Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:CodyJoeBibby: WP:NPA and WP:POINT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

CodyJoeBibby is taking a self-imposed MoMK hiatus until 10 May to study relevant guidelines and policies. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

---

In the last few hours, CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) has edited in a consistently disruptive and tendentious manner at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and its associated talk page. At various points, he has referred to other users collectively and in derogatory fashion as a "tag team" (in violation of WP:NPA), reverted the removal of a blatantly trivial piece of information so as to introduce insinuation in the article text (a dubious action with regard to WP:BLP - his intentions are clearly set out here, here and here), and, with consensus firmly against re-insertion of the text in question, threatened to remove other information from the article, in violation of WP:POINT (as can be seen here, here, here and here). Almost all the edits that this user has made in the last 24 hours seem to fall under the label of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and represent the latest in a whole series of uncivil edits (another recent example here) that seem to have made up the majority of CodyJoeBibby's contributions to Wikipedia since he created his account on 1st April. The history of his user talk page will reveal a large number of warnings and recommendations to refrain from attacking or insulting other users and causing other disruption - in particular, it has previously been made clear to this editor that resuming such activities would quite probably result in a block. Could one or more administrators please impress it on CodyJoeBibby that conduct of this sort, which includes pointed, ad hominem remarks, is unacceptable? Many thanks in advance. SuperMarioMan 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My patience with him is beyond frayed at this point, so I might be being a little harsh. But right now my view is that his contribution to the talk page and article is a huge net negative (generating acres of endless discussion and IDIDNTHEARTHAT stuff) and he is best simply topic banned from the page. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I only went as far as glancing at his Talk page. Several attempts at cautioning him regarding WP:NPA have been met with "I didn't attack anyone. Don't post here again.", or similar comments. And his recent Contribution history seems to be 100% focused on the single article, except for Talk page commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I have made very few edits to the article in question. The 'warnings' I have received have been mostly (not all) rude in tone and have been from heavily involved editors. I did not appreciate their aggressive nature. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)I agree that Cody's tack on this issue has been disruptive, but I don't see significant incivility issues with his posts. Cody seems to veer between being constructive and disruptive, so I suggest an official warning that if he continues to be disruptive, a block or topic ban may be necessary. We should try and push him towards contructive editing rather than push him away from Wikipedia. As some context, this article has been highly contentious and in the past many users who disagreed with a particular version of the article were indeffed at the suggestions of what seemed to be a group of editors who agreed with said version. Though the tone of discussions is now better than before, I'd rather not stir up old resentments with too heavy a hand here, especially as other disuptive editors (from a different camp) seem to get a pass.LedRush (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody has a lot of enthusiasm for this topic. He is a SPA, but so are many other editors on that talk page. For the most part, especially recently, nearly all of them are helpful. This is a difficult article to work on, with problems from earlier editing, controversial case, happening in a foreign country and editorial coverage in sources can be slanted by nationality. Cody seems to come with a strong POV towards the topic, and desires that the article more closely reflect that view. Editors that disagree with him are denigrated in his posts, making it unpleasant to work on the article. He seems to take some advice well, but I sometimes feel that happens only if it's from an editor that he thinks has a view similar to his. LedRush's suggestion of a warning from an uninvolved admin is warranted. The desire to push Cody towards good habits is laudable, but Cody has to see the problems others are pointing out before anything can change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not as though I'm repeatedly editing the article in defiance of what others may think. I've made a few edits, none of which have been more than a few words here or there. I have been involved in some robust discussion on the talk page, I don't deny it. I wouldn't say I'm uncivil. That's a fine line, I suppose. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that you haven't been uncivil? Really? What about this recent edit - entering a talk page discussion for the sole purpose of taking a shot at me using a petty and fallacious argument, even though multiple user talk page messages had warned you to moderate your self-expression? LedRush is quite understating the problems at hand with the assertion that there are no "significant incivility issues" here - there has been little assumption of good faith ever since Cody's first edit less than a month ago, and even now it is still scarce. Who exactly is "stirring up old resentments" in the first diff that I have linked? I'm in full agreement with Errant. One or more firm warnings is really the very least that is merited in this situation. SuperMarioMan 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBibby, saying something snarky and insulting and saying "no offence" and "thanks for your input" and trying to be subtle doesn't work. This is the kind of comment I'm referring to. Wikipedia is a collaboration and you have to make an attempt to work with other people, especially on a highly controversial subject. If you "wouldn't say you're uncivil" then that's a problem. -- Atama頭 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What this editor needs is a guideline on how to get out of a community decided indef block for disruption, assuming bad faith, personal attacks, refusing to get the point, not working with the community, refusing to take even well meant advise, etc.
Overall they are certainly not a positive asset to the article and it's talkpage.TMCk (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting here. As i said, I've made very few edits to the article. I've had considerable incivility and aggression directed towards me from the same group who are posting here requesting that I be banned. The same people have also repeatedly breached Wikipedia policy on the article in question. This occurred from day one of my Wikipedia career. But as a new editor, I don't really know how things work here. I didn't know where to report the aggression. Instead I may have reacted to those people on the talk page. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting? Really?
Quote:"I didn't know where to report the aggression."
I answered your question here so don't play the silly "I'm new here and don't know where to file complains" game.TMCk (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly an "over-reaction". With respect, Cody, your editing in general (at the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page in particular) does not demonstrate a reassuring trend. Furthermore, claiming "incivility" and "aggression" on the part of others, which I am inclined to doubt, does not address the quite obvious incivility and aggression that your edits have directed at other users. SuperMarioMan 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(ECx1)Non-Admin Nickel's worth of Advice You've wandered into one of the very contentious sections of Wikipedia with what appears to be a very significant collection of viewpoints already in your possession. The article in question is in the conservatorship of multiple editors that are familiar with both the subject matter and Wikipedia's Policies. For you to come in and repeatedly insert your own viewpoint, ignore advice from other editors, and to dismissively respond to concerns is why they are bringing this matter forward. Consider taking some time off to read the policies and understanding why people these problems with you. If you don't, you may find yourself banned from topics to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I perceive you yourself as unnecessarily aggressive and patronising in tone, SuperMarioMan. I do not appreciate the tone you have taken with me since the beginning of my stint on Wikipedia. It's a shame I didn't know I could report you to this noticeboard. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this does little to address your conduct, which is forming the basis of this discussion. It is rash to expect an agreeable tone from others when one edits in a disruptive and tendentious manner on multiple occasions, refusing to get the point and listen to sensible advice - there is a limit to the extent that good faith can be assumed. SuperMarioMan 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) CodyJoeBibby, consider that with this project being a collaboration that relies on consensus, you can't brush off others' comments about yourself. If everyone suggests that you're behaving improperly, the correct response is to ask for a clarification and request how to correct that behavior. To continually ignore such suggestions is to invite failure. You really can't function as a contributor if you refuse to listen to criticism. As an administrator, I'm not levying threats, but I'm trying to offer advice. If you ignore that, well, so be it. As to reporting others, please take a moment to read this. -- Atama頭 21:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved editor I support a topic ban. A WP:SPA who in a month has failed to grasp NPOV or NPA, and has made little positive input to the single article he is interested in. Would not be a noticeable loss if we topic banned him. --John (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As of today, I will take a voluntary two weeks' sabbatical to cool down and ensure I am fully conversant with all relevant Wikipedia policies. I will return to Wikipedia as an editor on this topic on 10th May 2011 if that is acceptable to the authorities. I have nothing further to say at this time. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good course of action. With this pledge, there seems to be little more to discuss here. SuperMarioMan 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I don't think it's wise to postpone this problem

• I strongly disagree with this closure. A SPA taking a two weeks brake to learn what they didn't learn in a month on-wiki is more likely to take a "vacation" to let things cool off and return with the same mindset. Since they didn't acknowledge any fault neither here nor in the past it is unlikely they'll do so in the very near future.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We can deal with it then. What seems to frustrate everyone involved is the editor's inability to accept criticism; basically WP:IDHT. They pledged to review our policies and guidelines before they began editing again. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Cody should be offered one final chance to re-evaluate his approach to editing at Wikipedia. If, on his return, he once again adopts a disruptive attitude, then it will be quite clear that a topic ban of some duration is required so as to minimise harm to the project. Given the most recent events at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (especially the absurd, overblown saga about some fruit juice, of all things), that would appear to be the only viable solution, should the incivility re-ignite. SuperMarioMan 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(2ECs)Didn't he acknowledge that he needs (a) to edit less passionately (to "cool down") and (b) learn more about Wikipedia policies? I think that is a step in the right direction, at least. Seeing as many of the editors commenting on this have been guilty of less civil comments than Cody is currently accused of (myself included), I think the real issue here was his disruptive posting in response to what he considered a misuse of WP policy. One would hope that after reviewing WP policies that he would see that he was in the wrong, as he might have implicitly done already [1], and he would understand why is positions were disruptive. If he comes back and makes mistakes, action can be taken then. Perhaps I am assuming too much good faith, but I don't see the harm in taking him at his word and hoping that his desire to learn more of Wikipedia's policies (and suggesting a two week self-imposed ban) is rooted in an acknowledgement that he needs to learn more to be more constructive.

Also, I don't see why a topic ban would be the automatic next course of action. I would rather wait and see how and to what extent he makes mistakes before prescribing punishments.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, the "extent he makes mistakes" is already quite large, and Cody has been given quite enough chances already. This really is the limit. His user talk page is filled with one warning after the next (and I'm not just talking about the ones that I've posted, either). Cody has been warned about the possibility of an ANI discussion as far back as 9th April, when he stated that he would endeavour to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What with today's various controversies at the talk page, it seems obvious that this never actually happened - whenever helpful links to policies are posted for him to look at, his response is often aggressive and derisive, yet here he admits that some close reading of relevant pages is needed. I don't think that a hypothetical topic ban would need to be indefinite, but it would have to be of some length. SuperMarioMan 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Any indef can be reversed at any time if the user can show that they understand and acknowledge what they did wrong in the past and pledge to not repeat those mistakes.TMCk (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing they have shown so far despite plenty of advise and warnings and I can't see a reason it would suddenly change after/because of two weeks being absent. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.TMCk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unless the red-link user is a sock, normally new users are given shorter blocks at first. If an editor picks up whether they left off after the block expires, the next one could be much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit the S-word occurred to me (the repeated references to how new they are prompted it at first) but I don't think that's what's happening here. I think it's a clash between a personality and the Wikipedia consensus culture, which is common enough. -- Atama頭 23:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that for sure, or much of anything, for that matter. I'm still trying to get my head around what the term "post-bone" means. Is that how to characterize a piece of meat that's been fileted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't really want to know. Trust me. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorta do. -- Atama頭 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the section header has now been de-boned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for you Bugs, just for you...TMCk (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You're too kind. :) Please note I added an "anchor" to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this in greater depth: since CodyJoeBibby is more or less an SPA (and with 200+ edits, all of which are related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, this is really just an uncontroversial statement of fact), a topic ban would probably be tantamount to a block anyway - I'm not sure what else he would want to edit outside such a restriction. As such, I see how a short block could serve as a better remedy if the incivility resumes. On a side note, I've seen nothing to suggest that the user is a sockpuppet or that there is meatpuppetry at work here. Cody is an independent editor; unfortunately, his strong opinions about the subject matter have spilled over into his editing of the article and the talk page, and have led to frequent caustic remarks that achieve little except to poison the talk page atmosphere. SuperMarioMan 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruption

Another personal attack (which repeats the "tag team" allegation) here, made despite the user's promise to step back for a while. SuperMarioMan 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that a disruption, just an unnecessary accusation, hopefully made in good faith, which I am also willing to extend to him. Hopefully, he will take the suggestion to refrain from making further accusations for now. BelloWello (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded accusations seem quite disruptive to me (here's another one), and when one assesses Cody's contributions over the last three weeks, I find it difficult to believe that there is good faith. SuperMarioMan 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further tendentiousness, going against the earlier pledge to become familiarised with policies and guidelines. SuperMarioMan 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SMM, would you please just lay off his case? Frankly, to me, you're causing as much of a disruption as he is, which is to say, not much of one. Please just stop egging him on with your little comments. BelloWello (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I doubt that, but certainly I'll heed your request. Apologies, and regards, SuperMarioMan 17:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BelloWello (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I take offense at this SPA's accusation and the immediate breach of his promise to stay away from this area and I now request a topic ban.--John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

On the basis that this user has:

• Not contributed anything constructive towards our project
• Shown no understanding of our core principles, nor any sign of trying to acquire such understanding
• Is only interested in one subject
• Continues to insult and abuse other editors
• Seems only to want to argue
• Has a definite agenda they want to pursue, regardless of what others think
• Promised to avoid this area but then immediately broken their promise

I propose that User:CodyJoeBibby be topic-banned indefinitely from this area, broadly construed. Any support? --John (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The user participates in talk page discussion and simply needs to be given time to understand policies rather than getting attacked each and every time he does something. We shouldn't be WP:BITEing newcomers. The user does not seem to only want to argue, and I would say almost every editor in that section has an opinion on it. (I couldn't care less, I've only been attracted by the numerous ANI threads...) I may support this if the topic ban extends for a week, and only includes the article, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How much time? How many times does he need to be told? Seriously, he's been asked by multiple editors to tone it down. From his posts this week, he frankly doesn't give a damn. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I may support it if it was for a limited time and only from editing the article itself, not the talk page. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This proposed topic ban is idiotic. I'm already on a voluntary timeout from the MoMK article and talk page until 10th May. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Although not against policy, calling someone's proposal idiotic wouldn't be advisable given your circumstances, Cody. BelloWello (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Am i in violation of my self imposed timeout from the MoMK article and talk page by posting on this noticeboard, as John is claiming? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your statement saying you would take a "sabbatical" does not specify whether you're taking a sabattical from wikipedia as a whole or just the article. It seems some editors (myself included) when they first read that took that to imply that you would take a break from all of wikipedia, however, you did not implicitly say that. Hence, now that you've clarified you only meant it to mean the article and talk page in question, no you are not. BelloWello (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That does nothing to excuse the fresh incivility, though, does it? From his first edit to his most recent, all I can see are attacks, insults, smears, and insinuations. SuperMarioMan 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A user's first edit really seems irrelevant. I'm not sure why we're trying to WP:BITE a newbie here. BelloWello (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - WP:SPAs need to be pried away from this topic area if it has any hope of being managed. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That doesn't provide a rationale about this specific user. BelloWello (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does. Users who come here to zealously advocate for a single topic are not valuable or constructive additions to the project. When their behavior becomes too problematic in their single topic area of choice, then the best course is to simply remove them from it. Tarc (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Total contempt for policies and guidelines, such as that expressed in the "idiotic" comment above, would seem to constitute a decent enough rationale. SuperMarioMan 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. Far too many excuses are being made for a whole catalogue of uncivil edits. It is quite plain now that this user will not be persuaded to contribute in good faith unless some form of restriction is imposed. As far as I can tell, the user has offered not a single edit to any topic outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and his strong POV has blatantly compromised his ability to be productive. This has dragged on long enough. SuperMarioMan 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you were politely requested earlier to stay off my case, SuperMarioMan, and you agreed to do so. It doesn't look good when you immediately violate that agreement in a further attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue that one hardly needs any excuse to impose a topic ban, actually - the edits that you have made speak for themselves. It is this persistent refusal to listen to good advice that has made it practically impossible to engage in any form of meaningful discussion with you. SuperMarioMan 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that he has shown himself willing to listen to advice, even when he disagrees, if he is approached in an amicable manner, something most on that page have failed to do. An example can be seen here, this is also my experience so far. BelloWello (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does one small positive really outweigh a whole load of serious negatives? My experience so far is unfortunately rather different to yours. SuperMarioMan 19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering all I've seen you do is constantly trade accusations with him, I'm not too surprised he would respond differently. Furthermore, making dishonest allegations as you did below isn't conducive to editing amicably with the editor. BelloWello (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My point is that you were asked to step back by another editor from engaging in a hostile manner with me. You promised to do so, then immediately broke the promise. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that you made a promise to re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPA, before returning to contribute to this project. Is this badgering of my "strong support" vote supposed to make the opinions that I have expressed any less valid? SuperMarioMan 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, he did not promise to take a break from wikipedia. He promised to take a "sabbatical" but did not specify that it would be from wikipedia as a whole, he meant it to mean just that article and talk page. Saying he broke his promise is dishonest. BelloWello (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting hairs. I note once more that no refutation has been offered with regard to the concerns about uncivil editing. There are only so many excuses that can be made - please give it a rest. SuperMarioMan 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You made a dishonest attack on the editor. That isn't very civil. BelloWello (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - We just discussed this above. Are we going to bring this up again and again until we get the result that certain editors want? Let's give him time to review the policies during his 2-week topic ban (self imposed) and see then. I don't understand this huge rush for action now, especially as the discussion has already concluded.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has broken his self-imposed "topic ban" within 24 hours, and in an uncivil manner at that. Note also the phrasing "I will return to Wikipedia as an editor on this topic" (see the end of the hatted section above). As I understand it, this should have meant refraining from discussions about the topic at all venues, including WP:ANI (formal topic bans are precisely that - a ban on discussing the topic at all venues). SuperMarioMan 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still making a dishonest smear against an editor. He technically is not editing the topic, and has gone even further and not edited the talk page. He even refused to post a source I asked him to post on the talk page because of his previous statement. It seems someone is acting in good faith, I can't say the same about another person in this conversation... BelloWello (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He has openly debated proposed content intended for the article at this page, which violates the conditions of the "sabbatical" in spirit if not in letter (as in "technically editing the topic"). His first edit today repeated a recent personal attack. Furthermore, even the briefest overview of Cody's general editing pattern makes nonsense of the idea that he is editing in "good faith". Please keep this discussion on-topic, about the conduct of the user. SuperMarioMan 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't be editing or posting on the article talk page for 2 weeks. I promised to review Wikipedia policies in the mean time. Can't you be happy with that? I feel like you're persecuting me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Other users here have invited User:CodyJoeBibby to continue discussion at ANI, including at another thread "#Expansion: Murder of Meredith Kercher" where it was noted this user was 1 of 2 who had been contacted about a different ANI thread, and now the same user who noted CodyJoeBibby was contacted, about ANI plans, wants to issue a topic-ban for replying in the same ANI thread where the user was mentioned. I say let User:CodyJoeBibby continue the 2-week self-imposed break at MoMK, but also allow editing of other articles, or discussions on this ANI page, to learn more about WP policies, guidelines, and admin actions. We should continue to WP:WELCOME our new users. -Wikid77 22:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment After one month and ~250 edits, CodyJoeBibby is no longer a "new user". By this time, most folks have figured out what it is we do here. --John (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This user contributes and attempts to bring facts to the article. The tones I have seen carried by all sides. This is to be about editing an article, need I say the word "playground" again? Mr. Wales has took noticed of all the hostility on this article. It is that type of article, and there are no innocent here, this constant pointing the finger attitude is absurd. Now grow up and edit if your here to edit, if not do not keep playing a game. I would hope that many of the ones I see posting here would get involved as well. If one needs a topic ban they all need it. Thank you kindly. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: From the "opposes" listed so far, I see little refutation of John's opening points, but much understatement of CodyJoeBibby's actions. WP:BITE and WP:WELCOME would carry more weight had the user indicated more willingness to listen to recommendations. Claims about a "different ANI thread" are irrelevant to this particular discussion - is there anything to disprove the above concerns regarding WP:SPA, WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE and WP:GREATWRONGS? Responding to such points with attempts to redirect the subject of the discussion onto other users does not address the matter at hand. This is not the first occasion that the user has promised to research policies and guidelines before making further contributions, only to resume uncivil and unproductive editing on their return. As for the content dispute which led the incivility, and then to this WP:ANI discussion, despite universal rejection of the proposed content and countless explanations being made, his latest edits (up to his last) indicate that his views persistently remain unchanged and I see little hope that two weeks of self-imposed restriction will do much to change things. SuperMarioMan 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to give this a rest now, SuperMarioMan. This is starting to look like a fight where the only person fighting is you. You already have my pledge. Please find something else to do. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

On 9th April, you stated that you would "have to ensure I'm more familiar with the rules as I don't want any trouble". Since that pledge has not materialised, and given recent edits, I'm not inclined to trust that this one will. SuperMarioMan 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually give me the chance to take my voluntary timeout and further research Wikipedia policies. You don't give me much time for anything apart from engaging with your endless stream of comments directed at me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose A number of editors here and their "underlings' (for lack of a more accurate term)are entirely too thin skinned. It may simply be a clash of British and American cultures, but a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack.. This is a very contested subject both here and out in the world. Emotions run hot at times.. Banning, topic or general, is not the 'go to', preferred remedy.. though its been used that way in the past by admins that wanted to be rid of opposing voices.. I think unless there's a clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone) , a simple word of warning or at most a 24 hour block to let things cool down would be an appropriate and measured response. I strongly oppose blocking CodyJB as being far too severe a punishment. Tjholme (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "a few sarcastic or disrespectful comments do not make a threat or an attack". Quite an understatement, especially when "sarcastic or disrespectful comments" are made repeatedly. What is it about edits like these that makes them excusable? Feel free to answer and refute the concerns placed at the top of the section, but please don't cite past events as a defence of some sort, when none of the administrators referred to are participating here. As for a "clear ad hom attack on a fellow editor (more than a snide, a snark or a condescending tone)", is an edit like this the sort of thing you had in mind? SuperMarioMan 14:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• So far, all of the opposes are from the opposing side of the topic area. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I have removed and edited much information from the article by the newer editors who want to include more information about the controversy, I have publicly and privately come out against certain disruptive and uncivil actions by such editors, and I have consistently worked with all editors who are willing to engage in constructive and civil dialog; I don't see myself as coming from a "side" of this discussion other than making sure the article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Secondly, if we are going to choose "sides", wouldn't your comment be more accurate about all of the "supports"? Instead of trying to figure out whose side everyone is on, why don't we just discuss Cody's edits and the best way to deal with them?LedRush (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that this topic be closed as I am already on a voluntary timeout from editing the MoMK page or posting on its talk page until 10th May. Attempting to block an editor who is already on a voluntary timeout is extremely combative. Questions need to be raised about such behaviour. I would prefer not to be posting on Wikipedia at all until 10th May, and as long as nobody comments about me i will not do so. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Recommendation that this thread be closed. No admin action is likely forthcoming this time around. There is too much focus, energy and I daresay, emotions surrounding the many numerous threads happening here and on various talk pages concerning the topics of the article Murder of Meredith Kercher. All of that energy could be used to improve the article or other tasks on Wikipedia. I would recommend that parties break it off for now and let's see if a time for peace can be achieved. Allow AGF for Cody even if you think he doesn't deserve it. If, after he returns on May 10, he persists in the same behavior then his rope will be shorter with the expectations that he will abide by our policies. If he violates them, we can readdress this then...in the meantime, let's do something constructive. (To Cody) I recommend that you cease editing immediately...continuing to post here & elsewhere on Wiki is actually perpetuating that which you want to cease.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as a major contributor to this discussion, I'll second all of that, even though the concerns at the top of this section have received no actual rebuttal. For one last time, I am willing to extend good faith - from this point on, further disregard for editing norms will be indefensible. SuperMarioMan 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• @ Cody regarding their last post and others: I would (out of experience) recommend a clear pledge that could look like the following:
  "I hereby pledge not to make edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case until May 10. I reserve the right to respond in case my name is mentioned to respond to it at a users talkpage, at WP:ANI or another appropriate conflict-resolving venue. Furthermore, my pledge is not extended to other unrelated articles if I choose to edit those while I'm trying to get familiar with WP policies."
  I think that would help a lot and you would have my support to close this thread after such clarity (in your pledge) and AGF, it never has to be reopened.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a well-worded proposal (I've tweaked a couple of words - e.g. "approbate" to "appropriate"). SuperMarioMan 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SMM - I've read the comments that you cite. I dont see an attack. I see frustration in Cody's comments. I would suggest that Cody simply be asked to tone down the snark and keep the discussion friendly (sort of).. and we all just let this issue go and get back to butting heads over the MoMK article rather than this distraction. Smartassery is not (or at least shouldnt be) a banning offense. Tjholme (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No need. I would strongly discourage Cody from taking such a pledge. There is no reason to throw a bone to those who seem determined to drag your screen-name through the mud. BelloWello (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we just let Cody respond to my last post and decide for themselves? I don't think further discussion is needed until they do so (and I've left a note on their talkpage so they're are aware of this).TMCk (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User Tom94022 editing against consensus and being disruptive

User:Tom94022 is editing against consensus on Hard disk drive. Five editors there over the last four days, supported by two other editors have collaboratively produced text on the Capacity section (perma-link). After a three-day absence off of Wikipedia, Tom94022 posted #A plea for sanity on the talk page, accused the rest of us as being thought police (∆ edit here) and did a wholesale revision of the consensus text (∆ 1). One of the editors who had been active in the four-day-long rewrite and who is adept at seeking compromise (User:Diego Moya) moved material from the body text to footnotes in an attempt to seek compromise. Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus (∆ 2, ∆ 3, ∆ 4, ∆ 5).

