact that the length of block was wildly excessive. Look, play social networking games if you like, but that name over there is a real person who needs to be treated with respect. It looks like YellowMonkey let down the side.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but this page is not for dispute resolution. If there are lingering concerns about YellowMonkey's tool usage, WP:RFC/U is the correct venue to discuss them. Two of you (preferably editors uninvolved in the original conflict) should discuss your concerns with YM at User talk:YellowMonkey. If you don't get satisfactory answers, you can then start an RFC. This thread has done the most that it can reasonably be expected to do: it has alerted the community to potentially valid concerns, and provided the aggrieved editor with several outside views, and brought in several uninvolved editors who can take any needed follow up steps, such as RFC. I suggest we close this lengthy thread now because ANI is not a substitute for proper dispute resolution. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On a procedural note, we don't have a clear consensus that this was a bad block (which would be a step in the right direction) and I for one am reluctant to drag someone who has done as much for this project as YM has to RfC/U without exploring alternatives first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I agree with you. Since YellowMonkey hasn't responded here, why don't you take up the issue with them directly, as should any other uninvolved editors who are concerned about the block. Perhaps some discussion on his talk page will result in a clarification of why the block was needed, or a recognition that the block was incorrect and assurance that such errors will be avoided going forward. Only if those outcomes fail, then you can go to RFC if you are still concerned. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but disruption isn't a dispute just because the one doing the disruption is an administrator. This isn't a content dispute. This is an editor, who happens to be an administrator, acting disruptively. I'm also seeing a lot of familiar names in one of those previous discussions. Regentsparks, how about instead of running to YM defense, you encourage him to actually partake in it. As far as I can tell at this point YM acts disruptively and refuses to discuss it. As such I recommend he be desysopped. We simply cannot have editors who have no respect for the other users they interact with running around with the tools to do harm as they've done.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad Block As per User:Wehwalt. But also agree with User:Johnuniq's comments - Amog | Talk • contribs 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So where the eff is YellowMonkey? Does s/he exist? Or has s/he dug a hole to now hide in? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From the last discussion cited above, that seems to be standard operating procedure. Make a mistake, not explain it, refuse to partake in the discussion of it, carry on. We simply do no benefit from that kind of editing.--Crossmr (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. If Their Highness doesn't respond here in, say, the next 12 hours and somebody wishes to file an RFC, I'll certify it. Ping me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YellowMonkey hasn't edited for over 24 hours - I'm not to surprised there has been no response to HJ Mitchell's comment, as he hasn't been onwiki since it was left. I don't know if he will respond, but YellowMonkey has barely been active since this discussion began, with only five minor edits over about five minutes. At this stage I don't think too much should be read into the lack of response. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but he has edited. He could have left a cursory note saying he was busy and would respond soon, or something. He hasn't even acknowledged the discussion, much like last time his behaviour was questioned. Instead he let regentparks fight his battle then, and he's letting him do it again.--Crossmr (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's totally inappropriate to be using ANI, let alone Wikipedia, as a battleground. I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? Explain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not waiting for him to "fight back", we genuinely want to hear his input so we can resolve any outstanding issues over this block and his admin actions in general. In his defence, I don't think he's edited since I left him a note pointing to this thread. The OP did leave him an ANI-notice, but it didn't point to a specific section. It's not the first time this has happened, but, if he hasn't edited, it's entirely possible that he hasn't been able to, so let's AGF for a little while longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My reservations surround Crossmr's references to battle and fight; that mentality and assumption-making doesn't help. Oh, and I suppose I should mention that YM rarely (if ever) edits Wikipedia during weekends. Obviously though, there's no point mentioning it when some editors keep assuming the worst anyway ("I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down"). That's why "I have serious reservations about what is being attempted here when [some] editors who have an issue with another are loudly expecting the other to fight back." I added that "some" qualifier in square brackets in fairness to the users who are genuinely making efforts to avoid unhelpfully inflaming this even more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called a metaphor. Fighting someone's battles simply means to speak for someone. You're reaching hard. YM has twice been accused of inappropriate behaviour and he's twice failed to join in the discussion and Regentspark has twice been the person to apparently speak for him. YM is free to break that cycle at any point.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad block. No prior warning, no real justification, excessive duration even if it had been justified, no talk page notice. --JN466 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconfirmation RFA - it's just that bad. An appalling block, per comments above (eg JN466), made substantially worse by a failure to notify. There was nothing to justify a block of any length; other participants on that page had been a bit dismissive of the user's concerns (a remark about "spam or nonsense" stands out as inappropriate), but in toto there was nothing there to justify any administrative action at all, let alone a 2-week block without warning. In view of such a blatant mishandling (intentional or not) of admin tools, the community should revisit the issue of whether it trusts YellowMonkey with them. Rd232 talk 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is a bad block. YogeshKandke wouldnt be around too long after he is done with his POV pushing. YM has done a lot to the project, especially for the India project. we have way too many nationalists, regionalists, casteists, all kind of "ists" and he is one of the few administrators who is willing to confront them what many Indian administrators often hesitate to do for several reasons. He monitors India pages well and identifies vandals and trolls much more easily than other non-Indian administrators. I do not support any harsh action against YM. It would be great if YM says a few words to defuse the situation. --CarTick (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is just the thing. No one here is grabbing pitchforks and torches and going after YellowMonkey, whom we all respect. Frankly, if YM said "whoops, my bad guys, I meant to leave a template, totally forgot, he has my apologies" I think we'd be inclined to let it go at that. But to say nothing and ignore the thread just greases the skids of this towards a RFC/U. Right now there is great sensitivity about so called admin abuse. We can't just ignore this because YM isn't responding. He left an editor out in the cold for two weeks, an excessive block with no block template. We have to work to resolve this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than lengthening this thread, which risks turning into a soapbox for those who feel they've been put upon by administrators, why don't you start a conversation with User:YellowMonkey at User talk:YellowMonkey. I am confident he would reply to polite inquiries from an uninvolved editor such as yourself. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done that. If there is no reply within 24 hours of YM's next edit, I also will be willing to certify a RFC/U. I am sad over this but see no alternative. WP:ADMIN makes his responsibility to explain his actions clear, and the fact that he is a crat and functionary makes his obligation even greater.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is he editing again then? He seems to have been offline before. I'm not entirely convinced that switching the conversation to his talkpage would be a good thing, but I do agree that this thread is turning into a bit of a coatrack. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, going by my previous experience with YM, I highly doubt he would respond unless some drastic action is taken. The fellow won't even bother to explain his position to others. I'm pretty sure that he is currently in a wait-and-watch mode and will suddenly be active again once the matter has cooled down. --King Zebu (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all in favour of AGF, but I don't think moving it to YM's talk page would do much good. It would reduce exposure to the wider community and most likely be left to stagnate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely we just need to leave a note saying "Consensus on ANI is that the block was too long, and you failed to correctly notify the editor, please be more careful in future." Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, we can do that, but you have to question, in an administrator what is it that has led him to ignore and apparently refuse to answer the communities good faith questions related to his administrative actions ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly why he's being disruptive and why this discussion belongs here. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to make one, pretend it didn't happen and ignore the community around you. It's disrespectful, it's disruptive and it's unbecoming of an administrator.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • <ec>unblock if it hasn't already happened. It's pretty clearly both too long and lacked a proper notice. In addition I'm not sure a block at all was appropriate here. It looks like YM hasn't been around much since the block so I can understand his lack of response here. But he also hasn't responded to a request to explain an unblock before that and has had issues with following policies and guidelines in the past. I'd like to see him agree to actually follow the rules when it comes to using the tools. Barring that I'd favor an RFC/U. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, the block expired a few weeks ago, otherwise I'm sure the block would have been overturned by now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bah, I knew that. It's what happens when I read this and then walk away for 24 hours without rereading. thanks. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed solution

    Taking YelllowMonkey to WP:DRR or RFC/U isn't a productive way of sorting this out. Here's what I propose:

    1. YellowMonkey or someone with administrative priveleges should redact/purge/permanently remove the block from Yogesh Khandke's block log. It should never be used against Yogesh Khandke in any way including the way SpacemanSpiff did.
    2. YellowMonkey and Yogesh Khandke should continue their e-mail exchanges and sort this out with the goal of becoming friendly, collaborative editors who yearn to improve India related articles. YellowMonkey should make an effort to understand that not everybody is this area is a "retarded nationalist". There are gray areas and our goal should anyway be one of "proselytizing" the so-called Indian nationalist editors in to policy abiding long term contributors.
    3. Editors/administrators should consider revising WP:CANVASSING per WP:BRD with the goal of avoiding situations such as this one which IMO was partially trigerred by a message from YellowMonkey to SpacemanSpiff. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per Off2riorob's comment just above. We need to know what's up here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support 1; 2 would be nice, and 3 is interesting. (Otherwise I agree with Wehwalt.) --JN466 06:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose No need to do anything to Canvass or BRD. I personally don't see the diff given as canvassing, maybe a lack of good faith, but not canvassing. (Zuggernaut's previous attempts to reform canvassing can be seen on its talk page here and here) As for BRD, how does this relate? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for #1. Support for #2 - Amog | Talk • contribs 09:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks should not be excised from logs. A 1-second block can be made to leave a note in the block log, if there is consensus that the block was bad enough to merit that. Still waiting to hear from YellowMonkey. Rd232 talk 11:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FAIL

    Resolved
     – User directed to WP:VPM N419BH 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I honestly am not sure where to go with this. It's probably not here, but hopefuly someone can quickly point me in the right direction. Recently, I was commenting on an AFD that was so blatantly unencyclodepic that I chose, in humor, to write WP:FAIL as my reason for deletion. I was surprised that WP:FAIL was actually an active link that directed me to two essays that seemed to be at odds were with each other. One seemed to indicate that failure, in general, was an inherint part of Wikipedia, and it was OK to learn from your mistakes. The other essay was about how Wikipedia, as a concept, has failed. This doesn't seem right. I don't want to delete, or even disagree with either essay...I just think that to very unrelated views shouldn't link to the same "short cut." Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more appropriate to WP:VPM. The admins have nothing they can do about this issue, so it should probably be moved to the Village Pump. --Jayron32 03:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken your suggestion thanks. Hopefully resolved, at least for this thread :) The Eskimo (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a disambig page for a year now - fail does have multiple meanings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also WP:EPICFAIL, with yet a different meaning ;-) 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also Epic Records who have failed once or twice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RevDel needed

    Resolved
     – I think that's all the evidence we need. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a serious personal attack here, that needs to be RevDeled. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 09:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel'd. Semi'd. IP blocked. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're in the mood, you might want to take care of this one also, from another sock of that same user, most likely: [48] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And this one:[49] All of these IP's show as emanating from Spain, in the city of Cordoba. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did notice it was in the same range. I wonder what the fuss is about? It's was protected 5 days ago as well.It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 10:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and could somebody tell him to come and discuss this here (I can't, since you semi'd the page; I am not autoconfirmed yet)? It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 10:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's the editor himself who should have brought this here if he was concerned about it. I wouldn't be. I'd post junk like that on my talk page under "Memorable quotes from the Great Unwashed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know anonymous user from Spain who vandalize my talk page. I think it all started because of this article - [50].Sentinel R (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, ironically enough, the "Ongoing military conflicts" article seems to be having an ongoing conflict. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my fault. I have long time reverted vandalism in various articles, and will continue to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    -It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing on IRC by Padrecamara

    Padrecamara has recently attempted to obtain "keep" votes in an AfD for an article they have written via IRC as shown here.

    Looks to me like the editor was promptly rebuked and backtracked on IRC. I'm sure that the attempt will be brought up at the AfD, if it hasn't been already. I don't see anything to be done here, suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Participation at IRC & Wikipedia, should never mix. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of irc is canvassing, subverting processes, organizing campaigns etc... All of the people there are guilty of whatever this person is guilty of.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I'm no fan of IRC. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not tar everyone with the same brush? There's legitimate fundraising, social media, and OTRS channels there.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading that log it appears to be someone with poor familiarity with Wikipedia policies. He mostly asked questions about sourcing, notability, etc., rather than request votes. Having said that, the advice given was way worse than what he could have gotten on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LemonMonday

    Request for enforcement of WP:GS/BI restriction

    Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and LemonMonday has been very active at WT:BISE. Despite this discussion regarding an article Westward Ho! at BISE, which resulted in me changing the article to use "United Kingdom" as the largest referenced area as per the references provided by numerous parties at BISE, LemonMonday immediately reverted the edit, and violated the terms of the topic's probation by reinserting "British Isles" without a reference. Subsequently, User:GoodDay reverted the change, only for LemonMonday to immediately revert again. Given that Cailil is now being dragged into mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-13/Admin Cailil: Definition of Civility, I thought it best to bring this latest disruption here for wider community involvement.

    LemonMonday/MidnightBlueMan sock

    A recent sock case from August 2010 resulted in technically unlikely. Comments from the Clerks and patrolling admins stated

    • behavioural evidence does indeed look very convincing (PeterSymonds (16:44, 27 August 2010)
    • Technically Unlikely, though I admit I was also surprised by the strength of the behavioral evidence. — Coren 18:22, 27 August 2010

    The case was eventually marked as closed with the following reasons - I'm marking this for close. LemonMonday's disappearance and the technical evidence provided by Coren would seem to advise against any action for now. TNXMan 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Well, LM is back. I also agree that the evidence is overwhelming. Can someone please block as per WP:DUCK. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • HK you were asked to let this sockpuppetry issue go (see my talk-page). The CU evidence was proven 'unlikely'. I agree that LM's edit pattern is a match for MBM but the CU was closed with a negative result.
      You are in content disputes with LM. He is edit-warring and has been warned. If you don't both start de-escalating soon you will both be be blocked for disruption--Cailil talk 17:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cailil, for the record you stated I would leave this alone and It's to AGF on that matter regarding the Sockpuppetry case. And I responded by saying that I though it best if the case was reexamined. You did not ask me to "let it go" or "drop it". If LM is a sock of MBM, this should be recorded and he should be blocked, and the clerks (and you) agree that the behavioural evidence is strong/overwhelming.
    I find it bizarre that you say I'm in a content dispute with LM. I'm not. I've deliberately not engaged with him on the advice of another admin (TFOWR) on earlier issues. I've reported incidents and behaviour.
    I find it equally bizarre that you threaten me with a block for disruption if I don't de-escalate. Genuinely, this is unfair. --HighKing (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are in a dispute with LM at Westward Ho! - he reverted your position only a day and a bit ago[51][52] - correct?
    Asking you to AGF is the same asking to let it go--Cailil talk 17:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am not in dispute with LM. Yes he did revert my edits, but the issue is that he did so in breach of BISE sanctions and WP policies. I reported it as such, and I've not engaged with him. And asking me to AGF is not the same as asking me to let it go. I still AGF, but I also believe it is worthwhile to ask for a review on whether he is a sock since the behavioural evidence is overwhelming. The SPI was closed because LM had disappeared. Since he has returned, it's reasonable to re-examine the SPI is it not? --HighKing (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon it's best to clear up any doubts about LemonMonday's status. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been cleared up! And I object in the strongest possible terms that this keeps being brought up. The intention is clear; to keep bringing it up until eventually someone is found who says "oh yes, DUCK applies, let's block him". LemonMonday Talk 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI won't do any harm. The innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so how about an SPI on everyone involved in the BI debate, and at regular intervals, just to be sure. In fact, I'm sure someone could automate the whole thing so that all editors are constantly investigated for socking by a bot. LemonMonday Talk 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody wants to open an SPI on me? then fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about not making pointy remarks LM. WP is no a battlefield. I have already warned HK to stop and to AGF. The matter is now here before the community and all involved will be dealt with--Cailil talk 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, please don't think I'm being uncivil, but at times you would test the resolve of a saint! What would you think about a criminal trial where the defendant was found not guilty, but the prosecution didn't like it so they brought another identical case; not guilty again. Not to be beaten they brought an identical case up yet again, and again and again and again, hoping that eventually they'd get a jury who came in with guilty. Well that's what we have here. I know this is not a trial situation, but I hope you see the analogy. (and Cailil, I just read your remarks but I post this anyway. I'll say no more on the matter). LemonMonday Talk 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confident that should the SPI result in your being prooven not a sock? it'll be the last one posted for quite a long time. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not part of the justice system, nor is it subject to the Bill of Rights. It's a privately-owned website, and if they want to run an SPI against someone every day and twice on Sunday, they can do that if they want. And the innocent should have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not LemonMonday is a sock (and a "provable" one through CU evidence) is almost unimportant, IMO, when one considers that he virtually defines what a single-purpose account is. From his very first edit[53] up until his mysterious, nearly year-long absence[54] only to "jump right back in"[55], this account seems concerned with only one narrow issue here at WP. There are barely 300 edits from LemonMonday. Why a topic ban "broadly construed" has not been implemented, when the battleground tactics and subsequent disruption are all that exist for this account, is odd. Get him out of the BISE Wars by topic banning him from it, IMHO. He is campaigning for his cause disruptively as a SPA, and should just move on and edit in other areas. At least one other area. If possible. Doc talk 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc I have to say I agree with you and I would be ready to impose such a sanction myself (as provided for within WP:GS/BI) at this point. I would also suggest an interaction ban between him and HighKing--Cailil talk 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is huge. Is there any reason LemonMonday needs to participate in the venue covered by WP:GS/BI? As for the interaction ban, if LemonMonday is removed from editing that venue, I don't think the negative interractions would continue, so I'd support the topic ban only at this time. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Doc's points - Yes, I've made about 300 edits. Yes, I edit primarily in one area. Yes, I left off editing for about a year. No, I am not running a campaign. On the basis of this you would have me topic banned? In response to Cailil - my only recent transgression has been to revert an edit on a single article. I acknowledged at the Talk page this this could have been handled better and explained why I'd done it. In response to Jehochman - yes WP is a big place, and you ask why I have to edit in my area of choice. That question could be put to any editor. You think if I'm removed from the topic the so-called negative interactions would not continue? I suggest you look at the history of the British Isles issue in more detail. The negative interactions have been going on for a long while, with or without my presence. Maybe everyone should consider what is really causing them. LemonMonday Talk 18:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we know. Irish and British Nationalism. Why don't you all just go edit Antarctica instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too cold. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In a recent RfAr (race and intelligence)[56] the Committee decided that:

    Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

    I told you your reverts were a serious matter, that they were a breach of the topic's probation. Furthermore I believe they could constitute wikihounding. You never made any edits to the Westward Ho! article prior to reverting HighKing. This is the same with British Isles naming dispute article where your first edit there is a revert of HK[57] and Vesperidae[58] and Hada plebeja[59] and Olethreutes arcuella[60] and Epinotia immundana[61] and Old-time music[62]. This info is publicly available in your contribs LM. This pattern of behaviour is not just a breach of the topic probation but of general behavioural policy. If HK's edits were problematic you were invited to show what, where and how on a number of occassions, as are/were others. Nobody has done so and in fact you've used the revert function inappropriately rather than do so--Cailil talk 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on those diffs, I agree that LemonMonday should be topic banned from this area. I am considering a three month ban, subject to making sure that complies with the arbitration remedy authorized. After that time they could come back and we'll see if they can be more productive and less prone to battle. Does any uninvolved editor disagree? Jehochman Talk 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on! Those diffs were from over a year ago, apart from one which was over two years ago. They were reverts. They weren't multiple revert edit warring and they were carried out at a time when there were no sanctions or other restrictions of any kind on the British Isles subject. Furthermore, in all but one case they were to correct an absolute error that had been introduced by the use of the term British Islands. That leaves just one revert, at Westward Ho!, which I've acknowledged was wrong and could have been handled better. I subsequently didn't self revert because the issue moved on in the discussion. I am not battling anything. See my latest contributions at BISE where I've engaged in meaningful discussions. LemonMonday Talk 08:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heitor C. Jorge (again)

    A while ago, I reported offenses by the user said Heitor C. Jorge on my talk page. He returned to do so. And this time, intended to offend other user too. He said "it's impossible to talk to people like you.". And he also called me and another user of trolls. The offenses can be seen here and here. It is not the first time he does that, and he was warned not to return the insult other users. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this is really something that needs administrator attention... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot to notify him - I have done so. I see his previous comment (in Portuguese?) was revision deleted for identifying personal information, so I can understand why you are wary of this editor. I have left him a final warning - he should now be very clear that this behaviour is unacceptable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tedickey

    Resolved
     – user has read the outing policy and will abide. Jack Merridew 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tedickey has posted outing claims about me. (WP:OUTING: [1]) He has voluntarily identified himself and is apparently quite widely known on WP as Thomas E. Dickey a software maintainer. I am anonymous, I have never posted identifying information and I do not wish to be identified. My problems with Tedickey started with a disagreement over an AfD. I have tried consistently to walk away only to find him wikihounding me. (WP:HOUND: [2], [3]) I need help from an admin, please. Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    hmm (I wasn't notified). However, the information connecting this "anonymous" editor with the given website shows up easily in a google search. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who follows the links will see the rudeness, taunting and repeated questions of my good faith in your posts, how you've chased me from one page to another and how you've begun trying to out me. They will also see that I've done nothing to provoke this and that I've consistently tried to ignore your behavior and walk away. No one who actually looks will have any doubt that you know exactly what you're doing and that if you keep it up, your behavior should get you blocked. Please stop now. Msnicki (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:Tedickey indefinitely per WP:OUTING - "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." That such information may be found easily on the 'net is of no consequence. Should Tedickey make assurances that such actions will not continue (outside of legitimate COI issues, perhaps...) then any admin may unblock without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that's the kind of info that should at least initially be discussed off-wiki with a trusted admin, not plastered on a talk page somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With only a few hundred edits, I'm pretty new here and always looking for pointers and other suggestions on how to improve. My understanding (please suggest corrections) of the policy re: WP:OUTING is that when you see an instance, you should neither confirm nor deny the truth of it but you should delete it and you should report it. If you click the link for the edit I reported, you'll notice that the details have been deleted so they were only visible for a few hours. This was stressful for me. Thank you to the admins (you know who you are.) Msnicki (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jameswhatson

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson&action=edit&redlink=1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson

    Could someone mash this little peckerhead, please? HalfShadow 00:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    they are all blocked I think. What other mashing do you want? Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Because the little yonk keeps returning. Right after my talk page SP drops, there he is again. I don't suppose there's a rangeblock you can use that might help? HalfShadow 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd need a checkuser to do that, try Wikipedia:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests. --Jayron32 04:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With only one IP listed under suspected socks, we can't determine a rangeblock unless you ask a CU. We need at least two IPs to determine a rangeblock. Elockid (Talk) 04:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I had one done about a week ago. I don't suppose this might help? Also with this IP you now have the two IPs you need. HalfShadow 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat at Lloyd Pye - probably a hoax

    Resolved
     – IP blocked Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    See [63] - since the 25th is Thanksgiving Day, and the IP is in New York, this isn't going to happen on the 25th. I don't know if I should bother blocking the IP or not, and they haven't reverted my deletion. My inclination is to ignore, but others may disagree, hence my mentioning it here. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed the link above as it had a "session token" in it and couldn't be used. To the threat, I don't think it is legimate, but the anon is trying to add unsourced information still (I rolled them back), so I recommend blocking the user just for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threateners should be blocked whether the threat is plausible or not (the vast majority aren't). Any legal threat has the potential to inhibit freedom of editing and create lack of trust, unless it really is so absurd that not even the most naive reader could conceivably take it seriously. Preventing that is the rationale for the policy. Comparing great things with small - even people making hoax bomb threats usually get in serious trouble. -Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    " In 2010 Pye finally recieved the DNA confirmation he expected, but to his surprise the DNA tested 100% non-terrestrial."[64] I say Keep him as a potentially prolific content contributor based on his expert and unreferenced knowledge of "non-terrestrial" DNA. "I before E except after C"... be damned! Doc talk 08:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble is, it's an IP, so how long? Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual block for legal threats is indef. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't indef an "unnamed" IP though. The two weeks for this IP is not excessive IMHO considering the contributions: not a huge loss. What is the standard, though? Little help? Bueller? Doc talk 09:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest "either 31 hours, or until the close of the first business day in New York and Florida following the 25th of November (which is not a business day there)", since WP:IPBLENGTH says "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours" and the 25th was supposedly the planned date of the delivery of the lawsuit. But two weeks is fine I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder just how he figures on serving a subpoena to "wikipedia". A short block is probably sufficient, since it's obviously a looney and not to be taken seriously. And if it does come back, respond with a Pye in the face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a static IP. Anyway, I left the two week block but also a note saying that if there are similar edits from this IP, whether or not they include legal threats they should be reverted and the block extended unless the threat is withdrawn. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I had Starchild skull in my head, but the article was Lloyd Pye. The IP at Starchild skull seems to be someone else hopping IPs and back.Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP seems to be in Concord, NC, not New York, but it's the same thing with Thanksgiving, anyway. Corvus cornixtalk 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastside Sun

