Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

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.

Extended topic ban enacted, per Dougweller's proposal. Rd232 ^talk 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

After[1] and then[2] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See[3] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties)which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked atthe Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy'sblog forthis post/blog-article. Another was to this"article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activistclashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement-- Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing ofTrinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making [4] promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process. – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess,Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79,ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs)17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify that, please? I'm not sure if you're in favor of vacating the topic ban that he's not abiding by anyway, or in favor of recording it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been taking a wikibreak due to personal issues, but I've read over the discussion here, and have worked closely with this user in the past, so I'll briefly comment. From his first edit, Terra's contributions have been problematic, almost universally being reverted by a broad array of users in an even broader selection of topics. At this point, it seems like he spends half his time at ANI (or elsewhere) rehashing the same points about the same editing patterns, with no indication whatsoever of improvement. The first time this issue appeared, I devoted months to walking him through policy, helping him work constructively. When that failed, I let others take over, hoping they'd give him the direction he needed. When that failed, I supported giving him another chance if he could simply demonstrate he understood why his editing was problematic. When that failed, I supported a topic ban, which achieved consensus but was never enacted. After 1 or 2 more ANI cases after that, a topic ban was finally enacted, and since then we've seen Terra at ANI unacceptably often, even still.

It's still the case that all his edits need to be scoured over by others, and I don't see any end to that problem. That is simply unreasonable. Extending Terra's topic ban is unlikely to help, since he's seen problems in every topic area he's touched, and furthermore, he's repeatedlybreached the terms of his current ban at every apparent opportunity. With that in mind, I regret having to recommend a block or community ban. This user's edits are not a net gain to this project, and I see no way to remedy that. I would happily change my stance if someone could provide any reason to believe that Terra will eventually be able to edit wikipedia (anywhere) without constant supervision. I am, however, dubious that anyone will.   —Jess·Δ♥ 17:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that I support the current proposal, which is to extend his formal topic ban to include other areas. I think this step is unnecessary, and unlikely to resolve the problem, but if other editors feel differently, then I support giving it a try.  — Jess·Δ♥ 17:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohio Standard, Terra Novus has shown this pattern of being unable to edit with out disruption in certain topic areas. I dont think widening the scope will have the desried affect in the long run. If he had'nt written a Good article in the mean time I would be up for banning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• The last time I commented, I'd said"If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)". I think this is what Ohiostandard refers to when he mentions me above. I think my comment still applies today. Also, Jess's comments above are pretty compelling as to the emerging pattern here. Accordingly, I share Jess's support and reservations about the proposal if people think it will work, but I still see the ultimate resolution in this case being an indef or site ban, and it may just be time to cut our losses.Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• So far I'm getting the idea that Religion, Politics and Psuedoscience are areas that the community feels I should avoid. I agree. I hope that my recent editing behavior has been largely constructive, but I understand that these topics in particular are just not good for me to edit. If the community feels that my presence in Wikipedia is no longer warranted I will abide by their decision. I have unfortunately had a tendency for contentious editing, and I appreciate the efforts that the community has made to get me on the right path. I edited in good faith, but obviously not with good tact.--  Novus  Orator  06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• That ship sailed a long time ago. You agreed to avoid those areas, and all controversial areas entirely, and then utterly ignored your promise despite multiple requests to honor it. The only question at this juncture is whether to formally record a topic ban, or whether to proceed with an indef or site ban. The question is, in a nutshell, whether the community is willing to give you yet another last chance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposals (extended topic ban or community ban)

Extended topic ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed" and from all controversial articles and discussions including but not confined to those related to politics, religion, climate change and the environment.

• Support Although I am still concerned about his ability to avoid the problems that he has had in the past, his comments above persuade me to give him one last chance.Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) and per Dougweller; one last chance. First choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wrote a well researched "Good Article" has potential but gets hopelessly unconstructive in other areas. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs)19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support subject to review. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I support the idea here, but in a post to his talk page (link/permalink) I've asked Doug whether he'd make the language of this proposal more specific and explicit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A draconian solution which is not going to help Wikipedia, and would intrinsically set an extraordinarily bad precedent. I did not see him editing any articles reasonably under his restrictions, which means the restrictions worked. Extending it to all political, religious, environment and economic articles <g> is an absurd over-reach. Hit him idf he violates the actual restrictions - but extending them like this is improper. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the "grin" in the above is a comment on my preceding proposal, I think I'm within bounds to mention that Collect is an admirer of mine, as I'll put it, and that I'm not surprised to see his contrary post immediately after mine. In a different thread now on this page he did the same thing, employing a sharper criticism than just the "absurd over reach". Search this page for "weird and contrary to common sense" and you'll find his 23:44, 25 May 2011 post, also right after mine.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as the mildest of the available options at this point, since it merely records what TN agreed to previously, but did not abide by, when faced with a site ban previously. Unequivocally a last chance. (First choice.)  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal, at a minimum. I would like to see the user contribute constructively, and if other editors are willing to scour all his contributions, and he is willing to broadly avoidall controversial areas, then I'm willing to see him have another chance. Based on prior behavior, I have little confidence this method will work, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  — Jess·Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a strictly worded topic ban. This has already taken up too much of the community's time. LK (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Site ban