Tom94022 has a long history of POV-pushing and the notion of “thought police” could not be further from the truth. A (lengthy) reading of the article’s talk page will reveal that Tom94022 and User:RaptorHunter have long used Wikipedia as a means of promoting a proposal (in clear violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT) put forth from a standards body over 12 years ago for new ways to denote computers (“A 2 GiB DIMM card”). That proposal clearly didn’t catch on in the real world. The rest of us are trying to give an encyclopedic treatment to explain the simple reality of the current practice and how the different slightly definitions of terms like “GB” came to be. Tom94022’s arguments are tendentious, as one would expect they would be when an editor insists upon getting their way on something when the rest aren’t buying into the arguments. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like it wasn't the last 10²⁴ times it was brought here, ANI is not the appropriate venue to seek sanctions related to the utterly tedious war over the use of SI units on that article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris, as I will explain below this doesn't have much to do with IEC Binary Prefixes but is all about explaining the current reporting of HDD capacity and Greg Ls disruptive behavior. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- The complaint that is being brought here appears to be that Tom is engaging in tendentious editing against wp:consensus. That sort of complaint is relatively normal fare for this board, in my experience. While it is true that RFC/U could arguably be an alternative place to discuss the issue, I believe it is the better course for editors to not generally jump immediately to that forum, but rather seek first to address here if possible.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI is the proper place to go when an editor is editing against consensus. The proper remedy (seeking sanctions) can’t be withheld merely because an editor is successful at being so tendentious that the reaction of uninvolved editors is that it is a “tedious war”. I can’t fathom the reasoning underlying such a reaction. Moreover, Wikipedia’s policies are perfectly clear. Failure to sanction in the face of tendentiousness would self-referentially result in even more of that sort of thing. No editor may edit against consensus and then resort to becoming extra tendentious as a tactic to be able to do so with impunity.

And laying low for the heat to blow over is also not a valid tactic—even though it is an often-succesfull one. Greg L (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L talk is close to being now in violation of the 3RR:

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]

He seems to think that any editing that he does not like is editing against consensus. The particular two sentences I have attempted to correct came into existence recently and were not subject too much if any discussion. I have attempted to explain the several edits here and here but all Greg L does is state it is his opinion of what is consensus. Note that my edit to remove what several editors thought was unnecessary ("Greg L's text goes into a lot of unnecessary detail about 20th century history ..." and "I support this reduction") has reached a compromise where the unnecessary detail is now in a footnote. Greg L reverted without discussion. The remaining dispute is over which sentence is more encyclopedic.

Greg L's preferred sentence

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry (storage) dates back to the early days of computing with examples of magnetic-core memory of 10,000 memory locations.[20][21

As I have explained in several places this sentence is a non-sequitor, the practice of the hard drive industry has nothing to do with magnetic core memory practice nor do the footnotes relate to the HDD industry. Greg L does not discuss but repeatedly reverts. It actually is a corruption of an earlier construction where two sentences were merged into one, creating the non-sequitor. The continuously reverted proposed replacement which is almost verbatim the original sentence is

Proposed replacement

The practice of using prefixes assigned to powers of 1000 within the hard drive industry dates back to the early days of computing.

If you take the time to read thru the history you will find that Greg L is pedantic, uncivil and threatening and has been frequently chastised by other editors for such behavior, as for example:

• "WTF?!? Do you behave this way in real life, Tom? What did your mother do when you behaved like this?? ... Greg L (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, continue like this and the only Nintendo time being taken away will be yours. —Ruud 05:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Greg, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Tom is a valued editor here, and we welcome his input.--RaptorHunter (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• ...@Greg -- while I understand your upset, perhaps there is a gentler way with which to communicate with Tom, that might serve to "reach" him. Though I'm sure I don't know what it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Greg I advise you to remember WP:CIVIL. Threatening editors you disagree with is not acceptable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:53,

and

• Greg you don't WP:OWN, this article and your tone is bordering on incivility. The section had grown far too long and I agree with Tom that this subject can be far better covered by the binary prefix article. ... --Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

and

• Indeed. Tom94022’s logic is self-serving rhetoric that would vanish into thin air if he turned off the reality distortion field surrounding it. ... Greg L (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

and many threats like this

• If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia like this, you can count on being the subject of a well-deserved ANI in a kibisecond. Greg L (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

and too many claims of consensus where none really existed.

I would also note that there are a number of misleading statements in Greg L ANI request.

1. This has nothing to do with IEC Binary Prefixes, but is all about the conventional binary prefixes and the IEC decimal prefixes. Greg L's entire second paragraph is a smoke screen and should be ignored.
2. What Greg L states is "Unhappy with compromise, Tom94022 changed tactics and simply started to remove text—from the citations now—against consensus" is my trying to respond to his repeated reversions of the sentence described above by clarifying what I was changing and why. Rather than my edits being against consensus, he has not allowed any time for any other editor to comment on the proposed change. Again he seems to think that any change he doesn't like is a change against consensus without giving other editors time to respond.
3. A careful look at my original revision will show that rather than being a "wholesale revision" it was a carefully constructed change to a relatively few places, the most predominant being the removal "unnecessary detail" which then by consensus was ultimately removed to a footnote. A lot of it was cleaning up inconsistent terminology, by using powers of xxxx consistently in place of the several variants used. Again Greg L reverted without considering the merits or trying to improve the article.

Greg L is guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia policies, particularly disruptive editing as witnessed by his violation of the 3RR rule, his use of WP:JDLI and his shouting in the Hard disk drive article and associated talk page. A casual view of the changes to the article and its talk page will show his domination of both the recent edits and comments (I will shortly post some statistics). I request he be given a 7 day suspension so that we editors who are trying to produce a better article can do it. Tom94022 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Three reverts is NOT a 3RR violation - yet. Please read where it says "more than three" at WP:3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• No kidding. What sort of complaint was that? It amounts to a “Pay no attention to those five edits behind the curtain that I (Tom94022) made.” Greg L (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greg L's history regarding this sort of war is years old. It's not going to get resolved at ANI. There is little point in pleading such a complicated case here. It's going to either need to go to a more formal venue. FWIW, there's literally no danger of anyone dragged to ANI by Greg L under the rationale of a dispute regarding SI digits being sanctioned, so I would simply ignore threats like that in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the man (Chris) doth protest too much about Greg L to deflect. What is at issue here is editing against consensus by Tom94022.

A simple reading of the Talk:Hard disk drive article, and the lengths to which User:Diego Moya went in a vain effort to placate Tom94022 over the consensus text reveals the full truth easily enough. Five editors with the full support of two other editors who weighed in on the talk page spent three or four days peaceably writing collaboratively to produce the current consensus text. Then Tom94022 tendentiously demanded that things all wrong (which happens all the time on that talk page) tendentiously edited against consensus (throughout today), and did so with absurd baiting about how the community responsible for the text there is the thought police. This is highly and purely disruptive. Tom94022 simply must respect the community consensus but currently has zero such respect; he continually denies a consensus even exists (underlying I suppose, the basis for the charge that the five editors responsible for the text are “thought police”).

In the mean time, Diego is working (again) and revising the text, although I think Tom94022 will be even more displeased with this latest effort. Greg L (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Chris -- I wonder if just possibly a focus on the complaint, rather than an ad hominem remark as to the complainant, might yield somewhat more light and less heat? Perhaps I am reading your posting incorrectly, and if so I apologize, but it appears to reflect a personal issue that you have, and contain predictions that are not quite on point with whether there has been editing here against wp:consensus. Where there is a violation of wp:consensus, as is charged here, it would seem to me that perhaps it would be best to look at the facts, rather than disparage the complainant and seek to dismiss the matter due to what you apprehend as its level of complexity. The prediction that you make that nobody -- which presumably includes people who violate wp:consensus -- leaves me confused. I would suggest that we all try to strip out any ad hominem personal comments, and focus on the matter at hand, to see if there is in fact a violation of wp:consensus, and tendentious editing. If there is, we should determine the way to correct that.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was arguing with Tom on that article long before you arrived, Greg. My only concern is your repeated use of ANI to soapbox over your current pet MOS issue, which wastes my time and that of others over something which has screamed "content dispute" for years regardless of what angle its participants take in bringing it up here. Seek a more formal resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be that a more formal resolution is called for, if this AN/I does not address the problem. IMHO we introduce more heat than light here when we toss around phrases such as "your current pet MOS issue". That suggests that the editor using the phrase is engaging in ad hominem baiting, rather than focusing on the issue at hand. I know that Chris is far better than that, so perhaps there is some personal animus clouding his responses, but that unfortunately erodes the point he seeks to make. All editors, but sysops especially per wp:admin, are best served by focusing on the content, and avoiding personal attacks that only confuse the issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for an administrator too look through Greg's comments and behavior for the last few days. He is becoming increasingly tendentious and uncivil. All of this drama is wasting everyone's time. A topic ban is in order.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, the talk page and the edit history of the article speaks for itself and presents the real truth of the matter. It is quite clear that Tom94022 has been flagrantly editing against a clear consensus. Moreover, the edit history of Binary prefix article (where both Tom94022 and RaptorHunter spend a great deal of time) plus their tag-teaming on the Hard disk drive article makes it exceedingly clear what RaptorHunter’s motives are here. That RaptorHunter recently suffered a 24-hour block for a 3RR violation after an ANI I brought against him for canvassing to subvert an RFC over this very same article makes it clear he now has an axe to grind and is not impartial here. Greg L (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Where is the correct forum to get help about an editor (Tom94022) who watches consensus-built editing over a five day period, and then blithely steps back in and undoes the work?  GFHandel.   23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your pejorative description of my editing adds nothing here. I too have a life and cannot always provide real time editing. If you look at my proposed edits I think you will find that most of what I proposed has been adopted regardless of the sturm and drang of Greg L. And for the most part, only Greg L has bothered to comment and then in a dismissive way with little or no discussion of the issues i raised. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I offer the following analysis of the last 499 edits to the Hard disk drive article and its associated talk page

	Greg L	Tom94022
Number of edits to article	125 #1 of 134 editors	27 #5
Net characters added to article	-174	1874
Number of edits to talk page	280 #1 of 25 editors	30 #3
Net characters added to talk page	103,677 of 193,344	23,640

}

The statistics support my contention that Greg L is shouting down other editors and that the amount of my edits has been reasonable, certainly far less than Greg L's. Tom94022 (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• (*sigh*) More smoke & mirrors. First off, you and I have very different writing styles; I tend to make many multiple tweaks to my own posts so edit counts isn’t a valid measure of anything. Between you and RaptorHunter (who tag-team like two dogs on a porcupine on all-things IEC prefixes), you two have 89 posts on the talk page there to my 100, so your “shouting down”’ defense crumbles. Moreover, your posts have the luxury of being short ones that throw out non-factual assertions whereas my posts tend to be longer and logically laid out to dispute them. So it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am one of the seven members of the consensus group. But this difference in approach to discussing things on the talk page is one of the handicaps that patient editors labor under when dealing with tendentious editors such as yourself. So please desist with the “Greg L has smelly arm pits”-defense, Tom94022.

  Now, were you are were you not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article today? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus.

  And please also, while you’re at it, enlighten us as to how your five edits today do not somehow constitute a 3RR violation and why you thought it wise to jump up and down shouting the Warner Brothers’-equivalent of “Shot him! SHOOT HIM!” while pointing to my three revertings as if those somehow exceeded 3RR?? Not only were you editing against consensus, you were edit warring in clear excess of what is allowed. My smelly armpits and all notwithstanding, you’re not supposed to do that. It’s quite interesting to watch you employ the ol’ “The best defense is an absurdly false offense” strategy. Greg L (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• The above analysis does not 'prove' anything. One naturally expects the 'leading contributor' in terms of edits of such a dynamic article be equally active on the talk page, or it might indicate a problem of editing by bulldozer. The figures are inconclusive, at best. I'm afraid the conclusion drawn from the "analysis" is thus utterly fallacious. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• If we were to use data for all edits, it seems that Tom is the leading contributor by sheer number of edits over time, having twice as many edits as the next contributor; OTOH, his activity on the talk page is the exact reverse. Applying the same fallacious logic used in the analysis above, one might suggest that Tom has a "great affinity" with the article, and talks less than he is inclined to force his way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Please note that my 257 edits to the article began on April 16, 2006 whereas GregL's 125 edits began on April 9, 2011. Also you did not report that the other editor on both pages is none other than GregL! I am first and he is second in article edits while he is first and I am second in discussion edits! It really is unfair to compare my work over five years to his work over 24 days. I suggest this further proves he is shouting down discussion because he just doesn't like it.

• Of course that's all smoke and mirrors. As an example of the disruptive editing going on, consensus was reached that the table in the article didn't need to show the IEC units, and then (unbelievably) Tom94022 created a section advocating a table with the IEC units—with the comment "I hope we could achieve consensus on this version of the table"! It staggers belief, but gives a wonderful insight into the world of anti-consensus and tenacious editing happening at the article. Tom94022's only other support now is RaptorHunter—who divides his time between chipping-in lame comments and vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page. It's such a pity that hard-working, capable, and experience editors have to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense.  GFHandel.   02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about smoke and mirrors, its hard to see how posting a proposal on a discussion page when it was not clear that consensus had been reached. This ANI is about the reasonable changes I made to the Capacity section. It is such a pity that I, a hard-working, capable, and experience editor has to spend so much time dealing with this nonsense. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If any administrator is going to consider this ANI, I would like to have the time to prepare an annotated diff of the change in question to demonstrate the absurdity of GregLs reversions. Unfortunately I am going to be off the net for perhaps two days so I ask that no decision be made until then. Also I note that GregL's meatpuppet Glider87 reverted my proposed change to the article without any discussion other than IJDLI. FWIW, and as GregL knows, when I use the term "IEC Binary Prefix Thought Police" or its contraction "thought police" I am referring to GregL, Fnag and Glider87, who collectively act as single subject matter meatpuppets to each other on the subject of IEC Binary Prefixes. Tom94022 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom, it’s very simple and is so often the case with you, you’ve done your very best to cloud the issues with a litany of imagined grievances of the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. You and RaptorHunter have long tried to use Wikipedia in violation of WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT to promote a standard the computing world mostly ignores. That is ending and you best stop fighting it.

  When this whole issue was being settled on MOSNUM in March of 2008 and a widely advertised RfC was being conducted, there your dissenting voice was on Binary Archive #9, time after time at odds with the consensus view. You wanted Wikipedia to continue being the laughing stock of the planet with text such as The Dell Dimension 4550 came stock with 256 MiB of memory. The community did not see it that way. You and RaptorHunter have continued to use tendentious tag-teaming to intimidate the tar out of others who (*sigh*) and just go to less frustrating articles.

  You’ve been badgering everyone on Talk:Hard disk drive to get the IEC prefixes (Porky PIgs like “kibibibibytes that’s all folks”) in a table in that article. All sorts of arguments and misinformation have been raised by you two, which has been meticulously proven false.

  It’s simple: The consensus of the editing community is that if the IEC prefixes are discussed, it will be something along the lines of “Some standards organization proposed unique prefixes and symbols to uniquely denote powers of 1024 but the computing world has for the most part ignored them over the last 12 years.” That’s it. The community has no stomach for using them in a table in an “Oh… Didn’tcha know??”-fashion. It can not be helped that you don’t like that; chaos would reign supreme on Wikipedia if dissenting voices could perpetually wreak havoc. You have to give up on this.

  Now, it appears that admins were reluctant to step in and mete out a quick 24-hour block on you to put a stop to your editwarring against consensus. That you wisely stopped acting up there and threw up a bunch of smoke & mirrors here accomplished two things: A) allowed the planet to rotate until the sun rose in other lands and give others an opportunity to restore the article, and B) you seem to have avoided a block on your record. Please don’t perceive that outcome as fate smiling upon a slimy weaseling tactic where you can just come back four days from now and continue with your badgering at everyone over on that article about how Greg L sucks and is mean and very bad and people who agree with him MUST be meatpuppets and he writes looooong posts to disprove crap I allege and others have to agree with him (but really don’t) and the IEC prefixes rule and we should use them here on Wikipedia often and discuss them even more frequently, all the while extolling the IEC prefixes’ wholesome goodliness to our readers who shall spread across the land and walk into computer stores using such language and they will write letters to computer manufacturers demanding they use these units of measure too! We don’t agree, WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT are perfectly clear on this, WP:MOSNUM provides sensible and unambiguous guidance on how to deal with this issue, we’re are sick of it, and find your continuing persistence to be tendentious and disruptive.

  The reality and facts of the matter are clear, the RSs are highly consistent, and Wikipedia’s policies are even clearer. If you keep on editing against consensus, only bad ‘cess will come of it. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tom is required to abide by wp:consensus. After reading through all the above, it's a pretty simple issue. Tom is not abiding by wp:consensus. It would appear from even Tom's most recent post above that he either: a) fails to understand the guideline, or b) more likely, willingly flouts it. His reasoning is the last refuge of all who dislike the consensus at any matter on wp -- an assertion that the consensus view is a cabal. This is open-and-shut. Tom has to abide by wp:consensus, even when he dislikes the result, just as the rest of us do. His continued flouting of the guideline, which appears to have been continuing for some time now, is not an acceptable approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor is the steamrollering representing the opposite viewpoint. This is simply not ANI material, no matter how well-rehearsed the arguments on one side are. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well… do tell: what is the proper venue when when an editor violates 3RR and editwars against consensus? I thought ANI is the place. Given your first post here, Chris (20:02, 27 April 2011) you don’t feel ANI the place if it’s an issue you find to be “utterly tedious”. Please explain what guideline or policy on Wikipedia effectively states “if the issue has been persistent and exceedingly tedious, then do nothing and it somehow gets *better*.” That’s fallacious logic and if Wikipedia operated with that sort of attitude, the whole place would descend into chaos. Now I’m curious: please advise to the significance of the pirate hat on your user page. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the last few days Greg has been inserting massive amounts of text that do nothing more than replicate information already present on the binary prefix article. When Tom tried to prune some of that back, Greg reverted claiming a lack of "consensus". [5] This is nothing more than 1 editor drowning out more reasonable voices by putting in hundreds of kilobytes worth of text on the talk page and massively editing the hard drive article with information that simply doesn't belong there. There is no consensus here. In fact the only consensus generated on the talk pages was a long RFC [6] which showed a strong majority saying that table explaining the difference between binary and SI prefixes was acceptable under WP:MOSNUM. Unfortunately, most editors don't have the time or the energy that Greg has, so the table was replaced. Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it, he was brought up on WP:ANI. The only solution to these constant incident reports is to topic ban all of the die hard editors from the hard drive article and let cooler heads prevail.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• RaptorHunter’s allegations are simply untrue. His personalizing (“Greg L” did such ‘n’ such) ignores the truth. Five editors worked on that section: Greg L, Woodstone, Diego Moya, A.di M., and SWTPC6800, who spent much-valued time researching the facts and providing background on the talk page and provided citations. That group of five also enjoyed the support of two more editors who made their opinions known (including my “meatpuppet”, Fnagaton). As such, it was the product of a collaboration.