    Could I have a few more eyes over at Eastside Sun? I've been watching it for a time while various IPs have added uncited information about it. I've been trying to keep the uncited info out, including lengthy semi-protections, but it's possible I've been too aggressive about it. I also recently deleted a bunch of talkpage comments to the effect of WHY IS WIKIPEDIA TRYING TO KEEP OUT THE TRUTH???? Due to the lack of sourcing, I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun, which has attracted many of the IPs whose edits I've deleted in the past. I could really use some outside input on this whole thing. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I added {{not a vote}} to the AfD discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Goodvac (and others who have looked at it). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agh, I just spent some time adding the tags also, but another editor beat me to it so I got an edit conflict. Anyway, I tried. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying. :-) In any case, it's not just the AfD I'm asking for eyes on -- I'd like an opinion on whether I've been too aggressive trying to keep the SPAs out, and if there's reliable sourcing that should be added to the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not particularly aggressive; unsourced content has got to go no matter what. The only remotely reliable source is this, which is already used as a source in the article. It also looks like there is more than one Eastside Sun. This one existed back in the 1950s. Overall, I'd say that there is no significant coverage to establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone needs to cry out about the admin abuse here. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fan view

    User:Tomatofarm (a new user) is repeatedly inserting fan/party faithful content (unsourced) in the Kongunadu Munnetra Peravai article. I have reverted him three times and tried to explain in his talk page and in the article's talk page. But he doesn't listen to me. Can someone semi protect the article and/or warn the user.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir Douglas Weller has warned the user and there have been no further edits since. A protection would seem unnecessary seeing as the problem is one user. They can be blocked rapidly should they continue past the warning. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Doug and SGGH. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent threat of violence: request assistance reporting, and community ban

    Thanks, the Foundation has it and is investigating. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here an editor makes apparent threats of violence to another editor and close family. While this may be a stunt given the nature of the editor's contributions, I would be grateful if one state-side person could make the necessary report and drop a note to the Foundation. (done)
    I have indef blocked the editor in question, and would suggest a community ban is in order. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I think a visit from the police/FBI for making threats will be more than appropriate. If the are a student, mom and dad won't be pleased. As such, a community ban is not likely required. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've informed the Foundation of this thread via their emergency e-mail address. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Pete, I should have thought of that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    It looks more like a "I'm suing you and I'll soon see you (in court)" than a threat of violence to me. That's of course still a NLT issue, but the contributor who made the threat appears to have a very legitimate grievance against the IP user (who apparently was engaged in a rather nasty BLP smear campaign). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's likely a mock threat, but one can't be too careful. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I found out where you live" and "say hi to your daughter" are extremely scary statements with a threat of violence thrown in for good measure. Block, block and more block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone, the Foundation has it and is investigating. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 68.114.128.23

    This IP user has been disruptively editing the Spades article. There's something very suspicious about this user.

    • His very first edit was a revert; so clearly not a newbie.
    • He always uses edit summaries; so clearly not a newbie.
    • He reverted my MOS edit, labelling it as vandalism.-putting false info back in an article is vanalism
    • It looks like he might have broken WP:3RR.

    The user has been blocked for 31 hours for his disruptive editing. In the meantime I would appreciate someone taking a look. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above accusations are libelous and untrue.


    There is something very suspicious about the above user. I made corrections to an article that has been wrong since October of 2008. He did not like the corrections. In the end I leave it word for word the way it was until an agreement can be made to the wording. Before I come back and make those suggestions after researching where the incorrect version was made,this user is calling my changes disruptive. I also see he has reported me here. This is biting the newbie. I don't believe it is constructive to not like someones else's version and offer none of their own. It seems to me accuracy should have priority over style. I pointed out it was wrong and used no sources but got no input on those points. I was going to suggest that changes be made similar to what they were before there was probable vandalism . The correct version is the first one. Since I was willing to leave it the way it was for the time being there was no reason to make a complaint here. A ban is in order for the above user or it only proves wikipedia does not value a newbies input.

    Revision as of 17:07, 25 September 2008 (edit) Liko81 (talk | contribs) (→Bidding variations) ← Previous edit


    Trump variants

    - Deuces High: All 2s count as the highest spades. The order becomes 2 of Hearts (highest card), 2 of Clubs, 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Spades, then all the rest of the spades, Ace through 3. There is another variation, when playing with the Jokers, that the 2 of diamonds and the 2 of spades are high trumps, then Ace, King, and so on. There is a variation where the Aces can be called high (14) or low (1).


    Revision as of 03:14, 2 October 2008 (edit) (undo) 71.243.228.111 (talk) (→Trump variants) Next edit → Line 214: Line 214:


    Deuces High: All 2s count as the highest spades. The order becomes 2 of Spades (highest card), 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Clubs, 2 of Hearts, then all the rest of the spades, Ace through 3. There is another variation, when playing with the Jokers, that the 2 of diamonds and the 2 of spades are high trumps, then Ace, King, and so on. There is a variation where the Aces can be called high (14) or low (1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.128.23 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Wilson

    Resolved
     – Socked votes struck. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I already submitted a sockpuppetry case on this issue, but I wondered if an admin could have a quick look at the AfD in question to see if certain SPA votes should be struck because of obvious sockpuppetry. All the keep votes on this AfD except for myself appear to be generated from a single person using multiple SPAs. Cheers and thanks for your time. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The socks have been blocked, and another admin has warned Razorback2011 for socking. I don't think there is anything else that can be done here right now. –MuZemike 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I asked for here was for an admin to take a look at the AFD and see if the votes should be struck, which someone has done. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

    Resolved
     – Per WP:IAR. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    User:Sarek of Vulcan has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And unblocked by User:Rich Farmbrough with summary "Time reduced since it's a first offence". Rd232 talk 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)    [reply]

    I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) Friday morning at 3:15, thanks to teenaged daughters and ill-considered promises. Since then, I've been patrolling the article, but in my zeal, I'm pretty sure I've broken WP:3RR, which I always consider a bright-line rule. Even though I'm not planning on editing it for a while, that doesn't mean I'm not in violation. If someone wants to identify 4 reverts in 24 hours and report me at WP:EWN or block me outright, I won't appeal it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Making a mistake is one thing, admitting to it is another. I obviously can't speak for everybody, but I would be willing to forgive and forget. The Thing T/C 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually spent some time going through that article's history so I could come back and tell you that you're being paranoid! User:TTTSNB echoes my sentiments exactly :) - Amog | Talk • contribs 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than breaking 3RR in the future you should prolly bring it to a relevant talk page or here if there's serious issues that need oversight and extra eyes. I assume it's edit-warring over plot details? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the most part, it wasn't edit warring, although there was a bit of that as well. However, since WP:3RR defines a revert as "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time", I'm clearly over the line, even if you ignore straight vandal reverts. 3RR has a specific exemption for featured articles on the mainpage, but this is just a current event movie release. Also, I turned down a semi-protection request on that page, so I took a more-active role.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By your edit summaries it seems that you were reverting vandalism. If you read WP:3RR carefully it says that reverting vandalism is ok. Agree with TTTSNB if it did seem to be an issue for someone. @David Fuchs: He didn't break 3RR. Mr. R00t Talk 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Unintentionally incorrect information is explicitly not vandalism. See here for an example of that type of edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be willing to forgive and forget, if you were doing something good and maintaining wikipedia I would be using rule Ignore All Rules. I think you did nothing wrong. :)  JoeGazz  ▲  19:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support your reverting on the article, Sarek, but you have brought this on yourself to a certain extent by turning down the "semi-protect" request. The reverts were necessary to keep crap out of the article, but as you say it wasn't intentional vandalism so isn't exempt from 3RR. All the regular editors have been put in a difficult position now because we can't do much about the unconstructive edits once we've used up our revert quota. Some editors will just ignore 3RR, but others are probably concerned about being on the receiving end of an ANI. We either need to semi the article or have explicit permission to suspend 3RR on it temporarily for non edit-warring cases. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I counted 7 reverts in about 21 hours, but the vast majority of them were maintaining the quality of the article rather than the usual edit warring. I think we should consider adding an exemption to 3RR for high-profile articles since this film is easily at least as high profile (and just as prone to crap, albeit good faith crap) as any TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support an amendment for exemption - Amog | Talk • contribs 19:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support "reverting crap from high profile articles" amendment, perhaps in more politically correct terms or maybe not, that is funny right there. We kinda already have an exception for "unsourced BLP crap". Just extend that to "unsourced crap". I've had 10 reverts in 10 minutes before, though that was obvious vandalism by one editor and no one was awake at AIV. N419BH 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After I pointed out the reverts to Sarek, he insisted I enforce the rule, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I still think we should create an exemption (and apply it retrospectively). I'll start a threatd lol, thank you, Malleus! at WT:EW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'll start a threat at WT:EW". A Freudian slip? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A little too quixotic, imho. And LOL at the threat! - Amog | Talk • contribs 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Harry Potter can be serious shit to the right people. I, fortunately, am not one. HalfShadow 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COMMONSENSE S.G.(GH) ping! 20:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock please

    • This is silly. Someone unblock him please. Edit warring/3RR can be excused for reasonable reasons, per IAR. Almost all the reverts he made resulted in him improving the article by any measure. If he wants to be blocked, let him block himself. NW (Talk) 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the normal response that being right isn't one of the exceptions to 3RR? Making an exception here seems to be one where others will point to the gap between treatment of admins and ordinary users. That said as blocks are preventative assuming they understand the reasons for the block and are unlikely to continue/repeat the behaviour an unblock would normally be granted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked. "Users may be blocked to protect the encyclopedia." - this does not do so, rather the reverse. I would do the same for any editor who self-reported 3RR and was not causing problems. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Precisely there doesn't appear to be a preventative reason for the block at this point. That is however different from making an exception to allow admins to determine who is in the right in an edit war... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for removing the irresponsible block. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly irresponsible, considering I insisted he apply the same standards to me that I would have applied to any other editor in the same situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't he be blocked for unnecessarily trying to get himself blocked and told to stay away from himself? :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that if you're going to get yourself blocked, you would have to warn yourself first, as per the instructions at WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How come the block only stuck for 43 minutes then, without Wehwalt's usual cries of "admin cowboy"? How come you haven't re-blocked yourself, for what you see as a "bright-line" offence? Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because getting blocked for wheel warring to reblock myself would just be too weird. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the wierdness is that you don't realise that wheel-warring is when the blocking admin re-blocks you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And because Wehwalt was busy gasp writing and wasn't reading AN/I. I just finished the rough of another (I hope) future FA, Buffalo nickel. But since Malleus wants me here, I will refer him to the thread about YellowMonkey's questioned block and request Malleus's input.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely pointing out that your position is not an entirely consistent one Wehwalt, not requesting your presence anywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can my not noticing the thread while building the project be inconsistent with anything except laziness?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will simply say that you have signally failed to accuse the unblocking admin of being a cowboy and leave it that. I'm sure you can work out the rest for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Judgment should be used. The reverts were correct, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that. Even further reverts for the same reason would be correct. Reverting the replacement of content with nonsense or fixing clearly incorrect statements is a good thing, and we don't want people to stop because of an arbitrary line. If that were the case, we would just use a bot to block all the 3RR violators and have them place unblock requests when they are ready to say "Sorry I violated 3RR. I won't do it again." NW (Talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your position is unsupportable for at least two reasons. First SarekOfVulcan himself regards 3RR as a "bright-line offence", hence the block request. Second, it seems plausible that at least some of the reverts were substituting SOV's point of view for that of a less well-connected editor. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is elevating admins above the janitor role to arbiters of content issues. Something which has long been the case they very much are not. Reverting nonsense would come under the current exceptions to 3RR. If "you" are the only person who believes a statement is incorrect such that "you" are the only one reverting, then perhaps the issue isn't quite as clear cut as "you" believe. We specifically state and decline many unblock requests on the basis that being right isn't an exception to the rule. If there is a large scale problem which can't easily be dealt with and discussion isn't immedidately gaining traction, short term protection (or semi-protection) is the way to settle things down. Any shift in this letting admins pick which side is right is just going to reinforce the regular cries of cabal. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was ridiculous. Even you want to be ultra-bureaucratic about strict 3RR enforcement, in a situation where 3RR took place but edit warring isn't actively going on, it's sufficient to say "hey cut that out", and possibly require the person to self-unrevert any reverts past the 3rr limit, undoing the 3RR (clearly not necessary in this case). Remember that blocking is supposed to be preventive. In this case there was nothing to prevent, unless you count his self-report to this thread as POINTy. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing the point

    I just need to point out the shamefulness of certain admins "resolving" this thread without facing the most important point, or making Sarek answer the basic question: Is the film any good? C'mon now, surely this is the central issue to the thread. Well, to those like me, at any rate, who live hours from the nearest cinema that'll screen the film this side of Christmas. Cheers, LindsayHi 11:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm assuming this is sarcasm ... and pretty good too :-) Good or not, the film is going to outsell the GDP of some small countries. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bizarre legal threat by anonymous IP pushing to add fringe paternity theories to articles on royal relatives.

    Please see: [65] and any subsequent revisions, if there are any. The anonymous IP (66.127.61.83) has offered a legal threat. Seven Letters 20:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP two weeks for making legal threats. For convenience, this is the diff where the threat was issued. Elockid (Talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Seven Letters 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the usual response to a legal threat an indef block until the threat is withdrawn? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, but it's an IP and I thought that were not supposed to be blocking those indefinitely. I can or somebody else can otherwise. Elockid (Talk) 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elockid is correct, IPs do not get blocked forever. There was a similar case very recently, two weeks was also used in that instance. If the IP re-iterates or follows up, they can be re-blocked or a rangeblock can be considered, depending on circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

    Let me start off by saying that this is not a content dispute. Yes, a content dispute is how this was started but no, this thread is on the behavior of another editor.

    Just last week, this user was topic banned from 'inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting', with the threat of escalating blocks if they broke the terms of their topic ban.

    However, instead of violating the ban, they chose to edit tendentiously by edit warring before discussing, and then, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA during the discussion, first starting off by directly insulting me in the section title, wrongly stating that I 'had an inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources', and in the section body,calling me irrational. I of course asked them to refactor that original post, in a polite way. Instead of assuming good faith, and attempting to discuss the matter in a civil tone, Dest decided to exclaim that I was 'obviously ignoring policies, and that I obviously do not understand them enough'. The crux in this last diff is that Dest is not me, and thus cannot claim 'I am obviously ignoring policies, etc. In response, I told him he doesn't know shit about what I understand, or what I am ignoring, and in response, he quotes me out of context, exclaiming wrongly that I have been the one who has been uncivil, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary.. Not to mention the entire paragraph could be construed as yelling, as it is entirely bold.

    I have not once insulted or been uncivil to this user, yet they persist in insulting me, my knowledge, and acting like they know things about me they wouldn't know if they weren't me, such as if I was 'ignoring' policies or not.