  As for “massive amounts of text”, that too is false and he knows it. That section grew from 367 words in the body text, chart, and captions, to 521 today—hardly “massive”.

  As for RaptorHunter’s When Tom tried to prune some of that back… and Now after several days of editing by Greg, the Hard drive article has turned grown massively. When Tom attempted to fix it,… Really? Tom tried to fix “massiveness”? His version had 668 words in the body text and chart. That was a growth of 2 words from the 666 the article was at after User:A.di M. had finished with it. So Tom94022’s effort at fixing “massiveness” came up far short of this objective that RaptorHunter says he supposedly had. These are the *inconvenient* truths.

  “Massive” obviously was not the problem there; the problem is that what the community added is not pleasing to RaptorHunter nor to Tom94022 and they wanted what pleased them to be there notwithstanding that seven other editors wanted. Pure and simple.

  A thoroughly unbiased editor, User:Diego Moya has been editing the text trying to seek compromise between the consensus parties and Tom94022. It appears even he became quite frustrated when Tom94022 started being insistent on getting his way and revoked a compromise solution he had been working on in preference for something more akin to the consensus text.

  RaptorHunter: You should have known better than come in here and post that whopper when you were either entirely ignorant of the true facts or were desirous to overlook the facts and misrepresent the truth. Wikipedia works by consensus; you and Tom94022 need to get that figure out or you are bound for endless frustration with what seems like a world that conspires against you. Greg L (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, simply untrue, but it is amazing how RaptorHunter can appear to be rational—when the mood takes.  GFHandel.   20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Attacking other editors here will get you nowhere GFHandel. You already tried dragging me to ANI three times and nothing happened. This isn't helping your case. It's just wasting everyone's time.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't three times by the way, and this page is about dealing with behavioural issues—which is an area in which you demonstrate a wide variety of actions (see above links). "Nothing happened"—really? You stopped vandalizing Jimbo Wales' home page—something for which we are all grateful. As you are aware, many other editors have also taken the time to help you by posting on your talk page: and I thank them for making the effort to help you act more constructively in a collaborative environment such as is required on WP.  GFHandel.   21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[7] - You didn't like how i ordered my talk page posts.

[8] - then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs. Greg and GFHandel are using WP:ANI to attack editors that disagree with them on the hard drive article. These ANI incidents never go anywhere. This disruptive behavior needs to stop.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"then you tried to make an ANI for me having too many ANIs"—what? At least we agree that it wasn't three times. And once again, I'm pleased that your behavior has improved. Thank you.  GFHandel.   22:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending, holier-than-thou tone is fooling no one. You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. You are disrupting WP:ANI to prosecute your edit war.--RaptorHunter (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• What is with this weapons-grade inability of yours, RaptorHunter to remember or tell the truth?? Quoting you: You and Greg have each filed 2 ANI here (3 against me) and nothing has come of it. WTF? It hasn’t been that long (17 days) that you were blocked for 24 hours for deleting my posts on that talk page. Was that some other RaptorHunter? Please try to conduct your arguments in an honorable fashion here. If you keep fabricating things (because 17 days isn’t sufficiently long ago that it is plausible you forgot), I’ll reserve the right to point out the truth. Frankly, it seems exceedingly plausible that your block still has you smarting over it and my 21-minute-long block that was settled as being an honest mistake isn’t good enough. This isn’t the place to exact revenge and you should probably have just stayed away from an ANI over Tom94022’s conduct. Instead, your remedy: come here to an ANI of all places to continue with what you’ve repeatedly done elsewhere on article talk pages, where you 1) incessantly conjure up total falsehoods and 2) insert foot into mouth; is a curious tactic. Please explain this strategy. But failing a convincing demonstration for why your method is cool-beans at an ANI, I am disinclined to follow your example. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now who's misrepresenting the facts. My block had nothing to do with the ANI. I was blocked for reverting your premature and out of process attempt to shut down the RFC. It was you, Greg who got blocked as a result of my ANI for editing other users posts without their permission.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

False. Again. Like I wrote above, my block was for 21 minutes and an admin declared it to be an honest mistake (I see no reason at all to think it was anything other than a good faith mistake.) You were blocked in an entirely separate matter because of this ANI I raised over canvassing and then—in the middle of all that—you started deleting my posts. I complained about that too at the ANI (That is vandalism. You’ve done this three times. You are deleting signed posts that I made.) For that, you were blocked. Your attitude of it was out of process and your conclusion that you are therefore entitled to delete another’s posts is what did you in. It’s there in black and white: I have blocked RaptorHunter for a 3RR vio on Talk:Hard disk drive -- I take no position on whether he's correct in his interpretation of the canvassing guidelines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The block stuck for the full 24 hours because of the flagrant foul. That pretty much qualifies as “something came of it.” I wish I understood you. You should not have misrepresented the facts or I wouldn’t have challenged you on it. I suggest you find some other game to play here than “Let’s see who leaves the bathroom smellier after going ‘number two’ ” because it’s not a winning strategy here for you. The issue here is about Tom94022 and you seem to be saying odd things tonight. Changing the subject: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about changing the subject. Now you've gone from attacking my worth as an editor to accusing my of sockpuppetry (or is that meat-puppetry?) Anyway, as I have told you many times in the past that just because I disagree with you does not make me a sock puppet. The complaint on Gwen's talkpage went unheeded for this reason. Despite all of this, I fully expect you to accuse me of sockpuppetry in every debate we have. I have come to expect this behavior from you Greg. You will do anything to disparage anyone who disagrees with you so you can look better on ANI. It doesn't work so stop it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if we want to talk about who has a longer block log, then I offer yours. [9] It makes for very interesting reading. For example: Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Greg L (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (long pattern of incivility)

I am not accusing you of anything. It was a simple question: Do you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't play coy with me Greg. You've already threatened me with checkuser once in clear violation of policy. [10]--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m not threatening you with a CU now. It’s a simple question, yet you seem reluctant to address the question with a simple “yes” or “no.” Would you prefer I stop asking whether you and Tom94022 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Greg L (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, in my naivety I assumed that when you responded to my post you were saying that I had posted three ANI notices (which I hadn't). Here is where we must part company because Greg L is a free agent and I have no control over what he posts. If you could be a little more precise (and fair) in how you overload the semantics of the word "you", misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Cheers.  GFHandel.   22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And, since Tom94022 ducked responding to my question, I will repeat it here: Were you, Tom94022, not editing against consensus on the Hard disk drive article yesterday? If not, then please enlighten us as to just how you arrive at the conclusion that you were editing along with with the community consensus. Greg L (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to close: I am quite done here. I suggest that if RaptorHunter and Tom94022 can refrain from further postings of outlandish misrepresentations of the truth here, I’m willing to let give this one a rest since it’s obvious that Tom94022’s wise decision to lay for a couple of days renders moot the point of coming here to get him to stop disrupting the project by his editwarring against consensus. It’s been over 26 hours and no block seems to be forthcoming, nor does one seen necessary so long as Tom94022 takes the proper clue from any of this. Greg L (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Massive number of Playboy-related AFD nominations by a single user

User:Damiens.rf has, over the last few hours, nominated more that 100 articles converning Playboy models (mostly Playmates) for deletion; the count is steadily growing. The nominations really can't be bundled together, and typically require examination of each individual's movie/TV credits. There's no way that interested editors can handle this volume of nominations, which often prove controversial. This runs afoul of the fait accompli principle set out by Arbcom in the TV episodes and characters cases; while not formally adopted as policy or guideline, I think there can be little doubt that the principle enjoys community support -- without it, consensus-building becomes a war of attrition. Make no mistake, I believe Damiens is right on principle on the notability issues involved, and disagree with him only as to exactly where to draw the lines involved. I don't doubt his good faith; while not all the AFDs on Playmates he made in the recent past were successful, I think they demonstrated significant support for the arguments he's advanced. But this is too much for the process to handle in one batch, far too much. It's inherently disruptive, despite the nominator's good faith, and it's likely to turn into a contentious mess that prevents the sort of article-by-article decision making that ought to be going on. Similar large bundles of Playmate nominations in the past have led to cookie-cutter voting and unpleasantness, and didn't contribute enough to building an encyclopedia to justify the effort and bad feelings involved. Full disclosure: I've been working in the same direction as Damiens for some time now, working gradually and using "soft" redirects to convert the large number of poorly sourced Playmate stubs into better-organized, more notability and BLP-compliant components of group articles. That process has been minimally controversial so fsr, and I believe it offers a better compromise that can enjoy a broader consensus. But even if I agreed entirely with the nominator, this is too much to handle in a single wave of AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has agreed to stop, so I think this is set for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is everything set? Damiens.rf has a history of doing these large scale mass nominations for both images and articles. He's been brought here more than once for this very issue. He'll likely be brought here again. AniMate 04:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Geeze, and I thought I did too much when I did about 10 at once. BelloWello (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we tar and feather another editor who went on a AfD spree of articles that may or may not have had appropriate justifications? Just wondering if we intend to trot out the WikiMob on this case as well as 100 is significantly more than the ~20 articles that were nominated in the other case (with the other case also having the multiple distinct "events" of nomination frenzies). Disclosure: I've interactied with Damiens before on a discussion about a picture's Fair Usage Rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an important difference here -- Damiens did a much smaller batch of Playmate nominations a short time ago, and these nominations are reasonably consistent with the results there. The previous spree you're referring to, by a different editor, was completely off the wall, and completely indiscriminate -- and used an automated tool in evasion of his blacklisting from the use of that tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Wuhwuzdat had it coming. HalfShadow 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

background - Some years back, folks at WP:PORN decided to include "is a playboy playmate" as one of the final evidences of notability in WP:PORNBIO. What followed was that there were articles created for every girl that has ever striped for playboy. When this piece of WP:PORNBIO was brought to an wider audience via an RFC, the community decided that being a playboy playmate is not, by itself, evidence of notability, and playmates should have articles only when otherwise notable.

These deletions were expected. I have not run across all of the playmates. And I have not nominated all I have ran across. Of course, some of them may be proven otherwise notable, but that's why we have a discussion process.

Most of the articles will surely end up being deleted or redirected to a list. After that, the playmate's enthusiast's efforts may concentrate on improving the articles on really notable playmates, as today, many of these are stubs just because there's simply not enough volunteers to keep up with an playmate sub-encyclopedia. --Damiens.rf 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The concern, I think, is that those who are interested in this topic area have to go through a large number of AFDs at once, each debate generating its own discussion and finding its own consensus. If I were intent on Keeping each of the articles you nominated, checking and following such a large number of debates would be a full-time job for the coming week. I'm sure as hell not going to edit much else, either. Here, the scale of the nominations detracts from the (probably valid) point that the subjects just aren't notable.

If you were intent on keeping each of the articles I nominated you'd be wrong to begin with. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and an intention of blindingly keeping all playmates was the original problem we started from. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been far better to nominate a dozen or so to establish your test cases, and then bundle 5 or so at a time thereafter. If, as you say, these articles are sure to be deleted, the second and third sets of articles would have precedent to follow, and the debates would be much simpler. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He did do a run of test cases. They're in the deletion log for April 4. [11] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Damians. Restrict the nominations to a level that the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography can handle. For example, 7 AfDs per week. Just make all your research in one go, write the AfDs, and save the list of AfDs in a text file. You can open it every week and mechanically nominate the first 7 items via copy/paste. You can combine this with Ultraexactzz's advice above. I know, this is nowhere near as rewarding as doing all of them in one go :-) . --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

7 Afds in a week would be a good rate; you don't want Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography to be slammed to hard, after all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pacing AFD nominations is especially important when nominating biographies whose potential sources are likely to predate the Internet era. It's pretty easy to determine notability -- or the lack thereof -- for someone active in 2002 or even in 1995. But some of these nominations are from the 1970s, and may require additional legwork (especially due to newspaper paywall policies). Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Seven articles per week is ridiculous low. Why should I restrict the pace of deletion nominations where there were no restriction of the pace of creation for such articles?

It has been a long time since the rfc that established that it was a mistake to consider all playmates notable, and I have seen not organized effort from wp:pornbio to clean up the mess.

There's no reason to worry. AFDs that do not have enough participation get relisted. And if a stub of the form "Rose Rosewood was the Jan 1961 Playmate. She was clicked by Mr. Photographer" get deleted, and we later find out that Ms. Rosewood was notable, it can easily recreated. As easily as it was first created. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:KITTENS works both ways. And there are significantly fewer people able to handle AfD nominations than there are people willing to create articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You should restrict the pace of deletion nominations out of respect for the people who will be trying to determine consensus on each article. Seven per week is ridiculously low, but there is no reason at all why you can't limit to say, five per day. And I would say to nominate no further articles until the current backlog clears. Resolute 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will nominate no further Playmate-articles until the current backlog clears. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Resolute 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the nominator should be commended for instigating these long-overdue AfD discususions. Particularly so for going through the AfD process honestly, rather than sneaking around a discussion by creating a redirect. A subject whose only claim to fame is to being a Playboy Playmate is not notable, as consensus has determined. It is wrong to redirect this article to a list of 12 other such non-notables, whose only claim to fame has been specifically determined to be non-notable. List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 for example links to not one artice, contrary to all guidelines, and the subject of the list is in itself non-notable. If the subject is notable, she will have a standalone article at which her Playmate centerfold can be mentioned. Including her on a list of a non-notable subject is simply wrong. Kudos to User:Damiens.rf for stepping up and doing the honest work that the fans have been covering up. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• On a separate note, Dekkappai's nomination of said list he linked, AfD here, seems to be failing spectacularly. And my arguments would be the same as is stated in the AfD, essentially that Dekkappai is completely wrong about what lists are for, considering in most cases they are specifically for listing people or other information that are not notable enough to have their own article. Silverseren^C 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Automated tools to send material to AfD for existing articles should be banned. This reminds me of the case of a recent editor who went WP:IDONTLIKEIT on sororities and fraternities, starting with the Alphas... Carrite (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. Only tools that send material to AfD for non-existing articles should be allowed. --Damiens.rf 05:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems Damiens.rf is simply implementing previously established site-wide consensus, against a minority of vociferous WikiProject members. How many articles are we talking about here in total? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Damiens.rf has not been previously banned from using automated tools, I honestly don't see much difference in his deletion nominations here and the ones for which Wuhwazdat was banned from starting AFDs. How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD? The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable. The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate as the past sprees against British models or fraternities, targeting a subject rather than considering each article topic on its own merits (for example, that sufficient sources exist here, or that the subject is notable for other things here or here). I agree with Carrite: there needs to be some restriction on using automated tools to AFD articles, even if it's just a cap on the noms per day or per hour, because that kind of bot-like editing is completely at odds with the kind of consideration that an AFD requires, Isn't the point of automated tools to make noncontroversial edits easier? The purpose is not to make one side of a deletion debate labor-free, while imposing the unreasonable burden of researching 100+ articles a day upon those who are interested in seeing if they can be saved. Particularly where the AFD nominator obviously hasn't bothered to do that work. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Q - "How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD?"

A - It would be only possible if the articles were almost all just one paragraph long and equally boilerplatelly written. Oh, wait a second!

The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable.

Are you implying I used this rationale? I haven't.

"The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate"

No, they are not. Most of the articles are going to be deleted/redirected.

My nominations were not undiscriminated. I reviewed every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb. Of course, in some of the nominations, it could turn out that the model is notable after all. But these will be the exceptional cases.

You know, many of the articles say nothing more than "Ms. Nice Flower was <insert date> Playboy Playmate. She was shot by photographer Mr. PhotoMan". Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Violation of editing restriction

According to the editing restriction accepted by User:LoveMonkey himself, "LoveMonkey will not make edits or talk page comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice". These edits seem to be a clear violation of this restriction. Before his edits were, for other reasons, reverted by another editor, I suggested to LoveMonkey that he make them conform to the editing restrictions, which permit him to "add information about Eastern Orthodox commentary (positive or negative) on Roman Catholic teaching/practice. However, any such commentary must be clearly attributed, in the body of the article, to the specific individual or document making it. Moreover, any such commentary must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information about the nature of RC teaching/practice or its compatibility/incompatibility with EO teaching/practice." My warning was intended to enable him to avoid sanctions for his violation of the restrictions. Instead of doing as I requested, he deleted my request, calling it harassment. May I ask that LoveMonkey be at least warned to observe the editing restrictions. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits to Filioque are indeed unacceptable, not just because they breach the restriction, but also because they are quite overtly POV advocacy. After such a long history of conflict, one would expect an editor should know better than this. Unless there are good objections from uninvolved editors, I would be willing to enact a block here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits aren't in the article anymore, they've been removed and I have not restored them. Also why is Ed Johnson saying that I have not breached the restrictions [12]. He clearly states that I have made the edits according to the restrictions. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and also suggest removing the exceptions from the community topic ban regarding "Roman Catholic teaching or practice". The content added by LoveMonkey does not only sound like advocacy, it is also very poor encyclopedic writing: it's nearly unintelligible to me as a layperson.  Sandstein  10:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I can accept criticism. Also could you address some of Esoglou's conduct while we're here [13] as Esoglou has yet to have any administrators address his behavior. I won't edit directly to the article anymore, then. I can make suggestions on the article talkpage and ask other editors to make the additions to the article, directly. If they say no then it doesn't end up in the article. I'm again willing to work with administration to work this out. However with the tone set here by administrators looking to again block longtime contributing editors from the project I can't say your comments here leave me hopeful. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

LM's writing does leave much to be desired at times, and I have commented to him more than once on style and sourcing issues. However, I don't see this particular incident as especially drastic. He has agreed that the edit needs work, and has entered into dialogue about it. I have asked Richard what's necessary to clean it up from his point of view, and he has been very helpful in making his concerns clear. I am currently working on the re-edit. Esoglou, you should know by now that it is not a good idea for either of you to chase each other on edits; you have been told before to take the issue to a third party instead of picking fights on talk pages. It doesn't do your cause any good when you don't follow due process yourself.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi has edited here since LoveMonkey posted here a link to the RfC on me that Taiwan boi prepared but did not publish (and which shows that Taiwan boi is not exactly a neutral observer), and thus seems to have accepted LoveMonkey's action. I think it right to give a link to my response.

Taiwan boi's recent intervention on my talk page also shows his attitude towards me, as did his interventions in formulating the text of the editing restriction.

I accepted that text in the hope that it would result in LoveMonkey ceasing to insert in Wikipedia his POV criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. These continued. I protested, but did not imitate his actions. At one stage I indicated that, if he continued his attacks and was allowed to, it would be logical for me to be allowed to make similar edits of an opposing kind. This I do not want to do, and have not done. Whether because of this observation of mine or not, LoveMonkey then ceased his attacks. Now he has begun again. I tried first to get him to rewrite his attack on the Roman Catholic Church in a way that Taiwan boi's "help" in editing the restriction allows him to do. Only when that failed, did I raise the question here, which I take to be the correct place to raise the question of violation of the editing restriction.

Did LoveMonkey's edits violate the editing restriction, or did he not? That is the question here. This, I take it, is not the place for an RfC on me. Esoglou (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the issues with the sorely deficient writing, LM's edits exhibited a polemical, POV tone that was totally unacceptable. The problem, as I indicated on the article Talk Page, is not about putting the POV in the article. It is a notable POV. The problem is the failure to attribute the POV to a reliable source in such a way that it is clear to the reader that the POV is that of the source and not by Wikipedia.

However, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. There are other editors involved in fixing the problem. Thus, I would advocate a stern warning to LM to avoid such repeating such POV edits. I would also ask that the warning include a reminder that WP:3RR does not give editors the right to 3 reverts without a block. LM's responses to EdJohston on Ed's Talk Page suggest this sort of brinksmanship mentality. LM should be reminded that blocks can be imposed for edit warring even if WP:3RR is not technically violated. Any repeat occurrence of POV editing or "stop 1 revert short of violating 3RR" edit-warring should result in a block. I hope LM will get the message and act more collegially rather than confrontationally. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the reminder should also communicate the need to assume good faith. Just because an editor doesn't like one of LM's edits, that doesn't mean the editor is trying to "censor" LM's POV. An editor's revert might be a comment about the quality of the writing or the failure to maintain NPOV. NPOV doesn't just mean presenting all POVs. It means that we describe the POV rather than adopting a tone of advocacy in favor of it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In his comment above, LoveMonkey has agreed to take a break from editing the Filioque article. "I won't edit directly to the article anymore, then. I can make suggestions on the article talkpage and ask other editors to make the additions to the article, directly." He should still be able to take part in discussion of his proposed change at Talk:Filioque, since he is free to discuss Eastern Orthodox material on article talk pages. Given this concession by LoveMonkey, I don't see any need for sanctions. If he is not editing the article at all, it takes away the prior concerns about edit warring and the POV tone of material. It also ensures he won't violate the editing restriction, so long as he limits himself in his talk comments to EO history and to the opinions expressed by EO theologians. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to this issue and to these editors, and only got involved with Filioque while watching Recent changes. My brief experience with LM was somewhat irritating, as the article history shows, but other editors have jumped in. I didn't know about LM's editing restrictions, and I'm surprised that they made them in the first place; saying, as they did above, that those edits are no longer in the article doesn't really make it better. However, I won't press the issue; if they leave the matter alone, and if they are somewhat formally and unequivocally reminded on their own talk page, I am satisfied. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It must not be forgotten that LoveMonkey is restricted from making "comments regarding Roman Catholic teaching or practice" even on the talk page, unless of course he is taking advantage of the clause that allows him to post "commentary (that) must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than as factual information". Perhaps this edit on the article's talk page is in conformity, perhaps it is not. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The editing restriction was imposed to stop unnecessary fights. But we need to have some tolerance on talk pages, or negotiation will be impossible. I see that LoveMonkey drops in a verbatim quote from the Orthodox Church's website, which is OK for discussion, but I hope he is aware that higher quality material is needed for the article. If Orthodox theologians criticize Charlemagne, give us their sourced opinions. Editors who are not under LM's restriction could be looking around to see if historians agree with the OCA's view of Charlemagne's actions. This would help to ensure neutrality for whatever statement about Charlemagne is made in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

178.164.140.10

Special:Contributions/178.164.140.10 needs shutting down. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an IP making inflammatory, forum-ish statements on talk pages. Revert and ignore, unless it starts to actually get disruptive. I don't see what admins in particular need to do here. lifebaka++ 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Sean for bringing the issue up. I'll post the appropriate warning(s), so that a continuation can be addressed by admins.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but this is beyond inflammatory and forum-ish. He's calling for the death of Jews. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I amend my above view, to match that of Sean and of Steven. That calls for direct action by a sysop. And can someone please make his inflammatory postings un-readable (I forget the lingo for that). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the necessity of RevDel for any of the comments. As long as they've been removed from the current version of the talk page, I doubt anyone is going to go back and pull them out of the history. If any other admins want to RevDel it, that'd be their prerogative. As for the IP itself, there's no point doing anything to it. The edit linked by Steven above is the last edit it's made. Since it's been a solid day since, whoever was behind it has probably moved on and a block would just cause unnecessary collateral damage. lifebaka++ 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:HXL49

Recently an editor HXL49 has been threating to take me to ANI so I decided to approach the discussion on ANI myself. The confrontation started when I requested him to be civil to other editors here as he asking other editors to completely ignore one specific editor here. Since then he has filled my talk page with ambiguous threats as well as threats to take me to ANI. My talk page history shows he has made 6 threating edits on 2 sections of my talk page.