    To this end, I believe it is obvious that this user cannot be trusted to discuss content in a civil manner. As they are already slightly-topic banned from LGBT parenting and parenting articles, I request that this ban be extended with a complete ban from LGBT parenting articles and article talk pages for a period of no less than 3 months, or until such time they have shown they are able to discuss content in a civil manner without attacking the opposite, or same side in a dispute. Oh, and they've been notified of this discussion.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been watching this spat for days, somewhat confused about why two people are edit-warring over two words. Both of these editors are way out of line. Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him. The whole thing is an ugly mess with no "good guys". Dylan Flaherty 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth am I baiting him? I'm not the one that chose to insult the other as the title for a discussion thread, I'm not the one that claimed to know things about the other I didn't, such as whether I know policy or for that matter, am ignoring specific policies. I've done nothing but ask them politely to retract their insults, only to see it thrown back in my face.. But given I was recently in dispute with you, I don't know why I should be surprised. You don't even notate this in your opinion here. It's expected of people to be transparent when commenting on a matter in which they are involved. It's expected in regards to any bias which may occur, and there is definitely bias here, as I have done no baiting. Dest began this by choosing to insult me, and instead of retracting those insults, he chose to continue with the incivilities and personal attacks. I have done no such baiting.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, when dealing with someone who tends to overreact, the right thing to do is to be especially calm, avoiding any possible insult. You did quite the opposite.
    As for being involved, I don't even see the difference between "consensus" and "conclusion". I want nothing to do with this battle of egos wills that this has become.
    Yes, we had some sort of dispute recently, but I don't even remember the details so I don't know what to say about it, except maybe you should try to assume good faith instead of blaming the messenger. Dylan Flaherty 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indented your reply to my post, directed at you, because that is obviously what it is in reply to. That aside, care to back up your accusations with diffs? As I quite clearly illustrated above, your accusations are unfounded.. and this doesn't come as a surprise due to your bias in this matter(and no, this bias comes from your previous interaction with me; it has nothing to do with the content).
    Back on topic, I don't lend good faith to people who like to accuse me of stuff I haven't done, such as not responding in a calm manner; something I clearly did when I asked them politely to retract their insult. I don't lend good faith to people who only come to a dispute to only argue against someone they were previously in dispute with, instead of actually addressing the main issue at hand, which is Dest's unwarranted and unceasing incivility.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to offer original research about your behavior. Destinero complained about it after you baited him by saying "You don't really know shit...". I said from the start that he was out of line, but you're not one bit better. If anything, knowingly baiting someone who can be counted on to (over-)react is a cynical manipulation. Combined with your call for silencing him with a broad topic ban and blocks, I have great difficulty assuming good faith. This seems to be less about his behavior than yours, and more about winning a content war than trying to work amicably with other editors. Dylan Flaherty 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you do, because that is not what I said. I said you don't know shit about me. Big difference there; there is no baiting. Do all of us a favor and actually read all relevant material before you comment.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your bias is really clear from your posting here: You quote me out of context(actual quote:You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'.), you refuse to backup your unsubstantiated accusations or even read all the relevant material, which was outlined in an easily readable fashion above. Dest started attacking me first, and then when I asked him to redact his attacks, he proceeded to do so again. The fact that you refuse to substantiate your own accusations, the fact that you refuse to read the relevant material, and the fact that right here say that 'Destinero complained about it after you baited him', despite the clear evidence that he attacked me way before that, just shows how much bias you have here, and thus, you should redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as it is clear you are unable to address this situation in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I used the exact quote Destinero brought up, so it was not my original research or synthesis. I was pointing out that he accused you of baiting him with incivility and he was right to do so. Whether you said "you don't know shit (full stop)" or "you don't know shit (about whatever)", you were being plainly rude. You wanted to anger him, and you succeeded. Then you come here and pretend to have clean hands as you throw him under the bus.
    Sorry, but you can't blame your behavior on my alleged bias. Don't shoot the messenger; deal with the truth of the message. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, wrong again. Do you want me to outline the exact timeline with dates? First of all, I didn't 'want him to get mad'. You aren't telepathic, so you cannot act as if you know my reasons for doing anything. And again, for the third time, Dest was incivil far before I even said that. So given that you have failed yet again to address the actual facts of the issue, and in fact you have accused me of something else again: blaming your bias for 'my behavior'. I did nothing of the kind; what I did do is tell you to redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as your clear bias is clouding your judgement, and as such, you are unable to comment here in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you want me to essentially shut up and go away. I understand that, but I can't agree to do it. He was right to accuse you of baiting him, as you were complaining about his behavior while being rude. When you accuse someone of an offense, it's vital not to commit it yourself in the process, and that's where you failed. To be very clear, I am not defending his behavior, just pointing out that you played a significant role in creating it through your own incivility. You can't complain that he was rude when you spurred him on. Dylan Flaherty 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Except, that is where you are wrong. I created nothing. Again, do I need to outline you the specific timeline with timestamps and a bulleted list? I may have influenced his latest reply, but only his latest. I did nothing to deserve the incivility and personal attacks he sent at me before that. I was not rude at all before I said that post you quote so often; that was my second to last reply, after he had insulted me several times, after I had politely asked him to redact his insults, only to be insulted further in reply.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your reasoning. You were in the middle of an ongoing, petty dispute, when you decided that he was being rude. So you naturally demanded a retraction rudely. See the problem? It doesn't matter who started the incivility; you continued it. And when it had escalated enough, you came here to report him as if you had no role in the whole thing. This bothers me. Dylan Flaherty 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)What bothers me is that you didn't even read the linked diff, because I was clearly not even rude. Oh, and there is no 'I decided he was rude'; he was rude from the start, as he clearly insulted me several times. Do you or do you not want me to outline the timeline for you? You clearly are not reading the diffs or checking the timestamps. All you are doing is supporting his behavior, by trying to say that it is my fault, when he had clearly started off with the incivility and personal attacks before I even posted to the talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dylan, I just pointed out how you were baiting an editor the other day[66], gloating about a 3RR report. You've been talked to about your incivility very recently by several editors. Please don't go there, as your hands are not clean right now at all. You should move onto something else, I think. Doc talk 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, I don't want you to 'shut up', don't put words in my mouth. What I want is for you to substantiate your so far unsubstantiated accusations, which as they remain so, qualify as personal attacks. If you are not going to substantiate them, then redact them. That is what I want you to do.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a very simple example. As far as I understand it, your response is something along the lines of "yes, but he started it". Do you think that's a sufficient answer or do you have a better one? Dylan Flaherty 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My response is nothing of the kind; you imply that I was the cause of all of his incivility. If you read the diffs, you would know this is not the case.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See, you did it again. The issue isn't whether you did it first, but whether you egged him on before you came here. Dylan Flaherty 03:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. There was no 'egging on'. I told him that he didn't know shit about me when he claimed to know things about me. That is by no means 'egging him on'. That's telling him he shouldn't act like he knows things about others when he clearly doesn't.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have noticed the dispute, and agree with the report by Dædαlus. While arguing about "consensus" vs. "conclusion" is not edifying, Destinero is being far too belligerent (example). It is good to ensure that NPOV applies to LGBT issues, but Destinero is too strident in the discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage: yes, statements from the reliable sources will be used, but sociological studies conducted in the last decade are not anywhere near as conclusive as "the fact that evolution occurs" noted by Destinero, and while both are topics that can be studied scientifically, it is not reasonable to suggest that opponents are somehow similar to those that oppose evolution, particularly when the dispute seems to be about whether "consensus" or "conclusion" should be used. Fixating on the "shit" comment by Dædαlus seems to be a complete misunderstanding (see WP:COMPETENCE). What happened was that Destinero posted a level 2 heading claiming Dædαlus had a certain inability, with further claims of irrationality in the comment (see previous diff), and Dædαlus responded "You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'." (diff). Under the circumstances, that is a very reasonable response and Destinero should have withdrawn their attack. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I've been quite clear about the fact that Destinero was out of line. But it wan't as if Destinero conducted an edit war over "consensus"/"conclusion" all by himself for days, or as if Daedalus' comments were lacking in hostility. Taking someone to WP:ANI without having the cleanest of hands is a recipe for suicide, and I'm trying to stop Daedalus from cutting his own throat. Dylan Flaherty 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first comment above was "Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him". The reference to baiting is not correct, and may I suggest that a clean way to talk to Dædαlus would be at User talk:Daedalus969. Comments here should involve evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to say that if Dylan Flaherty was attempting to help, he did absolutely the opposite: he clearly misunderstands some key policies, and has himself successfully baited/goaded Daedelus into further discussion. Kudos to Daedelus for not chomping on the bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    New start

    I saw user 72.82.33.250 (talk · contribs) editing Shawn Johnson‎ and invited him to join the Wikipedia community. Unknowing to me, he was a banned user. He explained to me his situation here He has agreed to be adopted and be mentored by myself. I am asking that user's TCO (talk · contribs) ban be removed by the community. My propositions for the rules for the mentoring will follow shortly.--intelatitalk 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've undeleted his talkpage, as it was only deleted for membership in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would vote to give that user another chance. Inka888 22:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User appears to have been indef'd and no-one would unblock, rather than there ever having been a ban discussion, and it was indeed for harassment and personal attacks, but without links to any discussions here, although there probably were discussions. I'll look further. Meanwhile, perhaps the righteous could stop harassing Intelati about this. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. One report that ANI that I can't currently find, a series of increasing blocks, then this comment which resulted in an indefinite block that no-one at the time would undo. Intelati, could you suggest that he post a further unblock request on his own talkpage, rather than socking, so someone can give a formal response. I disapprove of the socking, but would consider an unblock in some circumstances, eg if this is a young person, as a year can make a lot of difference. Alternately, this may be a case for a WP:STANDARD OFFER. They must stop evading the block via IP editing though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TCO can't edit his/her own talk page currently due to block settings. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you change the block settings to allow a unblock request and this is the only thread I can find on him.--intelatitalk 00:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--intelatitalk 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    600 vandalism edits

    Resolved
     – blocked indef --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thepulse2007 (talk · contribs)

    I just found an editor who has 613 edits on over 240 pages, and so far all of them appear to be vandalism. This editor would change minor information in articles which has already been sourced.

    Example of vandalism

    first:

    • Business week: "Born during a baby bulge that demographers locate between 1979 and 1994, they are as young as five and as old as 20, with the largest slice still a decade away from adolescence."[67]
    • user:Thepulse2007's edit:[68]

    second:

    This editor was already warned and blocked repeatedly for this.

    I need help clean this up.

    I suggest blocking this editor's IP and user name indefinitely, as he maybe doing the same thing with a sock.

    A checkuser is needed to.

    Adamtheclown (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see little more to do than WP:RBI, its unsual he was under the radar so long but nothing sinister to my eyes here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited in almost a year. What's the point of bringing it up now? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Kind of a stale problem, isn't it? I don't see any edits since December 2009. Certainly, if any vandalistic edits are still live they should be corrected, but I don't think any administrative attention is necessary here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Blocks are intended as a preventive measure to stop ongoing and persistent vandalism, not as punishment. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A block should not necessarily be seen as punitive. Is there any real doubt that an editor with that many vandalism edits would, if he or she came back, most probably vandalize again? Why should be provide the person with the open opportunity to do so via this ID? Wny not block it not a punishment, but to prevent the probable future vandalism?

    Our policies sometimes have the disconcerting effect of making the project more vulnerable than it really needs to be.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, blocks are not, and should never be applied precociously. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "preemptively", perhaps? And yes, blocks of vandalism-only accounts are applied preemptively all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preemptively if the user is actively vandalizing perhaps, but not when the account has been clean for the last year. By your logic, we need to block Thepulse2007 right here right now. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism-only accounts get blocked whenever they're discovered, they do not need to be active at the time. If I thought it would be worth my time to see if all of their edits were vandalism, and they were, I would indeed block them now. Calling the account "clean" for the last year is a puzzling way to think about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, now that I see that they have a history of returning after 6 months or 1 year to resume their previous bad behavior, and did so after their previous block expired, I've blocked the account indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <--On the off-chance that the editor returns as we're mulling over this non-incident, I've notified them on their talk page of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking consensus for an indefinite block of User:Pfagerburg

    Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

    Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

    Further information: User_talk:AniMate § Pfagerburg

    I indefblocked Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in September, because his account has been used almost entirely since its creation in 2006 in pursuit of Jeff Merkey, a banned user who edits occasionally as IPs. Pfagerburg has made 738 edits, incl. 272 to articles, probably 90 percent of which have been Merkey-related. I warned him in July that if he continued to post about Merkey I would consider an indefinite block, and when I noticed in September that it was continuing, I applied it.

    Animate unblocked him five hours later, on condition that he confine his posts about Merkey to the various boards, and that he start to edit as a regular Wikipedian. He has violated the second of these conditions—after his unblock he made about 18 edits then started on the Merkey issue again. And in my view the first condition was unreasonable. Pfagerburg needs to stay away from Merkey completely, not confine his comments to particular boards.

    He was indefblocked by El C in May 2007 for focusing on Merkey, but Hemblock Martinis unblocked him. Then he was banned for one year by ArbCom in July 2007 for harassment of Merkey. In June 2008 Merkey complained to Pfagerburg's employer that Pfagerburg was continuing the pursuit using his employer's computers or telephones. In 2009 there was legal action of some kind between them in relation to the stalking allegations; Pfagerburg posted on his talk page that he had filed a lawsuit against Merkey for harassment, but it was dismissed. And yet Pfagerburg is still using his account almost entirely to report Merkey socks, or have Merkey-related articles deleted.

    Pfagerburg says he has no other account. If that's true, then his sole purpose at Wikipedia is to continue this unhealthy interaction with Merkey, and I don't think we should be facilitating it. I'm therefore seeking consensus to re-apply the indefinite block, which I hope if agreed will stick this time. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order: Slim, are you seeking a regular indefinite block or a community ban? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what difference it would make in this case, HJ. I'm seeking a block of this account and with it an understanding that any other account doing the same that appears to belong to Pfagerburg would be blocked too. But he were to create an account to edit about butterflies no one would know it was him, so there wouldn't be any problem. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, could you provide diffs showing he has resumed his previous behavior? AniMate 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See his contribs since you unblocked him. It's the same story: most of his edits are about Merkey, including the deleted ones. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can see is that since the unblock he made a single report to WP:SPI and another WP:AE reporting 6 socks that had repeatedly tagged two accounts as his sockpuppets. Under the terms of his unblock, he is allowed to make reports to the appropriate venue. The only other edits about Merkey I can see were alerting the six IPs he had reported them, which is required by both forums. AniMate 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also deleted edits, and the point is that he's made almost no edits that are not about Merkey. Please take that point. Look, if someone is harassing someone (if), then all interaction should be avoided. Merkey says Pfagerburg is harassing him. Pfagerburg says Merkey is harassing him. We don't need to know who is right. All we have to do is require that they stay away from each other on Wikipedia. Pfagerburg has refused to do that for almost four years. This idea of allowing him to use the account to make SPI reports about Merkey is just feeding what looks like an unhealthy obsession. That's why I'm requesting the indefblock be reinstated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the four deleted edits, one was an attempt to notify an IP about the SPI and the edit after that was to remove the message because he got the IP address wrong. I can only see two others which were o an SPI case he initiated in an attempt to clear himself from the sockpuppet allegations Merkey had leveled against him. However, he blanked that as well. I still see no reason for him not to defend himself against spurious sockpuppet allegations. AniMate 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per AniMate. I cannot see that Pfagerburg has done anything problematic or in violation of his editing restrictions since he was unblocked, and has actually done quite a few low-key but benficial edits. I'm not seeing how banning this user will improve Wikipedia. If someone can point out diffs that show how Pfagerburg has acted poorly I will reconsider my opinion. Reyk YO! 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are WP-skillful wiki-hounders that know how to play the WP game. Usually hounding via "just enforcing the rules". It's apparent that Pfagerburg is still focusing on Merkey. There are plenty of other people in WP besides Pfagerburg who can watch / report on Merkey... As a minimum, this needs an order to avoid all initiatives to be involved with Merkey. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with this some what. Pfagerburg was blocked last time for this kind of hounding, but he was going through every IP Merkey had ever used and undoing their edits. That is harassment, and I unblocked when he gave his word that he would not continue that behavior. However, responding to someone who is labeling other accounts as your socks isn't hounding. AniMate 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of order SlimVirgin left out the latest discussion, wherein it becomes very clear that she is failing to AGF. I pointed out an AN/I, and the only thing she appeared to have read is that I started an AN/I three months after a harassing phone call, completely neglecting the section where I noted why it took three months to bring the matter to an AN/I. There's also the minor issue of 14 edits != 23 edits. And the insinuation that I can't possibly be a "regular Wikipedian" and I must be a sockpuppet instead. And I'm still waiting on that Checkuser. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to butt in, but "have Merkey-related articles deleted" constitutes a subtle - and insidious - distortion of the truth, and I think this comment should immediately follow the distortion in order to clear it up immediately. This is important, because together with the discussion on AniMate's talk page (9 != 23 [69]), it shows SV's pattern of repeatedly distorting what the record clearly says in order to make me look worse than I am.
    I can't see my own deleted edits, so I am not 100% certain, but I believe that I CSD'ed one article (not articles, plural), and I did so only because it was Merkey-created. That it happened to be Merkey-related is what made it so easy to detect the sock master behind the article. Check the deletion log for MDB (Linux). I didn't even start the first deletion discussion. I'm not sure where to find the creation log, but the various accounts that repeatedly created it were confirmed as Merkey sockpuppets. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; one was in September. But the rest are from this month. Can you say why you said you'd support a total interaction ban if you feel the edits are harmless? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that same edit, I said I wasn't sure what if anything needed to be done about it. After thinking about it, I solidified my position. I changed my mind. It's not unheard of. AniMate 06:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. This user has caused more than enough trouble for us users and admins at Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indefinite block. Reporting socks of a banned editor is just not all that heinous. Granted, Plagerburg should leave years - old edits alone unless he can point to somethng specifically wrong with their content, and it would be a good idea to work on reducing his percentage of Merkey-related edits. Cardamon (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Pfagerburg's actions do not seem to be aimed at perpetuating the dispute, intended to bait the banned user, or at all harmful to the encyclopedia. Disclosure: I had a series of unfortunate interactions with the banned user in question a number of years ago on-wiki. Despite this, I agreed with the original ban of Pfagerburg too, but at the present time cannot see evidence that Pfagerburg is trying to drive the dispute further -- merely trying to defend himself with minimal drama. alanyst /talk/ 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now. I don't think Pfagerburg's recent activity has been willfully disruptive, if it's even to be considered disruptive. But Pfagerburg, your pattern of edits must change. That Merkey is banned does not make the outward appearance of your behavior any better. I would strongly suggest that you take up an activity such as recent changes patrol or new pages patrol if you are genuinely interested in combating nonconstructive edits as opposed to Merkey edits. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mendaliv, could you make clear what you think ought to happen if the pattern of edits doesn't change? I'm asking because it almost certainly won't. There's a long-term issue here that I don't think anyone on Wikipedia can change, so it would be good to know what the consensus about it is, should it continue. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest a total interaction ban on Pfagerburg. He noted in his last WP:AE report Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that he is already banned for any other form of interaction, but for sock reporting. He should let other people deal with suspected sockpuppets of the fabled banned user, including sleuthing them for a report. I think that ArbCom has been clear in a similar case (involving Scibaby) that a small set of editors pursuing suspected socks of a banned user can sometimes become an problematic issue in itself, despite the "shoot on sight" allowance in policy. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Netscott and his templated signature