He justifies his move to ask editors to ignore an editor by [here this] edit in which a new IP has flouted civility in January when the IP might have not known wikipedia rules. He claims the IP was of editor User talk:Reference Desker and so the editors must ignore him even 3 months after the incident. He also threatened Reference Desker for taking another editor User talk:Benlisquare to WP:WQA here even though administrators there agreed that it was a WP:WQA incident stating him to stop whining here.

Though I would not accuse him of bias he only seems to warn editors that do not share his POV. Here he warned only User:Thisthat2011(which was correct to some extent) even though other editors were also using the page as WP:FORUM and were not warned.

I did not wanted to enter in confrontation and my intentions were only to maintain civility to encourage editors on wikipedia and not discourage them off, but it seems HXL49 wants to threaten or discourage certain editors from wikipedia. It now seems trying to find errors in my editing style or point of view to get me banned.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HXL49 is not an administrator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

UplinkAsh it is high time you stop with your contortions, distortions, and the like. Firstly, Thisthat2011 is a new user, and I expect experienced users (certainly not you) to know better than to do WP:FORUM. Only when I am sufficiently annoyed do I warn experienced users like Benli or EraserHead.

I have already explained the IP incident and will post a comment on that shortly. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The forum-like use is perhaps (as per my knowledge, which could be incorrect) because there is not a lot of clarity in that matter in absence of lot of media acknowledgments, that ethnic Tibetans are absent in the whole discourse (in different 3/4/5 pillar organizations such as legislature/executive/judiciary/military, coupled with silence of U.N.), and then apparent fragmented/multiple views from different sources - as per my understanding (I don't want to use this like forum but I see it happening again and again like now in Sri Lanka too). As mentioned, somewhat similar behavior was also apparent from others users is what I mentioned in the discussion as well. From my side I can say that I have not taken the threats too personally and also pointed out that others indulging in the same behavior.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 12:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Thisthat2011 that was understood, but the same principle should have been applied to EraserHead.

Yet another personal attack on my talk page as well as here by HXL49. HXL49 be civil enough not to use statements like "experienced users (certainly not you)", "your eyesight happens to be poor" "flouting standards for intelligence" here or "In this case, you, with your rambling tone, would fall short." here to Thisthat2011.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And so on. You can continue to list attacks/criticisms by me and fail to advance your argument and convince any reviewing users (admin or no).

so the "rambling tone" is clear that the major area where I do not respect Thisthat for is precisely his rambling tone; I found Thisthat's comments to be too long and often confusing at Talk:Tibet. Whether someone is to be taken seriously and political views are usually separate, unless one is pushing a POV. And I have demonstrated to you that I did not fully RV your edits at the Tibet page. I had only RV-ed that which you carelessly RV-ed (hatnote, "Manchu Qing"). –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the dispute abpove, but HXL49 has also shown intentional incivility at RfD - [14], [15], [16] ("It seems my outright nastiness has achieved its only purpose of deterring users who won't admit outright that they are unknowledgeable from commenting further.") are examples. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any non-administrative action taken will have to consider the pace and distribution of my contributions. In other words, the most likely non-administrative resolution (as I see it) would be to persuade me to avoid involved discussion now; my work on the township business is committed, high-paced, and highly involved. Any reviewing editor will have to look beyond the simple characterisations (while effective propaganda at first glance) given by UplinkAsh. Already I have toned it down at Talk:Tibet. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think HXL49 has been rather uncivil here, and that isn't a good thing by any means. However I also think that UplinkAnsh (talk · contribs) has been particularly difficult to work with and has found it really rather difficult to compromise with other editors and to understand the reasons behind our arguments which oppose his point of view. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr._Blofeld

Hi,

Whilst seemingly a established editor of WP. I'm a little concerned about a mass of new pages that he is creating. I saw most of them on Special:NewPages. I don't feel they deserve CSD but it looks to me like it's just a copy and paste of the entire village list of the Kunar Province!

Is it really necessary for WP to include every entire village of a province/county or country -if said village(s) are not necessarily notable?

Thanks,

&#0149;martyx&#0149; tkctgy 13:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify editors if you start a discussion involving them. I have done this for you now. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Think I may have gotten there just before you. Thanks for your attentiveness to this Fram. MarnetteD | Talk 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is in general an extremely prolific and useful editor. However, regularly he creates sub-standard articles in large batches, where a simple list of redlinks would have been more useful. E.g. at the end of March, he created most of the articles in Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Carmarthen & Dinefwr. These all consisted of unsourced, identical articles like Corsydd a Rwyth Cilyblaidd. I tagged them all as unsourced, but in fact they would have been better as redirects to a central list until something could be said about them (and a source was provided as well). In cases like this, redlinks or redirects are more useful than loads of bluelinks without useful content. Fram (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This probably has been discussed before, and I would agree with the original poster (Martyx) on villages, but not at all on towns, townships, etc. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to notability see Dara-I-Pech and one I picked at random Baladay. Check out the settlements on a google map, look notable settlements to me which exist. Image of Baladay here. Might not have much on the web about it but that doesn't mean it isn't a notable. I trust I'll have better luck with some of the other places. But isn't there something wrong that sources only write about a place if a US troop was killed there or launched an attack there? They are certainly notable to the Afghan people living in them and in the districts. I think wikipedia should be striving to see the world evenly, the problem is abundance of sources about such places...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot has the coordinates downloaded to be added asap, otherwise I wouldn't have started them. Some of the articles started are district capitals and I'd imagine particularly for Helmand and Kandahar province the articles have relevance with the US military... Verified human settlements are usually notable, we have tiny hamlets in the UK and US which are full length. Generally i don't mass create geography articles as I used to anymore and generally prefer to create them start class more slowly and using a wide range of sources if I can find them but given that Anomie has been waiting for me to start these because he especially downloaded the coordinates then it would be a shame not to create them. A lot of the villages will be mentioned in USAID sources or US gov and even in google books. Some may not as of yet, but that's an uneven Internet development thing, not that they are not notable. I'd estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of people in total living in the villages I've started today. It is more of a priority to expand the articles like I did with Samangan Province and improve the districts I agree but its all part of the building process.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't notify Dr. Blofeld. I agree with Fram and HXL49's comments.

This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included. &#0149;martyx&#0149; tkctgy 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Would I like to edit every article to GA quality each time, sure? But I also see these occasional mass stub creations as planting seeds in areas of the project and in fitting with our long term goals on wikipedia. There's only so much patience and time you have to edit each article as fully as I'd like.. I try to attain a certain standard of quality nowadays but I am also acutely aware of the real world content that is missing enmass so given I haven't the time to edit every article I occasionally inject a few to be worked on as an ongoing process. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think (but I may be wrong) that the suggestion is not necessarily or primarily that these places don't deserve articles, but that such an automated, info-less creation is not the way to do this. One can also wonder how accurate this creation is, when the second one I checked, `Eyn ol Majar, is in the source given only written as `Eynol Majar (without the space), and the third, Halqeh Kowl, has three different locations in your source with that spelling, and three as Halqa Kol as well. Fram (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Blofeld on this one. With a war on, these places need something here, sparse as it may be. We're still lacking towns in Libya, and some of them were only written once a battle starts there. We should be more proactive when it comes to locations.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If his info was correct, generally reliable, and the articles had a bit more info, I would agree with you. As it stands, I don't. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking further: you created Darreh-ye Pich as a village, but everything I found (not much) suggests it is a district.[17][18]. If your information is not reliable, you shouldn't be creating these articles. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Darreh-ye Pich is likely the vilage capital of the district of the same name Fram, i'll look into it. Look, I know mass creation is NOT the best way to create articles which is why I rarely do so anymore in this way. At least it would be better to use this source to add a bit about those which are mentioned within it. But Anomie has downloaded these coordinates in good faith for these articles listed in our missing encyclopedia articles to be started and the sheer amount missing is pretty serious. One could argue that wikipedia does not have to cover Afghan villages but based on editing experience f other similar size Asian villages and indeed African villages as Kintetsubuffalo points out they are almost always notable. The immediate problem my Afghan stubs have created is that quite a few of them currently have nothing online so are rendered useless. I definitely think the best way is to work on them one by one like Gwebin etc and finding scraps of info to build a half decent articles. But the amount of subjects missing on places in Asia and Africa is extreme and I think wikipedia should at least be trying to work towards covering them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Further searching shows that you also created Dara-I-Pech in the same batch run, and that you changed Dara-I-Pech District to claim that it was governed from Dara-I-Pech, instead of from Manugay. I have no idea if the latter is indeed true (I haven't found any evidence for it yet, and some suggesting that the earlier text was correct), but it surely means that you created two articles for the same (presumed) place. Fram (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Manugay IS Dara I Pech. And I only created one article but simply moved it to match the district and expanded it. Look can we be a little less belligerent here Fram and assume good faith?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith? Where is your evidence from reliable sources that Mano Gai is Dara-I-Pech? The only reliable source I have found so far doesn't support this, and gives Mano Gai as the district capital[19]. Which was in the Dara-I-Pech District article before you changed it to match your newly created Dara-I-Pech article. Fram (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise: you used a source that stated "Wata Pur District togather with Manogay District are also known as Pech District" to claim that the town of Mano Gai is the same as the hypothetical but unverifiable town of Dara-I-Pech, when all your source does is state that the Pech (or Dara-i-Pech) district is an entity which also contains Manogay district... Please be a lot more careful before you scramble to correct your errors, as you seem to be making things only worse. Fram (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This says districts of Mano Gai (Pech) . We have proof that Mano Gai is another name for Pech District. See this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a side note/throw-away comment, WP:KITTENS appears to be relevant to the situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a late question, but Martyx, did you think to just talk to Dr. Blofeld before starting a report here? What you said before: "This is not meant as a personal attack on you. After viewing your contribs it's very clear you are excellent editor! I'm not saying each village with has no purpose on wp just that unless there is a particular [historical] reason they should just be listed on Kunar Province. I guess this is much the same reason me or you are not listed personally on Wikipedia because although we are important in our own right - we aren't of a high enough importance to be included." That was very cordial, well-worded, and would have been a nice way to open a discussion with the editor before opening up the door to ANI drama. I don't mean to be critical here, rather this is just a suggestion for the next time that you run into a similar situation with another editor. -- Atama頭 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Geonames Mano Gai lies about 10 km east of Dara I Pech even if the district is a dual name of both, BUT that river section contains some spread out settlements which may often be seen as part of each other I guess. This tends to happen a lot in Afghanistan with districts and capitals which makes editing very difficult. For instance Samangan is also known as Aibak. Aibak is more a suburb of it. Its difficult to know exactly what the situation is, all we really have are US miiltary or aid articles. But these places are notable, I'm sure of that. And it doesn't take a suicide bomber or nasty attack to make them so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've shown that Baladay and Walakan, two I picked at random are notable. I think it is necessary to have stubs started especially given that there is a war going on in the country with US troops. I will continue creating them until they are all started, I see no reason why I should be stopped from doing this. 3/4 of the batch are done already. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Asqalan, Afghanistan another one easily expanded. Right I'm resuming on these, they are certainly worth having articles for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Where on WP is it stated that newly-created articles should not be stubs? As long as the notability is established, the length is not crucial. That's the concept of Wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld should be appreciated and thanked for his efforts instead of seeing his work and contribution belittled on ANI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Martyx asked a valid question but in the wrong place. This is not a matter (obviously) for administrator's intervention, and I will assume that they posted it here because they thought it was an important enough issue but are perhaps not yet experienced enough to know that ANI is for very specific kinds of issues. It is certainly not the place for a de facto review of Dr. Blofeld's edits. Shall we move on? Dr. Blofeld, De Hulk and Bangert (North Holland) are still redlinks, to say nothing of Eurometaal and Risdam. Get to it or I'll have you blocked for sloth, with thanks to User:Bongomatic. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for sloth.

All started. Now get expanding, otherwise I'll block you too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is being underestimated here is the value of these stubs. Alishang, Siah Chub Kalay etc. These are certainly encyclopedic and if one can find info in old gazeteers and in history books it makes it quite exciting I think.. Virtually everyone I started earlier I've looked at so far can be expanded... Once they are created with proper infrastructure it becomes so much easier to edit them and build on what was started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable. . In creating material, there is similarly no consensus on whether it is better to do it as a list, or as small individual articles; I could give good arguments for either, and the conclusion I draw is that both are suitable. The only thing not suitable is trying to tell people who do it one way that they should do it another. Someone who does not like to work on Dr. Blofeld's system has two good choices: to add themselves to the articles (which includes correcting errors), or to work on others they way they prefer to work. Nobody is expected to work error-free--that's why this is a cooperative project. The alternative is to work on an editorially-directed project, but that wouldn't be Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to direct other people how to work, they should start a project of their own, or join an existing one and rise to a position of authority. There's nothing wrong with such a wish, but Wikipedia is to the place to realize it. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DGG here, but would like to add the observation that our diversity of approach in creating articles helps improve the quality of Wikipedia content. The evil Doctor's approach, creating geographic stubs scattered hither & yon, actually encourages creating certain articles which may never otherwise be written. I can furnish one example of this: the other day I was working on improving Modjo River from a stub; without having that need, I would not have discovered that it is considered one of the two most polluted rivers in Ethiopia -- a very significant fact! (Actually, the source claims it is one of the two most polluted in the world, but until I find that it caught on fire -- as one notoriously polluted river did -- I'm not going to push the claim that far.) And if these stubs are never improved ... well, one of the features of Wikipedia is that articles that aren't important will never be read, & if no one improves them, they must not be that important. -- llywrch (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After reading the comments above I realise I acted too hastily in reporting the problem to ANI. I should have discussed it with Dr. Blofeld before this. I also realise that I acted with POV. Just because I feel it may be unacceptable to create a large quantity of stubs doesn't mean that's everyone elses view. I feel I've learnt more today about wiki policy than I have done in the last 4 years as a member! &#0149;martyx&#0149; tkctgy 02:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: ban on creating articles solely based on www.geographic.org

While I agree that all real populated places deserve an article (or a redirect to a larger populated place if nothing more can be said than the name and location), and that we are lacking articles on many places, even truly notable ones, for large parts of the world, I stringly disagree with the method these are created. It is clear that a list is taken from www.geographic.org, but that site is equally clearly not a reliable source to base articles on. I have given some examples at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dara-I-Pech, I can provide many more if needed. A list of populated places from this website needs thorough checking before it can be used to create articles with.

I propose that weno longer allow the mass creation of articles based on this website, so that we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards. It is better that we have no information on some places for a while, than to create clearly incorrect information as a stopgap. Fram (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"we don't have to clean up the mess this creates afterwards". LOL, it is usually me who expands the stubs I create and builds them with reliable sources as I've illustrated many times yesterday. I have a very good experience with geonames and almost always identify a real settlement on a google map.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It can't be too hard to identify one, when in the case of e.g. Qasem Kheyl your source let's you choose from four different locations[20][21][22][23], but Google returns not a single reliable source on them... Fram (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with you its a tricky subject, especially because of differences in transliteraitons and indeed if multiple settlements exist on the same name which can get confusing. Qasem Khel turns up loads of hits in google books but they require serious reaearch to identify which is which. One it seems has geological significance... From what I gather it is indeed this Logar Province location according to Annales de la Société géologique du Nord: Volume 97. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The only one I could verify was in Parwan province, not in Logar, so...[24] I couldn't verify your source. At least, this means that there are two different villages (and a tribe) with this name (in another transliteration), so the article should need to be moved, disambiguated, ... The actual benefit of having such articles, where so much research is needed to verify whether it exists and how it should really be named, escapes me. 13:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, you rushed to "correct" Dara-I-Pech when I pointed out the problems with it, only to have to revert many of your incorrect changes, ending with redirecting it to the district. Now, you again rush to "correct" Qasem Khel, adding info from other sources. Again, there is no evidence that the info you added is actually about this village in Logar province (assuming it exists), and not about e.g. the village in Parwan province. I have removed the info accordingly. Please don't jump to conclusions when a source seems at fierst glance to be perhaps about the subject you created an article on, but check and doublecheck that what you present is correct. Fram (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

SO this is more an attack on my editing then? This is the way it seems to me and I'm pretty sure other people are getting that impression from you. Information I found in google books talks about the geological formations in Logar and it being southeast of Kabul which is exactly where this village is. ANd no you are wrong, my changes to Dara-I-Pech were not incorrect. Rather the sources don't specifically discuss it as a village which was the problem, even if it plainly obvious a settlement exists at that loocation on google maps. The information was correct and and has since been added to the district article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You added [25] as a source for the Qasem Khel article about a location that should be in Logar. The source you added mentions "Fossiliferous Permian sequences also were described at [...] Qasim Khel [...] in the eastern part of the country". Both Logar province (where you place this village) and Parwan province (where we are certain that there is a village with this name) are in the east of the country, so there is no reason you can be reasonably sure that this source is about the village where you used it. The second source you used is about a "Qasim Khel Thrust", without evidence that this is named after this village, the other one, the tribe, or something different (it looks at first glance to be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan). The fourth source given is not verifiable by me, so no comment on that one.

As for Dara-I-Pech, you stated that it was the district capital and that it was the same as Mano Gai, and then you stated that it wa not the capital, and that it was not the same as Mano Gai, but was some 10 miles away from it. At least one of those was obviously incorrect... Fram (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban, per everyone's got their own way of editing, resolved above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "everyone's got their own way of editing", this is stopping someone creating clearly incorrect articles, based on an unreliable source, and in violation of the bot policy: "The community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval." This is clearly "semi-automated article creation", with rates of 5 pages per minute, created with the identical text of "Infobox settlement |name ={{subst:PAGENAME}} |other_name = |native_name = |settlement_type =Village |image_skyline" Fram (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A "Ban" would be extreme given that the vast majority of listed entries are valid in my experience. However to advise individuals to refrain from mass generations without proper research I'd agree with. But I and others should be feel free to create whatever they want if it sourced,♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Again you are wrong about any articles being clearly incorrect. Show me one single article which as yet have been proved to be incorrect which was created from geonames? Where is your proof that Dara I Pech village does NOT exist, given that the coordinates point to a major settlement on google maps which is plainly obvious.. Are you basing your view because the internet has no coverage of an Afghan village? Shock horror that, certainly not eveidence of its not existing. You can't prove a bloody thing. As for "semi-automated article creation", that really is not semi automated creation. Should you be especially difficult and claim formally that it is then entering the page title requires little extra work to evade that "policy". Now please let me get on with something useful, this is completely the wrong place to make such a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't stop you doing anything useful, I am talking about the incorrect things you do. Your page creation is mindless, very fast and extremely repetitive (with the exact same code used for the body of all these articles). Not really what one would call "manual"... The burden of evidence is not on people trying to prove that something doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove that it does exist. How should I try to prove without a doubt that Molla Vali-ye Valeh doesn't exist or is normally known as something different? For most of these articles, there isn't enough info to actually identify the potential matching reality. As for the location of this proposal: topic bans and the like are usually proposed here, and since there was already a thread on these edits, and you continued making them, it was only logical to continue the discussion here. Fram (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One more, as an example: your most recent edits were to Zabrak, Afghanistan, adding some info based on the same source. However, the basic info you give is incorrect: Zabrak is not in Jowzjan Province, but in Sar-e Pol Province, in the Balkhab District.[26] But wait, you also created Balkhab, which you locate in Jowzjan a well, instead of in its own district... Of course, it could be, just like with all the other examples, that there is also a Zabrak in the other province, and a Balkhab in the other province, and so on. Fine, convince me, show some actual evidence for these two villages being in that province. Fram (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullying and stalking? That's extremely sad don't you think? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful then google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index and you'll find a decent list of settlements and state district capital or whatever which I've added to Balkhab. But it is far from being a complete index... From what I gather Sar e Pol was created out of Jowzjan province which accounts for the overlap. The provinces adjoin each other.