    better taken to WP:VPT. Jack Merridew 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has probably only just been brought up, and it'll probably cause a bit of drama, so you all - and especially Netscott - have my apologies in advance. Netscott (talk · contribs) uses a templated signature, stored at User:Netscott/s1.js and User:Netscott/s2.js. Doing so is specifically forbidden at WP:SIG#NoTemplates for several reasons. However, Netscott counters these reasons at User talk:Netscott/s1.js and explains rather well why he does it. Is this an issue? Should Netscott's sig be changed? If not, should we update existing procedure and policy to allow the use of this method? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The signature should be changed. One of these two cases holds: (1) the signature is under 255 characters, and could just be included directly (2) the signature is over 255 characters, and the transclusion is used to violate the rule against excessively long signatures. Either way, the signature should be changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He needs to subst the signature, other than that if it meets length requirements, it should be good. It seems to be allowed, anyway. I keep mine at User:Ks0stm/sig.css and subst it (and no, after it gets substed it doesn't violate length requirements), for an example of how that can work. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reducing the clutter in edit boxes is a good thing, but this does violate SIG and does impose server-load for page-generation. Existing sigs should be substituted and user should either add the 'subst:' to their prefs or paste the code directly in there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chase me, it's usually better to point the violation out to somebody before coming to ANI. This is a situation I encounter surprisingly frequently and, in my experience, a polite note on their talk page explaining the problem and how to fix it usually does the trick. Since we're here, though, yes, it is against The Rules and Jack, substing a template is also against SIG, mainly because the page being subst'd is still a vandal target and because it's frequently used to bypass the character limit the preferences enforces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, but I'm not pointing out a problem: I'm pointing out a possible new idea, as Netscott's method seems to bypass many of the concerns raised in the sig policy. AFAIK, substing is not disallowed, but is discouraged. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea though. I grant you that the makes a good case for doing things the way he does, but a little bit of HTML code (like a great many editors, including myself) have in their sigs isn't really going to be much of an inconvenience and the risk is that other editors might attempt to follow suit but do so less carefully. Basically, I don't think the minimal benefit is worth the risk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJM; your sig use the font-element, which is deprecated html (Ks0stm's sig uses font, too). At some point, MediaWiki will likely take to auto-replacing such code with either modern-css or a stripped-down, std-sig. WP:SIG does allow this, but sigs are a common source of bad code in talkie-pages. Most custom sigs are about seeking undue attention, and for this reason are to be discouraged. Jack Merridew 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Jack, you are using wild sigs yourself??? Access Denied – talk to me 03:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have several text files full of them; my sig in prefs is [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] Ya want one of the really big ones? Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me your biggets one. :-) Access Denied – talk to me 04:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. —Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Relax, it was intended to be humorous FASTILY (TALK) 04:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates does say subst is highly discouraged and I've pretty often said that I'm against all over-blown sigs. These two are not over the 255 limit, though. I'd be fine with the user skipping the whole subpage aspect and pasting whatever into prefs. The purpose of the subpages here does seem to be only about de-cluttering edit boxes, which is courteous. Most who use the subpage route are either seeking a way around the 255 or simply prefer a place they can preview their sig (Netscott is far more adept than most re templates). I expect Chase me came straight here because the user is not very active, of late. As I recall, it was TS and I who had a lot to do with imposing the 255 limit ;)
    Going all meta, I think we should shift away from customizable sigs completely and just have all go by a bulletproof/tamperproof mechanism that gives everyone the same format sig. Add it to mw:Extension:LiquidThreads and roll it out ;) Jack Merridew19 years, 7 months and 30 days 03:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But I like my teal sig! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UNDUEWEIGHT ;0 Colour, size, and other formatting in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution. (ok, I cheated and nicked that out of the part about images;). This is the core issue with all custom sigs. Cheers, Jack Merridew aka david 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows that you need a stylish username to stand out ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me a bunch of socks to arrive at this hyper-stylish username ;) Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WHY WERE YOU USING USERNAMES TO GIVE OUT iPHONE UDIDS??? Access Denied – talk to me 04:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Those had nothing to do with iPhones. See: globally unique identifier; they were throw-aways; I believe the passwords were of the same form. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I disagree, only because the general negative correlation between signature tackiness and general editor clue can be useful information when making a first impression. It saves lots of time when I know not to bother reading a comment left by someone with a two-line sig with neon orange background and <big></big> red script with "see all the damage I've caused" linking to their contribs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a lot of problematic users self-identify by their choice of sigs, and this certainly can be useful. It amount to signing 'kick-me', and if further analysis correlates, we do. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion on whether subst'ing is OK is a distraction; he wasn't subst'ing, on purpose; subst'ing would have defeat his whole purpose. I would have so say that ANI is particularly unsuited to a discussion of whether or not Netscott's arguments (on User talk:Netscott/s1.js) for doing what he did addresses all the reasons for having this rule; regardless of CMLITC's intentions, and regardless of the fact that he's edited 8 times in the last year, it's going to degenerate into a discussion of whether he's Violating The Rules As Written or not, and if so how he can be forced to do what he's Supposed To Do. If you really want to bring this up somewhere, I suggest WP:VPT instead, which is populated by people who are more likely to know whether his explanation makes sense or not. If he's right, if it really imposes no server load as long as he never changes the sig, then a discussion somewhere on whether to change the policy or not would be appropriate. If he's wrong, the knowledgeable people on VPT will quickly explain why, and I suppose his old sigs can be subst'ed by a bot if really necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure a server-load is incurred every time a talkie-page needs to be generated for serving; i.e. any time the conversion from the wiki-text (including any trancluded pages such as sigs) to xhtml occurs. Caching helps, but the servers are doing this repeatedly. As there's no urgency, I'd have no problem with shifting the to VPT. Cheers, Jack Merridew(techie;) 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Can I butt in here to say that (a) I don't understand half of what you are saying (not being conversant in Wiki-Geek-Speak), and (b) personally, I'd be happy if everyone just picked a name, in good old-fashioned 26-letter Roman, and stuck with it. Or even used nothing but Thai and hieroglyphics, as long as it was recognisable, didn't cause epileptic fits, and didn't suggest that the user was Lord High Banhammer of the Wikiverse (sorry, AccessDenied...). I'm inclined to think that the ostentatiousness of the signature is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the contributor. But then, with a name like mine, I would... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I mostly agree with you, although we allow non-Roman characters, of course. Jack Merridew 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      They are fun and a good way to have a little personal flair though. I do agree that the coding gets a little long. (and thanks jack for fixing the code on mine...more than once...) N419BH 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an incident, nor is the target readership here (for attention to this idea and supporting argument) just administrators. The Technical Village Pump exist for just this sort of thing. (And it won't be the first time that technical limitations on signatures have been discussed there.) Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and will hat it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing-ownership-edit warring issues at Vinny Faherty

    Hello. I wonder if someone might have a look at the editing of Vinny Faherty. Ever since this footballer signed for a new club in January 2010, editors both anon and registered have removed his previous club (Galway) playing stats, inserted false playing stats, and replaced any prose with a verbatim copy of the player's profile at his new club's website (first such edit). The page was briefly semi-protected in April, and then subject to pending changes review. A more recent addition to the disruptive editing was the insertion of an unsourced and dubious family relationship with a Danish footballer on my watchlist, which is how I noticed the page. I rewrote the copyvio and the addition of false stats had stopped, but User:Thesaint03 was determined that there was no need for any mention of Galway stats in the prose, suggesting at their talk page that having stats in the infobox is enough, and that reporting how many goals the player scored to become Galway's top scorer in 2009 in some way devalued or belittled both the player and Wikipedia. I started a thread at Talk:Vinny Faherty#Galway stats, invited that editor to comment, and asked for comments at WikiProject Football. Since then, the registered editor and anon Special:Contributions/86.40.127.27 continue to remove any content not added by themselves, whether relating to stats or not.

    I've notified User:Thesaint03, IP 86.40.127.27, and User:Exorcist Z, who has been reverting this stuff since April, and left a note at the article's talk page. Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia isn't a Fan Club. The user Thesaint03 and IP 86.40.127.27 must stop removing content and references from the article that was written by Struway2. The user Thesaints03 was notified several times but he hasn't stopped his disruptive edits (removing content and references; reverting a version agreed by various users) so he should be blocked, in my opinion. --Exorcist Z (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban request for — Fly by Night

    He is misusing the admin board to turn people against me.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=398230450"