A sentence from this book from 1987 says something like we walked in the village of Balkhab in Jowzjan Province. So clearly it was in that province but is no longer in that province..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a perfect solution to this: Dr. B will create whatever articles for which he has basic data from a reliable source, and anyone who thinks they can improve the articles can do so--keeping in mind that in many cases there will be some ambiguous data and that the way to handle it is not to try to do the research to figure it out, but simply report the ambiguity and the sources. There's always going to be such ambiguity about at least some of the content in most Wikipedia articles, but we don't stop writing because we might make an error. Very few things can be "proved beyond a doubt", which is why we simply rely on the sources, not on trying to determine the truth. The responsibility of someone adding material is to provide a reliable source, not prove the source correct, or to " actually identify the potential matching reality", which in most cases -- including this topic-- would clearly be Original research. And I think Dr. B does well to use standardized text for standardizable topics--it helps comparison and understanding. Not every article requires or would even benefit from carefully tailored writing. The way he is working is the best way of covering the many neglected areas, as anything else is too slow to be helpful. There are two aspects where Wikipedia does shamefully: our poor attention to updating and verifying on important articles, and our sub-minimal coverage of areas subject to cultural bias. Fixing them take different approaches. If a ban is needed, it should be a bilateral ban against continued interaction between him and Fram here, or anywhere else other than on article talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying, in good faith, to figure out just what this proposal to ban use of geographic.org is supposed to accomplish. Looking at the website, it's clear that it is little more than a lot of data scraped from other websites & wrapped with a bunch of ads -- so at face value there's nothing objectionable to Fram's proposal. After all, the evil Dr. Blofeld can then simply go to where geographic.org took its data & use that -- the Geographical Name Server. And while I don't find the GNS to be a reliable source unless it is verified by another independent source, banning all use of the GNS will hurt more than it will help. (I often use it to determine the latitude & longitude for locations in the articles I write.) And if Fram simply is acting as a proxy for 007 in his decades-long fight against the evil Doctor -- well, doing that isn't going to fly. The best solution would be for Fram, & anyone who doesn't like the results of Dr. Blofeld's article creations is to help him find better sources. Official census results would be a good alternative to the GNS -- but where would one find the most recent official census results for, say, Afghanistan? Solving problems like that would be better for everyone & Wikipedia in the long run, as well as making everyone involved happier & more likely to keep contributing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

and the method Fram reports to be using, near the top of this section, of searching Google, is not all that likely to reveal good sources in this field. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I intend to also cover Iran (which is extremely poorly covered given its size) and using old gazeteers I can at least find a mention of the settlements in. The best way is to peruse google maps find a clearly notable settlement by size and start it with a source or two and some basic facts if google books picks up hits. In regards to Afghanistan I've requested that (google search OCHA Afghanistan Settlements Index) PDF is downloaded to wikipedia and all the settlements are organized by district and province. I can then enter them into the nav boxes by province and give it some organization. After all the majority are lacking district location as the old databases only say province and even those might be out of date now. This seems an up to date UN source which will prove very useful as a guide. But Thai tambons (sub districts) I've concentrating on right now as I have data from the 2005 census and looking on goole maps they are usually the major villages in rural Thailand which is also very poorly covered on wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Block review

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

---

I blocked Avanu (talk · contribs) yesterday for 24 hours for removing a Rescue tag 4 times from Silence (Doctor Who), claiming it was in violation of "WP:GAME, WP:CONS, WP:CANVAS, WP:PS, and possibly more". (I reverted a 5th removal by TreasuryTag which fell between Avanu's first and second removals.) His unblock requests were both denied, by Kuru and Sandstein. After Sandstein's decline, he removed both declines and posted a new appeal. After that was declined by Syrthiss, Sandstein restored his decline, which Avanu promptly hatted. I unhatted it and restored Kuru's decline, but Avanu hatted them both again. At that point, I removed his ability to edit the talk page for the remainder of the block.

A couple of editors feel that I acted improperly by blocking for the 4th revert in the first place when I had restored the tag earlier, so I'm bringing this here for further review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, you know I have the utmost respect for you but I have to agree that your act in blocking Avanu was inappropriate. I wouldn't call it an abuse of power but someone else should have done it since you were one of the people involved with the reverts. The block itself was certainly warranted, which I think is borne out by the fact that both unblock requests were denied. Avanu has been excessively combative and this was bound to happen anyway, I'm sure. It just shouldn't have been you who did it. Also, I'm a stickler about the warning before the block with 3RR. My reasoning is that the block is meant to stop the edit war, and if a warning stops it, then it is just as effective as a block. If it doesn't, and the person reverts again, then you can block. That's just how I deal with them. -- Atama頭 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you felt the need to block when you did, particularly the time sensitive nature of the tag in light of the AfD discussion, but having been one of the editors who had restored the tag (albeit several hours earlier and after removal by a different editor) it would have been better to post to the edit warring noticeboard or requested assistance from another admin. That said, I can't say the block itself was inappropriate. I came across the issue about an hour after Avanu's last revert. I came to Avanu's talk page with the intention of issuing a warning, but he had already been blocked. That said, there is a good chance I would have blocked myself once I saw the 2 3rr warnings that Avanu had already been given over the past month. Of course, by then the edit war may have gone another 4 or 5 rounds had there not been admin intervention in the interim. I would be willing to unblock and reblock as someone suggested on one of the talk pages if that settle the controversy. But I doubt it would, since no one seems to think the block itself was unwarranted, only that Sarek shouldn't have been the blocker, and action at this point would not change the fact that Sarek was the initial blocker or that the block itself was warranted. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(@ Atama, in case of ec) I have to disagree with the last part of this - I assume that I am editing the encyclopedia with rational editors who can make their own choices in life. If the editor had not been warned and blocked before, then yes I will certainly warn them not only when they are approaching 3RR but at 3RR if possible. If they have been warned and / or blocked before, I assume that they are not merely forgetful that 3RR exists but that it is a conscious decision. In this particular case, Avanu seems to not understand the distinction between vandalism and good faith edits and indicated that he felt he was exempt in his edit summary when he called them vandalism. It also seems that he was making progress in understanding that it wasn't vandalism after my decline, in discussion with me and another editor...so there may not be any further bright-line breaches. It is certainly nice that you would go the extra step, but an adult shouldn't need me advising him to be careful of crossing the street after being previously hit by a car for the same thing. Syrthiss (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal preference, it's not something I expect other people to do. I was just pointing out what I personally would have done, since Sarek was asking for a review of his actions. I'm aware that 3RR is a bright line offense (and nobody is even "entitled" to 3 reverts) so a block at that point is definitely not out of order. -- Atama頭 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan and WP:INVOLVED

NOTE: I am moving this here because I had not seen Sarek's post when I made this one below.Griswaldo (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't want to take this here because I'm not a fan of the drama fests that can result from WP:ADMINABUSE claims but now I feel like User:SarekOfVulcan is purposefully thumbing his nose at other editors to prove some strange point about what he can get away with. Here's a rundown of the situation:

• User:Avanu was edit warring at Silence (Doctor Who), by removing a rescue tag 4 times within 24 hours.
• User:SarekOfVulcan was involved in the same editing dispute, seen here reverting to the version of the page with the rescue tag.
• Sarek's general involvement with the entry has been in opposition to Avanu's, and can further be seen through is contributions to the entry talk page, his deprodding of the entry, and his participation in the AfD.
• When Avanu made his 4th revert in the edit war that Sarek had been party to, Sarek immediately blocked Avanu for edit warring.
• Several editors, including Avanu pointed out that despite the fact that Avanu deserves a block for edit warring, Sarek appears to have been involved and that he should not have taken administrative action against Avanu - Flinders Petrie, Griswaldo and Treasury Tag.
• I personally tried to raise the issue with Sarek on his own talk page, per the guidance at WP:ADMINABUSE, but to no avail.
• Despite the complaints about his involved status Sarek reverts two edits of Avanu's at User talk:Avanu.
• When I saw this I begged him to at the very least stay clear of further involvement with Avanu, since there are many people monitoring the situation.
• Sarek did not respond to my plea, instead he took further administrative action against Avanu because Avanu reverted him at User talk:Avanu.

I do not understand how an admin can so openly flaunt WP:INVOLVED. Am I missing something here? If I'm not will another admin please warn him against using his tools in these situations? I want to be clear that I think Avanu should have been blocked, and should also have been reverted on his talk page, but not by Sarek. Also, as a matter of context, I came to Avanu's talk page because I'm in a dispute with Avanu myself, so please do not chalk this up to someone trying to protect a friend. That's not the case at all. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is far from the first time that Sarek has gone against UNINVOLVED. I don't know what the solution is, but it's completely unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The block was indesputably valid because the blockee was over the 3RR. However, if admins want to get into content disputes, we do so as regular editors and we can't suddenly turn around and play the admin card when somebody goes over the 3RR. Sarek, you can involve yourself at the article in an administrative capacity or an editorial one, but not both. This would have been better if it had been handled by another admin. Also, revoking talk page access for collapsing (as opposed to blanking) unblock declines seems extreme even for an uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. Pure and simple: Do not use your tools to give yourself an advantage against another editor. Bright line rule in my view. Sarek, I'd be grateful if you would enlighten us on your train of thought here, and also why you revoked talk page access.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would question that I was directly WP:INVOLVED in this case. All I did was restore the {{Rescue}} tag, which is fairly time-critical, as its intention is to improve articles under deletion before the end of the discussion. At that point, Avanu had only removed it once, and I wasn't directly reverting him, so I wasn't concerned about baiting him into a violation. He had been warned about the 3RR twice this month, so I didn't see there was a need to slap another template on his page. The last three reverts were within 36 minutes of each other, and after the 4th revert, he stated that he would continue to remove it as "vandalism".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Respecting why I revoked talk page access, it was because he had first removed and then repeatedly tried to hide the unblock templates that very clearly said "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." It seems to me to be extreme wikilawyering to claim that removing them from visibility is acceptable in this case -- there's a reason they're supposed to stay visible. He left comments within Syrthiss' decline reason section of the unblock request, which struck me as further disruption of the appeal process.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

However, since there seems to be consensus that this was particularly problematic, I have renabled Avanu's talk page access. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the salient paragraph of WP:UNINVOLVED—In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. No part of that seems to make any exception for the circumstances you describe. Furthermore, nothing you have said explains why you couldn't ask one of Wikipedia's hundreds of other administrators to step in. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, you might well have acted as any other reasonable admin would, but the appearance of impropriety alone means you should not be acting as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that Sarek does great work, but also agree that in an instance such as this one it is better form to avoid flouting wp:involved, and to get another sysop involved.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, IMO you were involved in the edit war, but also lets not forget a more general level of involvement at the entry, not to mention your response to Avanu when he accused you of removing comments at the Afd. If you maintain not being involved I have to wonder if there is a competence issue here when it comes to understanding the relevant policy.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's involved, then there's WP:INVOLVED. The second bar is significantly higher, and that's the one I don't think I crossed. I didn't use tools to win a content dispute, I used them in a bright-line situation where Avanu had edit warred and declared an intention to continue. And if you think my response to Avanu was problematic, then what comment of his did I remove?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think your response was problematic, I think his accusation and your response indicate a less than congenial atmosphere between the two of you days prior to your blocking him. More reason not to use your tools.Griswaldo (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant sentence from the policy: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the disput." In other words, there's involved, then there's the much easier to violate, WP:INVOLVED. BelloWello (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Now, if I were to block Villwock (talk · contribs) for edit warring at Eau Claire Masonic Temple, that would be an WP:INVOLVED violation. *reminds self not to be stupid* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If the blocking of Avenu was so blindling obviously the right thing to do, why not ask onf the hundreds of other active admins to do it? --Jayron32 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I was on the spot and I didn't see the need to make anyone else review the diffs when it was that clear a case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED was the need to make someone else review the diffs. I just don't see how you can't understand this. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see how you can't understand that this isn't WP:CIVIL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The only positive thing I can say about the above comment is that at least Sarek isn't trying to hide how inadequate and desperate a response they've made. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a casual observance, to me it looks like Sarek witnessed a genuine violation of 3RR. The rule does stand... He probably believed the warring would continue if he wasn't blocked.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to file a WP:ANEW report like everyone else has to do if you're involved? BelloWello (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR. It was a brightline case. The need was immediate. The offender said he would continue. I see no issue here other than to make pointless drama. Move along. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish Sarek would reconsider. I do not consider this rocket science. No one one is going to take away the tools over this, but reputation's taking a hit. I regret this. All I personally want to see is some sort of understanding that this was badly handled and a commitment not to do it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping Sarek would do before I was forced to post here due to his refusal to even engage me in that particular conversation and that's what I'm still hopeful he will do.Griswaldo (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The need was not so immediate that a deeply involved admin had to be the one wielding the block. The last few times I've seen editors who are of a more deletionist bent using their tools in otherwise perfectly sensible ways on article they've been involved in they've been whipped off to ANI in two shakes of a lamb's tail. The aim here is to prevent SoV's actions here from causing unnecessary drama. I cannot see why that is a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely reject the "deeply" in the above statement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur, deeply is too strong. In this particular case, its not like there was some huge section of text being reverted...or that Sarek was at 2 or 3RR himself. That being said, would you agree to Wehwalt's statement immediately above thumperwards objectionable statement and try to make a commitment to not act in cases where your involvement might be questioned? Syrthiss (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what Chris C says above, I agree w/the above. Using the phrase "deeply" actually suggests such a level of hyperbole that it is eroding the point that some of us who share some of his views are seeking to make. I would suggest that it might be helpful if he were to perhaps consider striking it out, in recognition of that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I can make the commitment in good faith -- "might be questioned" pretty much lets me out of everything on my watchlist, so I'd be restricted to only noticeboard reports involving editors I'd never heard of before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sticking to areas that you have not been involved in seems appropriate for sys ops tools. If that means you can't use sys op tools on articles on your watch list, so be it! BelloWello (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, WP:INVOLVED is a section of the policy that defines the rules that a Wikipedia sysop is compelled to follow - WP:ADMIN. I find it hard to understand how, as an admin, you cannot "in good faith" pledge to uphold one of those rules. Can you explain that please.Griswaldo (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN and WP:IAR are both Wikipedia policies, but IAR is one of the five pillars that WP is built on. I can't pledge to follow ADMIN to the letter if it interferes with actually maintaining Wikipedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sarek. You do a fantastic job here, so pls just take this as helpful advice for you to perhaps consider for the future. I think that on this point, that of simply bringing problematic editing to another sysop's attention where some might view you as involved (and I agree -- the suggestion that you were deeply involved does appear to be a bit of a stretch), for the future it might be best to do that. I'm not sure there is a conflict in that case -- another sysop can react quickly. I otherwise think this string can be closed. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Even if the community thinks your wrong? IAR is not a magic trump card that can be used every time someone violates policy. WP:UNINVOLVED is, as far as I can tell, something the community expects from all of its admins - consensus here, for instance, reflects that fact, not to mention the policy referenced above, WP:ADMIN. I'm personally uncomfortable with anyone having admin privileges who is unable to meet even the most fundamental expectations of someone with those privileges. Please reconsider your stance on this.Griswaldo (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's where the line is finally drawn -- community consensus. When I IARed to RevDel a problematic edit summary, a community discussion determined I had misused IAR in that case, so I reverted. Looking at this, there's a clear consensus that my action was correct, but that someone else should have taken it. That makes it much harder for me to say that in all cases, I wouldn't take similar actions. I can certainly try not to wind up in a similar situation, but I can't promise not to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the action you took should have been taken, albeit by someone else, does not exonerate you from having taken an action in an area you were involved. Use the noticeboards like everyone else has to, it's not that hard. BelloWello (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek consensus is not that "[your] action was correct", consensus is that the action of blocking Avanu for 3RR was correct, but that your action of blocking Avanu is a problem. If I were to hijack an admin account, and block someone for 3RR you surely would not argue that my hijacking the account was justified because the editor clearly violated 3RR. You're either failing to understand the difference or wikilawyering. I'm not sure which it is, but both remain troubling to me because the end result is, again that you are unwilling to abide by the community's expectations of an admin.Griswaldo (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Tempest in a teapot. I quote from the policy page: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." Unless SoV has a history of being a rabid inclusionist (which I'm fairly sure he doesn't), I think replacing a commonly used ARS tag that is being unjustifiably removed by one editor isn't so much involvement in the issue, as trying to stop disruption. It seems clear to me that policy was not broken (really straightforward 3RR case), but maybe a "best practice" may have been. The thread seems a little long for a run of the mill "best practice" problem; I wonder if it has anything to do with its inclusionist/deletionist aspect?

  Sarek, unless you enjoy these interminable threads, I suggest erring on the side of caution in the future, not because you're violating policy, but because you're likely to end up at ANI threads. Plus, occasionally using RFPP, ANEW, or AIV might keep us more connected to the hoi polloi. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Except you're downplaying his involvement with the entry and specifically his clearly being in dispute with Avanu over the future of the entry which is amply documented above, and goes well beyond the edit you mention.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well said by Flo. I suggest the closing of this thread. All that could be said has been said, already, and keeping it open would only lead to redundant postings. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• Thread is generating more heat then light. SoV wasnt too far from sane on this, but there does need to be a community discussion about the Rescue tags, the appearance of canvassing with them has strengthened over time. -- ۩ Mask 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• I note that this is not the first time SarekofVulcan's admin actions and/or responses are causing this type of concern. An admin should make attempts to deescalate when a concern is raised about their involvement; it is unhelpful to unnecessarily escalate further (and that too, through what seems to amount to wikilawyering). Where an admin cannot deescalate, or where the admin is following a poor example to begin with, it becomes a bigger problem. There are a lot of problems with Wikipedia which need addressing (including by AC), and it would be helpful to the project if those could be addressed - without needing to set aside extra time to babysit a small handful of admins. That is, it would be a great shame if we needed yet another ArbCom case for instructing/restricting an admin from doing something which they should be avoiding when asked to. I think we all hope the drama free route is taken, but the decision falls on the admin at the centre of each concern to decide which route is going to be necessary in the future, and merely closing a noticeboard thread will not accomplish that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• For the record - As I showed in my diffs above I tried very hard to get this settled outside of AN/I and Sarek simply ignored me. He then proceeded to say "F*** Y**" in so many words to those who were concerned about his involvement by escalating escalate his own admin actions against Avanu when they were most certainly not needed. At AN/I he's been wikilawyering despite a clear consensus that his use of tools on Avanu was a dumb idea. I really don't appreciate suggestions that those who are concerned with this behavior are the ones causing drama here. Ncmvocalist's comment seems pretty on the money if you ask me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gris. I understand your viewpoint. I agree that consensus is what should guide us here. Views have been expressed, and now we are just all repeating ourselves, and I don't see any need or consensus support for continuing the thread at this point. There is no consensus for taking any action, and your point has been made.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Epee, it's not just my point, and there have been several commentators here, admins among them, who have asked Sarek to say the he wont do something like this again. I'm not sure how the matter is resolved when he refuses to do so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, no I most certainly did not say "fuck you" in so many words: I would appreciate it if you would rephrase that personal attack. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. That's how it felt but I certainly did not mean to put words in your mouth, which I guess is how it could be construed.Griswaldo (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that. If I try to put words to my lack of response there, it would come out something like "I think I'm right, you think you're right, and I don't believe I have any arguments that will change your mind."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Avanu - Now that I can speak for myself again, I would point out first that Sarek and I are on essentially the same side in the AfD discussion. We both favor keeping the content. I am comfortable with merge or keep, with a slight preference for merge because a number of editors do not believe that sufficient notability has been established.

In light of the edits in this AfD that led Sarek to block me, I can't see an emergency existing that justified his personal and immediate action. The extent of my reverts involved 1 tag. I agree that honestly, there is no practical difference between him doing it and another admin, but as many people have said, the policy is clear on this. If I were to claim a similar standard for my own actions, I could easily say, "I *had* to revert this, because no one else was going to as quickly as me." But most admins would say that is not in line with WP:BRD and wouldn't buy it. We *have* to work as a community, and I am a big believer in that, rather than doing things our way because they are 'easier'. I gave my reasons for why I felt this wasn't 3RR and I lost that argument -- so be it, sometimes you lose ... sometimes you win. I do want to say that I appreciate other editors coming to the defense of doing what was right in this situation, even while I was unable to speak on the matter. It is a credit to our community to have these kinds of checks and balances on one another.

The rescue tag was initially placed in the article by an editor who did not follow the guidelines at WP:RESCUE. This is clear if you review the WP:RESCUE page guidelines and review the edit history. I was initially surprised when I saw the wording of the rescue tag (it struck me as biasing the debate). My understanding is that we also have a policy on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. After the tag was added, and I removed it, other editors (members of ARS), simply re-added it without taking it to the Talk page. I *did* go to talk with an explanation of my concerns and why it didn't need to be added. If WP:BRD were followed initially (and if I myself hadn't adopted this brief crusade), we wouldn't have ended up edit warring on the addition of this tag.

Sarek did not attempt to discuss this either, and participated in one of the reverts that brought the rescue tag back. Now, we're all human (except those who are Vulcans :) ), and so I understand that we all got a little bit into this and hopefully this situation will remind each of us what we should have been doing.

On other matters, I will be working to ensure that this tag's biased language is replaced by a more neutral wording. I don't mind a call to action, in order to improve the article, in fact I welcome it for any article. My issue was never the idea of improving the article, but the idea that someone is able to wave a flag that gives people the idea "we're fixing this, don't mind that AfD".

Again, a thank you to all of you for taking a moment to keep us on the right track here, and for my part in this, I will try and gain consensus for this modification of the rescue tag and its guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be messing with article deletion/rescue tags and you shouldn't be edit-warring and wiki-lawyering to justify your concept of policy and guidelines. You had an issue with this as an IP editor on the Geraldine Doyle article before, remember?[27][28][29][30] And you're quite right you shouldn't be telling other editors "do shut the fuck up" when you chime in with your wisdom on an issue you know next to nothing about. Welcome to "life under the microscope"... Doc talk 01:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We all learn over time and learn from mistakes as well as successes. I think we all agree that I shouldn't be edit warring, nor should anyone else, I wasn't arguing that we should be, so I'm puzzled by your comment. I'm not sure what Wiki-lawyering is, but if I'm expected to hold to a standard, then I would expect the same of others, its only fair, right? As far as your bringing up the expletive, you should know better than to take things out of context. That was stated in a thread about how it is wrong to be uncivil and namecall other editors, and the strong language was there *explicitly* to demonstrate how people are made to feel in those situations. Many of my fellow editors were making up justifications for why its OK to be uncivil and I felt a strongly worded response (and simultaneous apology) was worth it, in order to show how wrong it is. -- Avanu (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment late in the game My apologies for coming late to this discussion. My comment is thus: ArbCom has already ruled about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety with the statement of

  All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct that creates a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention;

  I believe this is clear and unambiguous- administrators need to never use their tools when there is even a minor thought they are WP:INVOLVED. In this case SarekOfVulcan was in clear violation of both the policy and the ArbCom ruling. I am unsure if this is his first such violation or if this is a pattern. In either event, SoV must be cautioned against ever taking similar action again. If he can promise that and apologize for this situation then I think we can archive this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see this as a furthering the admins position in a content dispute - it seems like a simple case of a bright-line 3RR violation that was unrelated to content, against an editor who was well aware of 3RR. It is easy for these things to escalate as people start overstating both the degree of involvement and the nature of the dispute - it is better if these remain grounded. - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• What an immense waste of time. Sarek was not involved in a content dispute. He found some noob who was removing a rescue template from an article over and over again. This is not a content dispute. They weren't reverting each other over POV concerns, original research, unverified statements, the wording of a sentence, or anything even remotely related to the content of an article. If everyone agrees that the block was warranted, then why obsess over the fact that Sarek participated once in reverting an edit which could easily be construed as unambiguous vandalism (i.e. removing the rescue tag before the end of the AFD). If a SPA came along and added "hahahahahaha ur gay!" to an article, and Sarek reverted it, and the SPA reverted 4 times in a row over the course of 5 minutes, would anyone blink an eye if Sarek then blocked him? Doubt it. There is very little difference with this situation. I think it's about time for everyone to tone down the dramah. —SW— ^confess 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Snottywong, a waste of time. This thread should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I kind of find Snotty's attitude a bit snotty. I might be relatively new (in absolute time editing, but my account was created in 2006, just dormant for a long time), but I do try and learn and grow to work with the Wiki culture better. Snotty's cavalier attitude makes it sound like we should do whatever we feel like doing if it seems right to us. As I argued above, that sort of reasoning wouldn't win me any points, and most admins wouldn't permit it. Just because the rescue tag requests that it be left in until the end of the AfD does not mean it is POLICY to leave the tag there. I could add anything as a tag and have "don't remove me until Jimbo is elected president" but it won't mean a thing. I kind of don't feel like rehashing the entire thread for Snotty's benefit, but suffice to say, I had my reasons and Sarek had his, various editors had issues with things, and we've all said our peace. Snotty come lately is waving a dismissive hand at it all and being a tad impolite. Policy is clear and it applies to me just as strongly as anyone else. The problem isn't whether I can be checked if I make a mistake, but whether an admin can. Call it 'dramah' if you like, but it is an important concern for those here who don't have magic admin tools. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether or not policies can be stitched together to justify the action, I'm concerned by the effect on non-admins, many of whom are already suspicious of those with the tools. If for no other reason than that, Sarek should have at least tried to bring in another admin. However, I suspect all we can do right now is chalk this one up to experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please close this thread before I (for one) start really digging into this "new" editor's history? I am reminded of more than one indefinitely blocked user I've dealt with in the past that are very similar to "Avanu", and I don't buy for a second that this is a relatively new user that simply took a break. The disruptive behavior and wiki-lawyering "knowledge" of the rules here is a dead giveaway. I know, AGF and all that. But my Spidey-sense is tingling, and it's usually not too far off in left field. End this, please. Thanks :> Doc talk 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the real issue should be the impact on wikipedia itself. If someone continues to remove an appropriate tag, they should be stopped. If the admin thinks he might be "involved", he should bring it to others' attention. But first he should put a stop to the other users' behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If people want this thread closed then so be it, but lets clarify a couple of misconceptions. First of all, Avanu didn't raise this issue here, I did, and Doc your spidey senses run afoul of AGF. Additionally, you are all downplaying Sarek's involvement with Avanu and with the overarching dispute at the entry. Snotty makes it sound like Sarek showed up to revert one piece of vandalism and then later blocked the vandal. That could not be further from reality. When Silence (Doctor Who) was prodded, Sarek deprodded the entry, indicating that he felt it was notable and keep worthy. When the entry was then immediately AfDed, Avanu tried redirecting it to List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens#The Silence indicating that he didn't feel the entry was a notable on its own. AfD comments confirm these two positions - Avanu and SarekOfVulcan. During the AfD Sarek, as a strong keep voter and as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, commendably edited the entry to improve it - [31], [32], [33]. Meanwhile Avanu also edited the entry, in a manner more typical of someone who thinks it is problematic, by deleting "completely fabricated conclusions". Then came the edit war in question, in which Sarek contributed one revert to the opposite version of the one that Avanu was reverting to. The claim is made above that this wasn't a content dispute, but perhaps it was much more significant than a normal content dispute. Sarek is a member of the Article Rescue Squandron and was quite clearly trying to rescue the entry, while Avanu was quite clearly trying to have it redirected elsewhere, something Sarek warned Avanu not to do during the AfD. I understand that most people might not have dug this deeply into the page histories, but do you now see how the above characterizations downplay Sarek's involvement? I agree that this isn't a clear cut case of gaining advantage through blocking, but it is not out of the question that this was done for such reasons. Sarek was clearly monitoring the reverts, since he literally blocked Avanu immediately following revert #4. Yet he did not bother to warn him during any of Avanu's prior reverts. This indicates, though does not prove, that Sarek was waiting for that revert in order to block. Proving any ill intent, is of course, not possible, but that's why abiding by rules is something we do regardless of our intentions. Abiding by rules so as not to get into murky waters like these is something we especially expect of an admin. It's right there in WP:ADMIN which is a policy. Some people will say I'm beating a dead horse, but clearly others fail to understand the extent of this situation and require a refresher, so I don't feel bad about repeating myself here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly something odd going on with that Avanu account. It was created 5 years ago, made a few entries to get auto-confirmed, and then disappeared until this past winter, when it was temporarily sent to the phantom zone as being an obvious "sleeper" account. However, it was then unblocked. The account may be legitimate, but it perhaps needs closer examination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Well what did you expect in an opera? A happy ending?" ;> Doc talk 11:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you start singing "Kill the Wabbit", I may be compelled to request the services of my lawyer, the Hon. Charles H. Hungadunga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nowth winds bwow! Souf winds bwow! Doc talk 11:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sarek was clearly monitoring the reverts, since he literally blocked Avanu immediately following revert #4" -- actually, no, that was where I signed back on to WP after a break, and it was at the top of my watchlist.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek and I haven't always seen eye to eye but I have to admit. Not to discredit Griswaldo or Avanu for being angry with Sarek, but what exactly is the point of this report? Its just an utter waste of time. Sarek is neither going to be blocked or stripped of his admin tools. Like many admins on here he only makes blocking decisions based what he/she believes to be solid rules, at times perhaps too closely. Are there alternatives to blocking, well yes, one could warn or discuss issues on a talk page first, but at times it may be justified if it seems the individual won't cease with his behaviour or disruptive edits. If you really want to bring Sarek down, then this is certainly neither the place or time to do so. Most admins violate some sort of policy, hatever it is, and however trivial, on a daily basis and nobody blinks an eye... I could moan all day long about admins on here but where exactly does that get us and the encyclopedia? Nowhere. Now somebody please close this report and get on with some work!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, if you simply apologize for violating WP:INVOLVED and the ArbCom rulings, promise not to even give the hint of violating INVOLVED again and avoid future issues then I am certain we can collapse this thread and move on. Ok? Basket of Puppies 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please to be hatting this thread. —SW— ^communicate 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do wish that some of these editors would try to be less emotional about this. Griswaldo's comments and Basket of Puppies' comments both seem to say the same thing, and it is the *sole* reason for this thread. The rules on 'uninvolved' are clear. Bright line, if you like. I'm actually getting tired of how several people in this thread are trying to do everything *but* acknowledge that is the only thing here that we're talking about. I'm not mad at Sarek (yes, I didn't like being blocked, but who does). I don't think anyone should hang Sarek or anything. Its a really simple expectation, and hopefully since ArbCom and the rules align, its not something you guys should have an argument with. YES, I was in the wrong. YES, in a pragmatic sense, Sarek was right. But justifcation of actions by claiming an exemption is why I was blocked. I can't believe how so many of you can't see the simple parallel here.

As for these accusations made by Doc, and possibly Bugs, I feel like I now need my long form birth certificate. Suspicious much? I can easily prove who I am and that I didn't edit Wikipedia in the intervening time. You ever hear of someone trying something because they hear the hype and the moving on? Believe it or not, I do have other things in my life than just Wikipedia. If you have some method that can convince you, I could try and accomodate that, but I have a feeling you're just being jerks really. -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Resist the temptation to edit war in the future, and you'll be much better off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Good advice, but not the point, Bugs. -- Avanu (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you violate the 3-revert rule, then who blocks you is not really relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. See WP:UNINVOLVED not to mention the many comments from admins and other users above. There are legitimate reasons for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours -- 3RR is in truth not actually the "bright line" that people claim it is. A blocking admin always has to discern that the warring editor isn't reverting vandalism first. Someone who is involved in a dispute with another editor should not be making those types of determinations about their edits. I sense several comments here being directed towards Avanu, and some kind of dislike for him, as opposed to the actual issue at hand, which is WP:UNINVOLVED. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless a user is reverting vandalism or the edits of a banned user, 3RR is not only a bright-line, but it's not even necessary to breach it, if it's obvious edit-warring is going on. If an involved admin made the block, it could be discussed. But that does not let the edit-warrior off the hook. If someone is edit-warring, they are subject to being blocked to put a stop to the edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest the closing of this thread. All that could be said has been said, already, and keeping it open would only lead to redundant postings. IMHO. Apologies for not having said this sooner. As to Gris's comment on this -- there doesn't seem to be a consensus here for more than everyone saying their piece. Which has now happened. There is no consensus for action being taken against Sarek, and any effort to continue to say the same things at him as is happening now is just cluttering up this board, methinks. Good points have been made, all around. Time to close, and free people up for other pursuits. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Seem like an extreme and repeated violation of WP:INVOLVED. Temporary suspension of admin tools appears warranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If the admin were not involved, would the block have been warranted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Vitalsines

Vitalsines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alsl editing as 85.211.117.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is disruptively reveting my edits across several articles against consensus, complete with personal attacks. O Fenian (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - sanctioned logged at WP:RfAR/The Troubles/Log.etc. Any reason why this was not reported to AE? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

AE is sometimes a bit slow moving (and sometimes people will not enforce the 1RR sanction there anyway since it is a community imposed restriction not a committee imposed one), and this seemed a bit more urgent. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block on 1RR; I saw that the account was disruptive and likely intentionally so. Indef is a bit harsh for edit warring (at least in the first few instances) as far as I am concerned... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

General disruption is even less likely to get dealt with at AE, unless there are active applicable remedies nothing would tend to get done. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

Resolved

 – Complainant indefinitely blocked due to legal threats. –MuZemike 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

In Talk:Frank Dux, a new editor, claiming to be Frank Dux, posted a semi-rant that included "Directing people to and repeating the slander and libel of me is unlawful." He then tries to allege that I am an "agent" of some organization that is involved in a plot involving "managed misperception of me, demonstrative of ACTUAL MALICE".[34]. (Note that this article has a history of socking by Dux supporters.) Not sure if this has crossed the line into WP:NLT yet or if it's just heading that way. Perhaps some uninvolved admin might like to opine. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Editor notified [35]. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I admit that I'm confused. I can't tell if he's trying to threaten you, or if he's referring to material in the article about a previous case where he sued someone for defamation. I really can't tell. -- Atama頭 00:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Sounds kind of like both, but he's not very clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) So he returns: "you are acting in tandem intent on tortously interfering with my business opportunity by preventing correct information from being posted." "I am the person you are seemingly defaming and oppressing". "It is a starting point to detrermine why you possibly bare me actual malice". [36]. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Dux has also posted on BLPN: "I request to prevent me from being further damaged Escape Orbit & Niteshift36 identities to be disclosed so that I may hold them legally accountable. I insist given they be banned from editing my page as they act with actual malice towards me. If the situation is not corrected and these individuals are NOT prevented from inflicting further emotional distress and defamation of my character I can only conclude you endorse and ratify their tortuous, unlawful acts that may include trade libel since this page is being cited and used to compare me to my business competitors who go unscathed and not forced to endure unfair treatment and defamation I am experiencing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Well that removes all doubt about whether or not he is making a legal threat.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I have blocked him for issuing a legal threat. --Jayron32 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) A user talk page consisting of a welcome notice, and 3 hours later an indef notice. How quickly things can go downhill. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Well Bugs, when your very first contribution is to come in, start making threats and allegations that people you haven't even bothered to speak to are working in concert with some mystery organization....well, yeah, it starts downhill. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Since I'm in the area, The REAL Dux has requested an unblock of his indefinite block for making a legal threat. CycloneGU (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he gets it, but I'll leave him a message. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a legal threat to me. It could certainly become one, however. I believe he should be unblocked, but an admin should keep an eye on him.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible threat from vandalism-only account

Resolved

Gammanongurly is a vandalism-only account and needs an indef. This edit predicts an act of violence and I am emailing emergencywikimedia.org now. Rivertorch (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Since you've emailed WMF, nothing else to do here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WMF received the notification yesterday, by the way, and took appropriate action. Feel free to archive/hat this.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite

Lots of heat, very little light. The Audit Subcommittee is available to hear any concerns about the validity of oversighting these edits. Other than that, discussing in detail and at length the suitability or contents of oversighted edits defeats the benefits of the suppression. Time for us all to move on, and I think we all realise- including Hipocrite- that the posts that are now suppressed were not the best of ideas. Courcelles 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Hipocrite[37] has persistently engaged in aggressive behavior, personal attacks, disruptive editing and general incivility, some of which can be seen at the second of two WQAs he filed against me (neither of which gained any support for his position, and the latter which boomeranged against him). [38] Most recently, he posted information on the Murder of Meredith Kercher page questioning a position I stated by posting information he believed to involve my real life identity. The edit has been suppressed. I don't believe that his apology for him giving this information which could Out me was sincere, and his explanations don't seem credible to me. I have never indicated on WP what my real life ID is, nor do I believe that it is usual to seek to learn someone's real life ID and then attempt to use that information for a discussion about edits to an article.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. The first hit was (but is no longer) your real name. I tried not to reveal this publicly, and gave you at hint on how to fix it on my talk page after you were terribly offended that I asked you about a paper you published. Your assumption that I spent more than three minutes looking for your ID is false. Further, the edit you state "outed" you did no such thing - it included zero personally identifying details about you, unless the fact that you were involved with a paper that was about rural development is personally identifying. Hipocrite (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Seriously LedRush. If you're concerned about any wiki connection to your real life name you really shouldn't connect your screen name to it. I made a similar mistake long time ago and corrected it when I realized that people could track me down which would've big consequences for me. I didn't follow or looked into the whole story (and might not do so) so I don't know and comment on John's judgment in this case. Maybe you should consider a wiki user name change if you feel uncomfortable to be "tracked down" that easy.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Per the outing policy, she doesn't have to confirm or deny whether it was successful or not. We do not have confirmation that the outing incident was successful, simply that it was attempted, which generally results in a block. BelloWello (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) At no point did I post any information about LedRush remotely covered by the outing policy. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I agree that editor Hipocrite has been engaging in rather belligerent behavior on the article referred to. Badgering editors about everything attempting to keep things out of the article even when they are reliably sourced. BelloWello (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Outing is very serious, but unfortunately if the material was suppressed, I can't tell if there really was an attempt at outing or not. Do you know who suppressed it? The only people who can completely suppress such information are also people who can enforce our harassment policy, so I'm surprised that no action was taken if this really was a case of outing. Where was this attempt made? I also agree with TMCk, WP:OUTING doesn't apply to information you volunteer. If you choose a username that can be easily traced back to a real life identity, you're not making much of an effort to protect your own privacy. That doesn't totally excuse someone revealing your identity, but you should take a little responsibility for that yourself if it's that great of a concern. -- Atama頭 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Ditto to your last sentence Atama, although I too don't have the actual information since it was deleted from wiki. Guess only admins with access to it can really make a judgment call on thisTMCk (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I don't see anything volunteered about real life identity, do you? Also, there are a lot of people with that username online with contradictory names. Obviously, one would have to do a lot of work to figure out which one is which. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I think you'll find that there are many "LedRush's" out there as I am often unable to obtain this username or variants of it. I am not confirming Hipocrite's assumption of my real life ID, either. However, it does seem like a dramatic breach of WP policy to search out someone's real ID and then use the information you find in a discussion on a talkpage and provide other people with the ability to obtain the same information. The issue shouldn't be how easy Hipocrite thinks he can find the information, but why he's looking for it, why he's using what he found as fuel for his arguments against me.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted did not include any personal information about LedRush at all, except for the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development. I did not post his name, anything that could be tracked back to his name (like the name of the paper), his address, employer, or whatever. The information I posted is far less revealing about his identity (infact, it's totally non-relevatory) compared to his username. Hipocrite (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Regarding who suppressed the edit, Alison (talk · contribs) has confirmed an oversight on Hipocrite's talk page. That is all that I know of the matter. SuperMarioMan 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) There is also the incidentally related fact that this user has been taking disagreements to a whole new level at the murder article, now taking it so as to look up personal information about a collaborator. Something needs to be done about the InWP:CIVIL behavior taking place. BelloWello (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're not staying on topic. Any specific reason for this from the past as you're a brand new account?TMCk (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It has already been confirmed on my talk page that I have had no prior interaction with Hipocrite or the article in question. This is all what I've noticed since returning. BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks, you've answered part two of my question but you left out part one.TMCk (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec)While the article dispute seems to be well beyond the scope of this discussion, I did have a quick look. Just glancing at the last section of that article's talk page (Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher#60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on Choice to Study in Italy, it does appear that both LedRush and particularly BelloWello are being needlessly strident in their attempt to include a dubious interpretation of a low-quality study in what is apparently a contentious article. While BelloWello is right that it may be worthwhile to examine their edits, I suspect that the issue would be better handled in a content venue like WP:RSN. In examining the purported 'outing', it does seem that there is no disagreement that Hipocrite's comment(s) referred to LedRush's identity only indirectly. Hipocrite linked LedRush's account to his real name using information that is/was trivially discoverable through a straightforward search on Google; and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself. Absent a clear conflict of interest or other serious editing issue, we obviously should respect LedRush's request to avoid reference to his off-Wikipedia identity in the future, and the offending edit(s) have been oversighted. Nevertheless, LedRush must acknowledge some responsibility for his own carelessness in maintaining (or failing to maintain) separation between his online identities. He should also realize that he does himself no favors by drawing attention to himself and his identity on a high-traffic noticeboard after the issue has been satisfactorily resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) " and it seems that the information was available on pages/profiles/comments published/posted by LedRush himself." I don't remember doing this. Could you elaborate?LedRush (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Do you want me to have a discussion on a public noticeboard where I speculate about how I might go about finding out your identity? My understanding is that Hipocrite offered you implicit suggestions about how you could go about unlinking your online identities; I presumed that that meant that the web pages in question were under your control. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) So postings in the real world made by someone using the name "LedRush" (there are many) means that you can post all of their info here on Wikipedia? I guess I'm not seeing your point.LedRush (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll sometimes look up information about a person, using only information they volunteer, at WP:COIN. That's explicitly allowed per WP:OUTING, "However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." Other than that, it's best not to go off-wiki to look up a person, and you certainly don't post any info on Wikipedia. Hipocrite insists that he didn't, LedRush claims otherwise, and Alison is probably the only person who knows what really happened. By the way, if something was removed via oversight, admins can't see it if the oversighter chooses that option. The revision in question is totally greyed out to me, so apparently she did take that option. -- Atama頭 00:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite admitted he went offsite to seach info about me. His summary of what info he chose to post is fairly accurate, but I believe it could be used to get to the same real life ID which Hipocrite says I am.LedRush (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I googled your username. You are actually accusing me of outing you for googling your username? Hipocrite (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You went off site, tried to find info about me, and then tried to use that info about me in a discussion on the talk page which could lead others to the same info that you searched.LedRush (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The information I posted could in no way lead anyone to any info about you. Your username on the other hand, needs fixing. Hipocrite (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, yes it could. The username is used by multiple people online, and NO it does not immediately lead to their real life identity, as the information you posted attempted to do. BelloWello (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I saw it, it was serious, as are most outing situations. Apparently, Allison agrees since she hid it further. BelloWello (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) This is a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, no, it isn't. You gave out information that (if true) could have resulted in identifying her. This is Allison's summary after redacting it. BelloWello (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Is my summary of the information above - "the fact that he was a co-author of a paper about Rural Development," an accurate description of the "outing" that I did? Yes or no will work. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If that was it, and it was redacted, why in hells name would you be posting it again, twice? BelloWello (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) yes or no will do. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Again, if that was it, and oversight thought it responsible to redact it, why in hells name would you be reposting it? BelloWello (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I didn't know (as Atama just said) that edits can be totally blanked out even for admins so I guess Alison should shed some light on what appears to be opinions that differ on what exactly happened.TMCk (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If there is anything left that needs to be addressed at this noticeboard – and not just pointless bickering – it would be helpful to have input from editors who both saw the comments and who aren't actively involved in a content dispute with the parties. Further comments from LedRush, Hipocrite, and BelloWello are unlikely to be helpful at this juncture. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The evidence that existed is no longer visible, so I would repeat TMCk's call for Alison, if at all possible, to give an account of what happened, if necessary. SuperMarioMan 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Content was suppressed by both Alison and me. Neither instance was an overt identification of User:LedRus. However, the nature of the information led to personal information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) (ec) I concur. I saw it. It was not serious as Bello puts forth (not doing anything helpful here). Hipocrite is accurate....and yes, sometimes with reference to COI's or Socks, we look things up off wiki. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) As I've been asked to comment here, I can state that the diff suppressed contained a very clear link to the RL identity of LedRush (talk · contribs). It did not contain an RL name, but it was unequivocal in its linking to this person's RL identity. I certainly stand over its suppression, indeed Hipocrite suggested it be requested (also now suppressed by Fred Bauder) - Alison ❤ 01:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Uh-oh. What Alison reports is troublesome. That's classic outing -- unequivocal linking to a person's RL identity is outing.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Users should also review Allison's further statement at [39]. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC) A Small Break for Focus Most of the conversation above is about whether Hipocrite's post was technically an Outing or not. That was not the only focus of my initial report above, which referenced a slew of issues with Hipocrite. I suggest that someone review the link [40]to the WQA he filed against me for a list of some recent attacks and harassment. Additionally, I find that his deliberately searching the internet to find out who I was (regardless of how "easy" he thinks it was) and then using that information in an argument against me is beyond uncivil and warrants Admin action. That the info could be used to Out me, and was perhaps intended to, is just one of a set of much larger issues, in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You, yesterday, complimented me, saying that my proposed edit was "Awesome." I thought we were getting along so swimmingly, before you, for some reason, decided that you were going to play "run to admins." I wish you'd just stop and discuss the article on the article talk page without trying to get people who disagree with you blocked or banned. Hipocrite (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The very fact that an editor was taking a topic editor seriously enough to research a fellow editor's identity online is highly disturbing, and needs to be curved by whatever means necessary, in my opinion. BelloWello (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Let's be very clear - I googled his name when he came in out of the blue to a controversial article with very strong opinions to determine if he was a sock of someone, and then to determine if he had a COI - and we all know exactly who I thought that was. When I found he had a real online presence, and that he had no professional connection to the article I stopped, but I didn't forget the trivial to determine name. When he said he was a co-author of a paper, I googlescholared him. That's the extent of my "research." I'm done responding here. I'm willing to forgive and forget this misguided attempt to get people who make it hard for you to slant articles banned. I hope you are willing to do the same. Let's drop it. Hipocrite (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'd agree. I did not see the original comment at the talk page, and therefore cannot evaluate how injudicious it was. However, to be fair to Hipocrite, he did make a recommendation for oversight, as Alison points out. All pertinent talk page and user talk page edits have been expunged. In the absence of visible evidence, I don't know what the continuation of this argument will achieve, since there is nothing to look at. Making reference to already-concluded WP:WQA discussions rather changes the focus here, and I am not certain that such a focus is really within the scope of this WP:ANI discussion. Nevertheless, Hipocrite, in light of this incident, will you pledge to exercise greater caution from now on? SuperMarioMan 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I will make every attempt to forget who LedRush and Bellowello are, and will certainly never knowingly comment on their identity or anything about them. Hipocrite (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, but does that mean you've identified me as well? You are obviously taking this topic area wayyyy too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Your old username was disclosed to me via email through no research done by me at all. I believe someone you (or an admin you are friendly with) were in conflict with did that research and noticed my question on your talk page. It is also a reasonably trivial endeavor. Sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Frankly, that makes me highly uncomfortable as the whole purpose of creating a new account was to AVOID such ID. This is ridiculous, so you've gone around figuring out who TWO SEPARATE editors who disagreed with you were in real life? Frankly, this is quite disturbing and I am quite uncomfortable with it. Nothing you can say at this point will change that. BelloWello (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC) It is a way to find out more about editors (and only what they release willingly online) like if they might be sock or meat puppets or if there is a potential COI issue involved. Standard practice not only here on wiki and if you disclose your real name by e-mail than it is your own fault. It wasn't disclosed on wiki, wasn't it? So nothing to complain from your side.TMCk (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) What am I supposed to do, not read my email? I didn't do any figuring out about you. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I did 'not provide him with anything identifiable. As you can see from a google search, there is nothing to identify me online based on username. I don't think I'm out of line to ask for an email explaining exactly what you know, who told you, and how you found out. BelloWello (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know your old username - nothing more. I was emailed directly from a throw-away account. Hipocrite (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) May I ask that the email is forwarded to bluerox22193 [at] gmail.com? I would like to review it. That email is used exclusively for wikipedia. BelloWello (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I'll do so momentarily. The email consists of "BelloWello was previously known as X" where X is probably your old username. It was sent from an anonomizing proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The issue here, in my opinion, is that an editor is taking a content dispute so seriously, that they went on the internet to find information about a fellow editor, therefore, contravening WP:OUTING. I think that all but cries out for admin action of some sort. Whether that's an interaction ban for a while, topic ban, etc. I don't know. I just think something needs to be done. Note that I am not advocating for an indefinite block of any sort. BelloWello (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Commenting in regards of the very first post in this new section to get some clarification. So your concern that made you start that thread was outing by John Hipocite was nothing more than a "make believe" to get the attention for a much wider issue? Don't you think you could and should have started the whole thing with the big picture you had in mind from the beginning (like you just confessed)? So we waste a lot of time while you had something else in mind? Is that correct? Just trying to get it right.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) The outing seems to be the cherry on top of a very concerning situation. BelloWello (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) PS - I'm not John. Hipocrite (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Topic ban? On what grounds? With respect, BelloWello, with snappish comments such as this one, I'd argue that Hipocrite is far from the only one taking things seriously. SuperMarioMan 02:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC) @BelloWello: You still didn't answered part of my question further above so I won't respond to in my opinion unhelpful comments of yours.TMCk (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would recommend that this whole discussion is closed before it is permitted to turn into a swamp of accusations and counter-accusations. Oversighting has remedied the immediate cause for concern which prompted this discussion. Hipocrite has promised to keep his edits in check. The WP:WQA discussions mentioned have long since been resolved and archived - as far as I can tell, the one that LedRush has posted above ended on an amicable note. SuperMarioMan 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I would disagree. The user has outed an editor, admitted to looking up information on another editor. That is clear evidence of someone that is taking things way too seriously. BelloWello (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I second SuperMarioMan's recommendation that the thread be closed. I agree with his statements and per my own earlier in a related thread on this board that we try to seek a peace through disengaging. I'm starting to think that the MoMK be full protected for a month just so all the bickering may cease. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the support, Berean Hunter. Your mediation skills shine once more. SuperMarioMan 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Rmarsden

Content dispute that needs to be settled elsewhere —DoRD (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Rmarsden have made edits[41] to NBN Co Limited containing BLP and NPOV issues. I reverted the edit and contacted the user[42] about my concerns, but the user restored the edit without addressing my concerns. The user have since broken the WP:3RR. Before I start a edit warring, I would like a second opinion on the issue. Thanks. — [d'oh] 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Edit: The user also has[43] replaced sourced information with a statement not backed up by the sources in the article. — [d'oh] 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I added factual and sourced information to the article. User D'oh! reverted with rationale that The Australian (one of Australia's largest and most respected daily papers) is not a good source. I have added additional references and adjusted wording to avoid potential misunderstanding. User D'oh! continued to revert my edits without addressing my replies adequately --Rmarsden (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I had a look at the offending edits. I don't see what this is doing here at ANI. There's edit warring here for sure--but while both are at 4RR, so to speak, one could easily argue that D'oh's Rs are nothing but the removal of sourced information (i.e., page blanking, or vandalism). I don't see what's wrong with Rmarsden's language anyway--it's hardly POV, and the claim made by D'oh on Rmarsden's talk page, that these are POV edits that link two characters to some ongoing case, is simply bogus--as far as I can tell anyway. Let me put it to you two in plain English: stop edit warring. I will reinforce this with a note on y'all's talk pages. D'oh, you have no case, and any continued removal of verified information based on bogus POV claims may lead to a warning or a block. If you have beef, take it up on the talk page or another noticeboard--for BLP violations, for RS, for POV, or any one that tickles your fancy (you're aiming at all of them, I think). You may NOT use ANI to settle content disputes. Rmarsden (but you're relatively new here, which is exculpatory), you crossed the line also: read WP:3R for your mandatory homework. Next time, do NOT be reverting, but notify someone--a friendly admin (or an editor who can be easily bribed--I accept PayPal), the 3R noticeboard, whatever--instead of making yourself liable to such charges. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) User:D'oh! User D'oh! continues to revert my (constructive, I think) edits of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network without proper rationale. Most of my edits are aimed at removing perceived bias and making sure article matches references provided. --Rmarsden (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You're both clearly edit warring on the article, I'd suggest both of you stop reverting each other immediately. Dayewalker (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Rmarsden, leave it be. There is a thread already on this very case, right above this one (but you knew that already). Listen to Dayewalker, and read the template I just placed on your talk page. To any passing admin, please close this. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Hold on--you two are fighting on TWO articles--I thought just one. Well, leave it be just the same. Edit warring is edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent hacking

The Nailsea article now contains an obscene image. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know why I can't just roll back the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid Jaguar's edit [44], but I can't figure out how that image got in there. It's very strange.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted myself. Jaguar had nothing to do with this.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Now when I look back at the older version [45]. The image doesn't appear anymore???--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Kettering. I keep seeing porn on there in Opera, but not Internet Explorer. It shows a man's shaved testicles and a circumcised penis. Betty Logan (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a vandalized template [46] It's been reverted. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, for future reference, things like this are usually template vandalism. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

All template namespace should be semi-protected by default. There's no reason a brand new editor would have a legit edit for something technical like that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the "anyone can edit" mantra? Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And only brand-new editors are vandals? Hunter, the history sheds light on any permanent protection debate. It was protected, despite never having been vandalized before, and then unprotected apparently following discussion at ANI (I remember a big ho-hum). It's protected now, but calling for all templates to be protected is probably not going to find general consensus. BTW, copulating dogs? it must be spring! Drmies (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What percentage of changes to templates by new editors are constructive? My guess is less than 1% but I am open to being proved wrong. --RaptorHunter (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an unfashionable question, so hush. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Its template vandalism. It happens, though far less than it did before the edit filter was turned on. Many templates are fully protected and many more are semiprotected. There is no real good reason to protect EVERY template out there as hundreds of good edits per week are made by anonymous editors to innocuous templates. If you see this in the future, click "related changes" and look for changes to templates. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be some sort of standard. For example if any template is on over a hundred pages, it get's automatically semi-protected or something.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that particular template is now fully and indefinitely protected. Considering its straightforward function, frequent use, and the improbability of it ever needing to be edited at all, I think this is good. I can't remember recently having a good reason to want to edit a template, protected or otherwise, but templates such as [47] should not be protected by default. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your example template is only transcluded 8 times [48]. The template that was vandalised here was transcluded 13,594 times!!! [49] It's amazing this thing was ever unprotected.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "Meepsheep" inserted by the vandal is referring to the one posting dox of teenage girls on the ED.ch site. (By the way, someone should really see if that's illegal.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, which is a double-edged sword; that means while people are free to edit it, people are also free to vandalize or outright abuse it. –MuZemike 06:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, they are free to try - they are not allowed to by consensus... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't stop them. The first few times, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet. Count Iblis (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Simbagraphix refusing to discuss

Simbagraphix (talk · contribs) refuses to discuss his edits to Southern Adventist University. I was wondering if someone could coax him into discussing. See the threads I posted on talk page [50] and [51]. I also asked him for comment on his talk page. There are now four threads on the talk page requesting justification for his edits. I'm at a loss for a path forward to collaborate with this editor who absolutely refuses to do anything but make edits (many of them lacking summaries). BelloWello (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I got your messages and have gotten into the discussion page on the college Southern Adventist University, and await your comment.Simbagraphix (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (I think the close was premature.) Recently there was been a rash of edit warring at SAU. The page was recently put under full protection for edit warring, and as soon as it was unprotected the war resumed. Currently, there is a 3RR report by Bello of another user, User:Fountainviewkid, for edit warring at SAU. Does the community need to take a closer look at this situation? Lionel (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The alternative account BelloWello, created 10 days ago, is making a large number of reports at noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Three I believe on the edit warring board (one block, one protection (boomerang) and a pending one), and then this one. Did I miss any? BelloWello (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There this one [52] about Simbagraphix, and this one [53] also about FVK. Dayewalker (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The first one is the same as this one. I moved it here on second though, as two revisions later, you can see. You are right, I forgot about the request for comment on user names. So five. I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to use these, however. BelloWello (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
      • There was the long subthread above about Hipocrite; and this posting on WP:RSN two days ago. Mathsci (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Are you saying I was incorrect in challenging the use of a self-published book as a source to call a highly respected scholar "progressive?" You are aware that I was the one who later found a reliable source for the same claim? And, I didn't start the thread about Hipocrite. BelloWello (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The number and frequency of these reports might put undue pressure on other editors of Southern Adventist University. [54] Discussions about the article are best kept to the article talk page, instead of comments on user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are you saying that a small notification letting them know I asked a question on the article talk page is inappropriate? I thought the editor hadn't seen the message! Point taken, otherwise. I will try to use the noticeboards as more of a last resort. BelloWello (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, since we've been mentioning noticeboards, I would estimate I've reported 8 or so editors to the WP:ANV, all IPs making random trash. BelloWello (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Discussions about the article should be kept on its talk page, so that other potential editors are aware of your concerns. There is no WP:deadline on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits made and reverted discussed here here

Hi, please let know of criteria of PVO after going through the discussion. Talk:Christianity_in_India#Vandalism_in_edits_.5B.7C_here.5D_by_Gaitherbill_and_user_SpacemanSpiff_.5B.7C_here.5D I would like to welcome decision after through discussion on the topic where everyone ignores sourced content as right wing POV. This behavior may be (may be not) similar to Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#Why_is_a_reference_to_the_Goa_Inquisition_being_deleted or Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#An_edit_war_by_compulsive_reverts._Is_this_article_neutral.3F. The sources I mentioned are as follows:

1. http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch21.htm

2. http://apostlethomasindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/the_myth_of_saint_thomas_and_the_mylapor.pdf

3. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm

4. http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics

5. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/

7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm

8. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html

9. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf

10. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm

11. http://www.upanishad.org/en/chidananda.htm

12. http://www.upanishad.org/vandana/vandana_mataji.htm

13. http://www.upanishad.org/ishpriya/biography.htm Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Are you serious? I opened the first link and read the first paragraph: "The history of Christianity, crowded as it is with crimes of the most horrendous kind, provides a running commentary on the Christian doctrine. And the biggest share in Christian crimes down the centuries can safely be alloted to the Roman Catholic Church, its head, its hierarchy, its theologians, its religious orders, and its missionaries." Whilst I'm no supporter of Christianity (or any other religion) that doesn't look terribly neutral or reliable!! If all your "sources" are like that you are wasting everyone's time. Anyway, I think you've got the wrong noticeboard: try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard DeCausa (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming here that all sources are like this, without inspecting all the sources, including the ones where Christians are maintaining sites and Ashrams just like Hindus and include the name of Hindu Gods and religious scriptures in the literature(for examples the sources mentioned here 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 i.e. 8 different sources)...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure there is opposition among some Hindu organisations to the extension of Christianity, and the existence of ashram-like churches is an interesting fact which is worth reporting. But I agree with DeCausa above that (a) the sources presented are not appropriate, but are rather primary sources whose use constitutes original research and (b) that this is not the right place for this discussion. Please continue on the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as suggested.

Thisthat2011, while I accept you don't like your material being reverted, the reversions were not vandalism. Removing poorly worded or sourced material is a constructive activity. If you disagree with it, the right action is to discuss it calmly and reach a compromise, not to label it as vandalism. By the way, could you remember to sign your talk page contributions with ~~~~, which will identify them? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that what was mentioned there was true and I wanted to put it in as less number of words and as many sources as possible. I have changed my signature thanks. I was incorrectly testing it on my own page where link is not shown (perhaps to own page) and therefore was not getting messed up..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation

We need an uninvolved admin to close Wikipedia:Deletion review#Last-minute rescue. After some contentious back-and-forth, I discovered that the deleted article, which was deleted as OR and then userfied at User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue, was rife with copyvios: full blocks of text lifted nearly verbatim from multiple sources. Its creator, George Serdechny (talk · contribs), has copped to it by basically explaining that he did it intentionally to make a WP:POINT,[55] and removed a huge portion of text, claiming that it's now resolved.[56]

Well, it isn't. From User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue#Competent opinion: "the rescue that comes 'in the nick of time', the stock and trade of sensational melodrama..."; "the last-minute rescue (or the last-second rescue), and an escape scenario, in which the hero has to escape from a seemingly impossible situation...".

And worse, it seems like this is his normal editing method, rather than just disruption out of resentment towards the AFD. From his article, Evil Russian: "Reagan was the most vehemently anti-Russian President America had seen"; "between 1942 and 1945, the Soviet Union gradually underwent a makeover on American cinema screens..."; "The Mob tries to extort protection money from the father, and their evil Russian karate expert breaks Dad's leg...". From Arab terrorist: "From 1977 to 1993, the only Arab terrorism..."; "...the movie’s response to film terrorism is to deconstruct the Hollywood image..."

So we need someone to close the deletion review, the full deletion of the userfied page, a full investigation of all of his contributions for copyright infringement, and some decision as to how to deal with the editor from here. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing some of postdif's revelations, I made the request last night to close the deletion review as a copyvio situation, as well as a temporary block (though based on his behaviour, I suggest a longer block) against the user in order to give a chance for us to check the rest of his contributions. Since the page in his userspace holds many copyvio situations, we need to eliminate the page entirely if only to remove all of the copyvios that are saved in the history.

It should also be noted that this editor has posted abusively on at least one user's talk page (see this diff.). He went so far as to referring to editors in the debate as "stupid" and suggested that actions against his article would be a blemish on the administrator's record. I posted a reply to the message later (after postdif's post there) pointing the admin. in question to the copyvio evidence and will notify that admin. now of this AN/I request. CycloneGU (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, the things I get into after commenting in an AFD. This user has been persistent in his refusal or inability to understand that original research, in Wikipedia's sense of the term, includes novel synthesis. The connections he claims between cited sources are rarely fully realized in those sources, and have at times been provably false. But more importantly for ANI's purposes, those cited sources appear to be frequently -- if not universally -- copyright violations. The entire "Hollywood Support" section from his version of National Council of American-Soviet Friendship was lifted from page 253 of his source. The entirety of National Council on Soviet Relations was lifted from this here. When he broke Jorj X. McKie back out from a redirect, adding cited passages, every passage he cited is a copyright violation of the cited source. I reverted that article to a redirect, but have stopped short of trying to restore non-offending versions at this time, as use of revdel is probably called for in many of these circumstances. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• In terms of the copyright issues, I've done a spot-check of his contribs and confirmed that at least three of his articles are unusable in current form. Given issues noted here, this is sufficient to warrant a WP:CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110429. This one is relatively brief. Please help. :) Some of our CCIs are over a year old, and we could really stand to whittle them down. Since I've opened this CCI, I suppose somebody else had better address the deletion review. As to what to do, in terms of copyright: I don't see a history of copyright text warnings. He has been informed now. If he continues copying content, then we will have to block. Hopefully, this won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at an earlier version of his talk page, he's had loads of problems over non-free images. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he has that; but this seems to be his first brush with text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• After looking through the archives of his talk page, and looking at many other articles that he created, it seems that this is not a new problem at all. Despite claiming that this recent bout of copyvio was in order to make a point with his current debates, this is not true at all. He's been creating pages that are just blatant copyvio for ages now. Just for a few examples, the page he created of Chris Adams (character) was almost lifted entirely from this source. The page on Calvera (character) was lifted from this source. This seems to be a regular pattern with this user. He'll create poorly written articles, and the moment they are proposed for deletion, he'll immediately respond by adding in copyvio material directly copies from books. This is a rather serious problem, as the user was a rather prolific editor, and has been creating pages like this for over a year.Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And as another example, the page he created on Institute for Information, Telecommunication and Media Law was copy/pasted from the institutes own webpage here. As I said, it seems that this is nothing new with this user, and everything he has ever contributed needs to be reviewed.Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful on that one, their is an OTRS permission on the talk page, I'm not convinced it covers the text used (as it's apparently a permission from somewhere else, though there is a connection) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough on that that one, then. I did notice that on the talk pages for some of the other articles' talk pages, the issue of copyvio was mentioned before, with instructions given to the user in question that direct quotes or summaries of other works were permitted with citation. Unfortunately, the user neither indicates that the passages in question are quotes, nor rewords them, so they still just stand as copyvio.Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is absolutely not the editor's first involvement with copyright problems with text. I've been trying to check for and clean up this editor's copyright violations and novel synthesis for most of the day. Dropping over to the Russian Wikipedia (via Google Translate) to try to locate one of the sources cited, I discovered that identical edits (accounting for translation) had been made to a large number of their articles. The user there, ru:Участник:Георгий Сердечный, is unquestionably the same person as the en-editor under discussion. Both the en-user and the ru-user formerly used the same name; the en-user for some time requested that communication with him from here instead be done there. On ru, this editor has a long history of warnings for copyright violation and has been blocked several times (aside: the Russian Wikipedia gives out very short blocks, it seems), including a block on 5 September 2010 explicitly for (again, via Google Translate) "systematic infringement of copyright". From parsing through the talk page, I believe that the block on 28 June 2010 was also for copyright violations, although that's not precisely stated in the block log. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by a prolific internet conspiracy theorist

Google "Samual Antoine Moser." Yep, that's the guy I'm being harassed by.

• Dr_CareBear (talk · contribs)

• 99.56.174.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.32.61.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.148.192.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 99.56.161.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

My first encounter with Sam Moser was under the IP address 99.56.174.63. After it was explained to him that fringe original research isn't accepted here, he started spamming my page with accusations of being "a member of the Chruch of Satan and part of a World Wide Masonic conspiracy for a holocaust of Christians" on the basis that the numbers in some sentence fragments add up to 777 in different codes and because I reverted his POV Fringe OR on the Church of Satan article. He revealed that his name is Samuel Antoine Moser, so I'm not outing him. He then went and began an off-site slander crusade against me, which I know nothing can be done about, but it does show that this guy is unbalanced (I don't care if anyone considers that a PA, it's pretty fucking obvious). He came back later under the address 99.148.192.105 and spammed my talk page with more nonsense like "IAN THOMPSON'S SATANISM = 777 in multiples of 3," a bit upset because I linked to a site that discusses Moser's history of stalking, paranoid delusions, and harassment in response to someone ask why I was so dismissive of his fringe views in Talk:Samuel. He was banned for this. Dr CareBear immediately came out of nowhere and insisted that I made personal attacks for pointing out Moser's questionable off-site behavior. Dr CareBear admits to being Sam, so I'm not outing him. But if that wasn't enough, he had no previous involvement in any of this, happens to know Sam's exact facebook page, happens have a Dayton phone number (the IP addresses for Sam Moser are in Dayton, Ohio), also happens to have a wife from the Phillipines (Sam does according to the FB page he himself linked to), shares Sam's belief that antipsychotic medication is deadly (again, he linked his own FB page), and resumed Sam's discussion at Talk:Jehovah.

Dr CareBear is just another account of Sam Moser's, which was used to continue harassing me after his IP got blocked. Even if this somehow isn't enough, he certainly is a meatpuppet. This person (who has been detained by both mental institutions and the police in the past for various reasons) has a history of stalking and harassing people, and I've become his next target. I concede that there's nothing I can do about his off-site slander of me, but his on-site harassment and sockpuppetry to continue that harassment should not be tolerated.

When his ban expired, he ducked back into another IP address, 99.56.161.215 to continue his personal attacks based on his delusions that alphumerics prove everything and that I reverted a POV OR fringe edit of his last year. He's taken to spamming his facebook page to promote his views.

I've talked with the webmaster at masonicinfo.com, who has been a target of Moser's harassment over the years. Basically, as long as Moser isn't on his meds, he is going to harass me. Well, he doesn't have to, because we can block people, can't we? This person is too broken to be of any use to the site, since he will continue to harass me and see this site as a means to promote his delusions.

I don't want anyone to point to WP:NPA when I say he is mentally unwell. How else would you describe him? Sane? Functional? No.

It all boils down to one editor that tries to duck behind sock puppets with an agenda; against another editor who does a lot to prevent vandalism and OR, and has contributed a fair amount to certain obscure religion articles. The former is really disturbing the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

o.o

This person is mentally unfit to exist in this world certainly acting in a mentally unfit way. Can you involve the police, or at least Google, in the off-Wiki slander? CycloneGU (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried reporting it, but Google never responded. Another part of my discussion with the masonicinfo.com webmaster, Moser doesn't really seem to respond to legal threats, since he's been incarcerated before. One time the police walked in Moser hitting "redial" to continue harassing the masonicinfo.com webmaster. When he's off his medication, he's just lucid enough to do something really crazy. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Dr_CareBear indefinitely, and the most recent IP for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I hope he gets the message that that sort of behavior just isn't right. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the apparent connection between Dr_CareBear and the IP accounts, see this unblock request made by Dr_CareBear. He complains that personal attacks were directed at him, yet the Dr_CareBear account had sat idle for over two months; the alluded-to comments were directed at an IP. I'd say that's an effective admission that Dr_CareBear was editing as the unregistered accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not close this just yet

I really think we ought to community ban this guy so that all his posts can be deleted on sight. There's no good reason to let him wind up serious editors for thousands of bytes on talk pages like he's been doing at Talk:Jehovah. It's all a lot of wasted noise that does nothing for the encyclopedia and takes up people's time. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's clear he's been disrupting various venues on the net for a long time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - After talking with the webmaster of masonicinfo.com, I would not put it past Moser to continue his activities on this site under different IP addresses, nor would I put it past him taking his harassment further (say, into stalking) if it's not nipped in the bud. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Unlikely to ever be a constructive contributor to the 'pedia, seems to add only drama, permaban IMO. Heiro 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - reviewing this editor's past contributions & attitude fills me with no hope for the future. GiantSnowman 21:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior of IP user 195.28.75.114 (AKA User:Bizovne)

Usually I don't resort to reporting users (or preceded by someone else :P), even heavy nationalists, but this time I feel like I have to make an exception. The reason for that is the fact that this IP user User:195.28.75.114 is getting out of control. First he began with reference removals on the Maurice Benyovszky article:[57] [58] Then after getting on the verge of being reported for 3RR he backed off for about a month (with only 2 additional reverts in the meanwhile). Then he came back and began "chattering with" (read: annoying) me first on Wladthemlat's talk page, then on my talk page. I've decided to ask your assistance after he posted his reply today and then another one. These last two replies of his were almost pure anti-Hungarian hate speech with the obvious intention of offending me and any other Hungarian editor who stumbles upon it (and speaks Czech/Slovak). Since the user's comments are exclusively in Slovak, I'd like to ask for the assistance of an admin who can understand Czech or Slovak to confirm this, as I don't have the willpower nor the time to translate the whole text. Let me give you a few samples of his views though:
"Hungarian is a retarded, disparate and ugly language - it sounds like a dog's bark. Whereas euphonious Slovak is a gem within Slavic languages. [...] Hungarians don't have anyone, they don't belong to ANY group of nations, strayed tribe of Asians, which is already extinct - the only thing that has remained is their dirty language. You aren't Hungarian either - you're only magyarized." etc. I'm sorry but I just simply don't feel like proceeding to translate the rest, because I already feel like splitting my desk in half. After his last comment I didn't feel like replying either.

To make it worse, the editor has also engaged in an edit war with User:Nmate over content in Brezno article which he desired to vandalize (i.e. he replaced a link to King Béla IV of Hungary to King Belo..., which broke it): [59]. On the top of it he has even demonstrated the typical extremist nationalist attitude of like-minded people by making the comment "this is english wikipedia not hungarian". This is akin to the arrogant nationalist phrases in the likes of "you're not in Hungary and hence you're NOT ALLOWED to do this or that" (e.g. speak Hungarian in public, use Hungarian signs or speak Hungarian NEAR a Slovak nationalist, because it's offensive to his/her ear etc.) commonly uttered by Slovaks which hate Hungarians.

Considering all the facts above I doubt that this user would engage in ANY polite, peaceful and objective edit. His edit log seems to support this suspicion as well, since essentially ALL of his edits are either nationalistic POV pushing, removal of Hungarian names/terms and disregarding anyone who begs to differ. His notes on my talk page (discussed above) show that trying to have a calm discussion with him would be pretty much pointless. Please take this into consideration as well.

As for the sanction itself, banning this IP address might inconvenience the whole village of Nový Ruskov, because the IP seems to be shared by all subscribers of the local ISP. However considering the facts above, it's likely that letting this user be without any sanctions would do more harm than good. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional information: While reviewing the edit log of User:Bizovne and comparing it to this IP account's edit history, I found just far too many similarities between the two. Actually it seems more like one account complements the other (while one of them is active, the other one's "dormant" and vice versa). I was about to start an SPI against the two, when I found that another SPI has been started by User:Hobartimus a month ago: [60]. Unfortunately User:DeltaQuad didn't take any actions back then stating that it's just a logged out IP, which doesn't necessitate CU action. However by now it's pretty apparent that Bizovne is simply abusing his IP account for making outrageous (and really offensive) personal attacks (see above) and letting Bizovne be for another month has just made the situation worse. Sure, User:HelloAnnyong's two-week block DID help a bit, but Bizovne has obviously started right where he has left off when his IP account was blocked. There's also this interesting fact that even though Bizovne's edits were just as POV, pushy and authoritarian in their nature as those of his IP account (albeit with much more finesse), he has managed to make his IP account look like the "naughty boy who has done bad things", while kept his registered account clean. Therefore if the SPI confirms that Bizovne=195.28.75.114, sanctioning both account might be necessary. CoolKoon (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The behaviour of the IP address is atrocious, I have warned it to stop the name calling and follow our civility rules. If you are concerned about the similarity of edits of User:Bizovne and that IP account, I would recommend you to start new SPI and mention the old one there. - Darwinek (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually put in the comment below that that I was reviewing and HelloAnnyong made the block as part of the case. And if an IP ever becomes more disruptive, please reopen a case. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

uhm, I actually already did open another SPI, but it was refused on the grounds that it's not permitted to link IPs to accounts. I've also mentioned the old SPI there as well. So was I supposed to reopen the old case instead?

On the other hand it might not be necessary after all, since Bizovne has confirmed HIMSELF that he indeed IS behind the IP:

Bizovne (talk) 21:99, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk)

I shall therefore thank Bizovne himself for helping me resolve this dilemma. Thanks, Bizovne. CoolKoon (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Block request made at User talk:N5iln#Please permanenetly ban this address from editing

I'm not exactly sure why, but a request to block a specific IP was placed on my User Talk page. The request came from an IP address which has been warned repeatedly regarding vandalism. Since I'm not an admin, I'll ask someone who is to look things over and take whatever action is necessary. I did check the WHOIS and GeoIP info, and it came back to what appears to be an Australian ISP, so I can't confirm the claim that it's a school. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:PandP2go

This has proved to be a single purpose account created solely to try to get Pearl and the Puppets deleted (or to get 'PandP 2 go' if you like). The AFD for this article has been disrupted with edits such as this and this for which they were warned to stop, and this was followed by this edit to my user page. I suspect I may have been safe to block this user myself, as there's nothing but disruption coming from them, but at the risk of being accused of blocking when involved, could someone else do the honours please. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Michig's analysis, and that a block is proper here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Indef-blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Much obliged. --Michig (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New round of attacks

User: Phoenix2923 had an issue with personal attacks on me discussed here before [61]. Now he has returned to contribute nothing but personal attacks. First he started out mild: "Niteshift you are one seriously ignorant individual lol" [62], then "People like you shouldn't even be editing this page or this discussion section. This article could use some editors with common sense at the very least. You, my friend, lack that to a horrific degree." [63]. An uninvolved editor warned him about his attacks [64]. Phoenix eventually builds himself up to adding physical threats to the mix: "I stand by my convictions that you are the undisputed world heavyweight douche bag of the internet. Say what you will fuck face, I tire of these conversations with your fake military persona. Mr. High-and-Mighty Mr. Niteshift, you can go fuck yourself. Go ahead and report me because my words hurt your widdle feewings. You wouldn't be such a smart ass to my face. Hide behind your computer monitor and be a smart ass little faggot. If you have the balls, and still serve I Corp, meet me sometime. I'm never too far away."[65]. Then added another attack and threat while this was being entered. "Somebody too incompetent to be stationed anywhere else. Yes I do know quite a bit about the military and I would absolutely love to demonstrate that knowledge with you first-hand. I wasn't in some pussy CID unit friend." [66] User notified here: [67] Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The only edit I see to Phoenix2923's User page is the notification of this discussion...no warnings regarding personal attacks or uncivil behavior, not even in the page history. I have taken the liberty of posting a {{uw-npa4}} on his Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While there are no template warnings, I have asked him twice to cut it out and been ignored. Also, while not as bad, Niteshift36 hasn't been entirely civil in response to Phoenix2923. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I freely admit I haven't been as civil as possible. Nor do I think I need to be all smiles and sweetness every time he decides to revert to form. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected...apparently Firefox 4.0 is having issues rendering popups. Next time I'll know to actually look at the Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Aww poor little Niteshift, runnin to go tattle again. HAHAHA, you worthless piece of shit. Phoenix2923 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that sort of sums everything up, doesn't it?--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This particular nugget earned a no-brainer 72-hour block. I haven't the present time to delve further into this dispute, so I have no problem with any other admin adjusting the block as necessary. — Scientizzle 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After further gross incivility, talk page access has been revoked for Phoenix2923 for the duration of the block. — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Phoenix, I reported your repeated violations. What should I do? Thump my chest and randomly challange people to fights? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no need for a new template. The first diff I posted here is the previous ANI discussion where the editor was made fully aware of the NPA policies etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if someone uninvolved could either refactor or hat the insults at Talk:Frank_Dux#Website_Confusion. Monty₈₄₅ 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He should've been indefinitely blocked IMO. –MuZemike 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest... — Scientizzle 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Phoenix2923's contributions, and the similarities with The REAL Dux, I wonder if they are the same person? Particularly with the repeated questions about "who Niteshift36 is" and what organizations he belongs to, etc. Something fishy is going on here. They might also be reincarnations of someone else who used to contribute to that article talk page, though I don't have much familiarity with its history. -- Atama頭 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that as well. Note that Phoenix didn't re-appear until the RealDux account got blocked, then, moments after Phoenix got blocked the Dux account started toning down their unblock requests. I strongly suspect both are actually socks of another blocked user, but I hate the tedious SPI process. Might decide to do it anyway.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The REAL Dux retracted his legal threat, and so I felt an obligation to honor the unblock request. However, I believe I will pursue the SPI report. I wasn't going to bother if both accounts were indefinitely blocked. -- Atama頭 22:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked indef for continued attacks ([68], [69]). Clearly not an asset to the project.  Sandstein  19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mega nomination of Pokémon articles at AfD

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

---

I always feel like posting here is like pulling a fire alarm, but I'm not sure where else to post something that will get multiple admins' attention. Tyw7 (talk · contribs) created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! as a sort of mass nomination of articles on Pokémon species. Instead of actually following WP:AFDHOWTO, Tyw7 simply transcluded Template:Pokemon directory. The title of the AfD discussion in and of itself shows that this editor has some sort of vendetta against these articles. There is no way such a massive nomination of articles will result in a productive discussion. Can I get some admin eyes on it as to an appropriate disposition? I had been considering posting a "speedy close" !vote, but I wonder if a G6 deletion with instructions to nominate specific articles individually is in order. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I speedy closed it, since there was essentially no way to know which specific articles were being discussed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That is because there are too many "non" essential pokemon articles there. It would be tedious to open a nomination of EVERY article... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can WP:BUNDLE, and using a tool such as WP:TWINKLE could speed it up...GiantSnowman 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Using IE9... Reopned request with a list of "non essential" pokemon at bottom --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And reclosed. "All including but not limited to" is not a valid list either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A bundle nomination of this scale will easily lead to chaos and confusion. Each article is of a different quality and may or may not meet notability criteria; they need to be evaluated individually. Plus I still don't see a valid deletion rationale here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How's this? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! (2nd Nomination) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Still wrong because you missed a bunch of steps. It will not end in these articles being deleted. They exist because they are notable in real life, not in the series. You are nominating articles that have plenty of sources, and strongly show notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Using the phrase "including but not limited to" in an AfD will not dismiss any concerns about exactly how many articles are up for nomination. GiantSnowman 18:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, the deletion rationale amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and frankly, the inclusion of File:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png tells me that this is a pointy nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Final warning: these nominations are disruptive and invalid. If you can't follow proper deletion procedure and can't be bothered to actually post a valid deletion rationale that is actually tailored to particular articles, then you have no business starting an AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clearly disruptive and intentionally so, I'd suggest a preventative block if he tries a third time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) again! Because there is a tons of Pokemon which I think are not important but I would like to nominate a little at a time so as to find our what you think first. Also, we have a seperate Pokemon wiki already! So are we up to posting individual Pokemon articles for deletion? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

a. This is not a pointy nomination b. I think those Pokemon articles are certainly not encyclopedic. c. We already have a Pokemon wiki (bulpepedia) --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is POINTy – repeatedly posting unacceptable deletion pages with iffy titles is disruptive. And who is this 'we' with a Pokemon wiki? Does it have any formal link with Wikipedia? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to provide a better deletion rationale than WP:IDONTLIKEIT...GiantSnowman 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

...or WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have clearly been told here that these articles exist for a reason (established notability, for example) and your nominations are highly disruptive and based solely on your own opinion rather than policy. That there exists a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki for Pokémon is irrelevant. I wouldn't suggest you nominate them for deletion again. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's start off at Espeon and Umbreon. Couldn't they be merged with Eevee as they are in the same evolutionary lines. Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan also have no notability within the series. Same applies to Girafarig and almost half of the other articles. Whatever I give up! Let it be! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good, you've agreed to let it be? We accept. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If you would listen to anything I have said, you would know why these are notable. Sources have commented on them. Being "rare" or having "notability within the series" means nothing. Glad you have given up. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note: how ARE Pokemon notability counted if not notability within series? That's the ruler I've been using. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:N. -- Atama頭 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that was a bit terse. This might be better... If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. -- Atama頭 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes but all Pokemon and its in game object is covered by tons of articles. Do we really need to "Catch/Keep em all"? Also please come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon#Pokemon_articles where we (I) am trying to work out Pokemon notability --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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

requesting revdel

Hi,

This revision[70] to M48 Mauser should probably be deleted since a high school student lists his full name and school. GabrielF (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with User:Davide41

This editor is becoming a real problem on the article Giulio Clovio and the talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio. Working with this editor is close to impossible. He does not respond to any discussion. He is relentless in his POV pushing. He claims this artist is an Italian artist while the literature is quite clear in that he was of Croatian descent. He was born in modern day Croatia and later moved to Italy here he did most of his work. (For the record: I am neither Italian nor Croatian; I could not care less which way this goes besides the obvious point that I think the information should be factual.)

I have mentioned the following on the talk page: For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from ‘’John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006’’ [4]. <snip> He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.

Davide41 in the meantime has violated several guidelines/rules:

• WP:3RR April 27 [71], [72], [73] April 28 [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

The edit warring got so bad that the page was protected [80]. More people were involved in the edit warring, but Davide41 is a main problem.

• WP:Concensus It has become clear that several editors did not agree with him, but he keeps going. (see talk page Talk:Giulio Clovio.)
• WP:CIVIL He makes condescending comments and just calls any disagreement with him offensive. He makes silly remarks like " Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum " [81] . Must admit I pointed out he should take his own advice and he responds by this [82]
• WP:RS We have been over and over the fact that websites and online encyclopedias are not appropriate. And even when he uses some of those sources he misquotes them. All of this has been pointed out several times by myself and other editors on Talk:Giulio Clovio. Nothing even makes a dent in his comments.
• WP:NPOV April 27, [83] makes a lot of changes, deletes references he does not agree with. He claims POV against everything he does not agree with and basically tells us that because he was a teacher we need to take his word for it (paraphrasing of course).

This situation is becoming very frustrating. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IP handing out random barnstars

129.49.72.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP has been handing out hundreds of "Modest barnstar" awards, apparently at random, including to at least one blocked user with no contributions. Not sure if it's actually a problem, but it's really not very constructive. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is somebody a little jealous they haven't got one...? ;) GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, and user notified BTW. GiantSnowman 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously the ip should be blocked for failing to fill out the proper barnstar requisition form 28-B. If we allow anyone to give out barnstars they wouldn't be meaningful!--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the barnstars are to have any meaning, its probably wrong. However, the guidelines on when to hand out a barnstar are pretty liberal. I suppose you could request a change in who is allowed to give barnstars maybe. Beyond that, though it seems a tad excessive, its not really uncivil or disruptive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Curses, GiantSnowman has me sussed :-) But yeah, I guess there's no wrong being done - it just seemed rather bizarre, and I was wondering if there might be something mischievous afoot, what with barnstars being given to known baddies. Anyway, I'll go back to sleep (Oh, and thanks for doing the notification - I completely forgot) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, a registered account shows a similar pattern of contributions. It would seem to be a campaign conducted in good faith, but I imagine it won't be long before it tweaks some noses. Skomorokh 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of the chap MrMan12321 (talk · contribs) who was handing out "manly man" awards that included File:PalmercarpenterA.jpg in March. Regretfully I was not considered manly enough for said award --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I came across this earlier today also. As many of you have said there isn't anything wrong with this. One of the weird things is that some of them are being presented to editors who don't edit very often. IMO it does devalue barnstars a bit since they don't seem to be for any specific editing. The only thing that would be a problem is if they were doing these edits just to get autoconfirmed but I can find no evidence of that at this time. Ah well this on top of the wedding is just too much drama for one day :-) MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You got married? Congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oversight please

and a block? [84] [85]

And although it sucks, maybe semi-protect the talk page for a short time? This is beyond ridiculous. I will be furious if this turns out to be Hipocrite or anyone connected to him. I hope it's not, and don't think it's not, but there is an SPI request for this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. BelloWello (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not Hipocrite - Alison ^❤ 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The user is under a repeated attack (privacy violations). I have made a CheckUser request, and when asked if the process could be sped up, advised him to contact the Arbcom. (Is there something else to do?) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Guys, guys. Why are we posting and talking about oversight requests on a high-profile forum? Oversight requests should be sent by e-mail to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org, and never posted on ANI- as the last thing a potential oversightable edit needs is attention. Posting here doesn't get things 'sighted any faster. Courcelles 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Courcelles. Even the instructions at the top of this page is clear. Do not post such diffs here where "gapers" are likely to look at it. –MuZemike 22:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Per all the above - please keep these off the drama-farm that is ANI and just send a message to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org - Alison ^❤ 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe I have royally screwed up.

So earlier today, I performed...a cut and paste move of a section on April_25–28,_2011_tornado_outbreak to List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. At the time, I had forgotten why this was not a good thing, until User: Carlossuarez46 kindly reminded me on my talk page and asked me to revert my blunder. Tragically, I was at school at the time, and by the time he posted that on my talk page I was no longer on Wikipedia. He doesn't appear to be here at the moment to respond to my questions, so I'm taking it to the next best place: here! Obviously an administrator is going to have to perform a history merge, which is the main reason I am posting here (I'll be glad to help, by the way, if requested). I would also like to know what I should do, in the future, when I deem moving only a section of an article to a different article necessary. Thank you in advance Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)