Terra Novus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely site banned.

• Support per what I said above at 04:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC). Second choice (to allow one last chance via extended topic ban). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I really cant support this at this time. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs)19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If problems recur, then this alternative should be discussed.Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Even worse proposal than above. Collect (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as second choice.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per comments above. Previous topic bans haven't remedied the issue, nor has the user's behavior changed when confronted with them. Based on past behavior, I don't see another option likely to be effective; Lots of "last chances" have already been given. I'm equally supportive of the first two proposals.   — Jess·Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dealing with Terra Novus is a big challenge for Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, but obviously not everyone is an ideal editor and some are quite difficult to deal with. This means that we should think about new measures first that can accommodate for such editors. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

0RR restriction

*Support. You can just impose a 0RR restriction with the understanding that inappropriate talk page comments may also be removed. If you can't revert, you are likely to become more careful about what others will tolerate, thereby promoting good behavior. Topic bans can lead to the opposite dynamic, because the editor is then not confronted with the problem he has editing Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the comments below, this likely won't work. Count Iblis(talk) 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We need an actual reason to impose such onerous restrictions - ArbCom rarely goes below 1RR at worst -- making this more onerous because we do not like an editor makes zero sense.Collect (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any investigation into the history of this will demonstrate the need for a very decided response in this case, but based on what we've all seen in the past I would anticipate long arguments about what constitutes a revert were this alternative to be enacted. Since there have been numerous debates on the various boards over the exact definition of that term, and since they've all failed, I can't support this alternative.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is going to be a problem in practice. If it is not clear that an edit by him is a revert, then others can just revert his edit and then that issue will be settled. He obviously can't then revert anymore. Also, I included the clause that editors are allowed to delete or archive his talk page comments. Reverting that would obviously be a violation of 0RR. If there is anything controversial about such a deletion, it can be discussed by other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Part of Terra's problem has been adding inappropriate content to articles, and then being "cordial" about working with others to refine it. In doing so, he contributes a large quantity of different content, and then spends exorbitant amounts of time discussing it on talk pages, all the while only superficially listening to input. This is not a case of edit warring, but instead, he's repeatedly hitting the same editing problem with different content across different articles. This proposal doesn't address that behavior. Terra's problem never was discussing changes. Largely, it's been listening to input, abiding by consensus and policy, and learning from mistakes.   — Jess·Δ♥ 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

• Terra Novus will be allowed to edit under the following restriction. By default, Terra Novus is topic banned from editing Wikipedia, except his own user pages. If he wishes to edit an article, he discusses that first with one of his mentors there. Terra Novus can then edit the article if the mentor agrees. The mentor can impose restrictions on Terra Novus for that article, like e.g. 0RR or 1RR. Also, the mentor can delegate mentoring as far as editing a particular article is concerned, to another editor. The primary or secondary mentors may be involved in the articles Terra Novus is editing. After a year of editing under this restriction, Terra Novus may appeal to get the restriction lifted or modified.

• Support. Reading more about the problem here, I think one needs to implement a restriction along these lines, basically the same as I proposed for GoRight, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Request for closure

De-archiving, this needs proper closure. I'll also ask at WP:AN. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy[5] not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply,[6] Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to Ohana's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Wikipedia is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, thank you for asking for a third opinion and considering these comments. And I admire the fact that you are trying to protect new users from being slapped with sockpuppeting allegations -- it seems like an unfriendly process to subject someone to, and no way to be introduced to Wikipedia.

Please reconsider your harsh words to betsy. She merits assumption of good faith. If we are rude to one another, and contributing becomes painful, we will lose our thoughtful and experienced and devoted contributors - even more worrying than losing new users.

I Agree with Heimstern and Demiurge above: A comment about character assassination is rarely appropriate, when working with a known and respected user. You could simply decline a request or point out that similar requests have been made recently. Betsy noted below that many of your comments were helpful, and apologized for not preparing the request better. While you explained above your worries about an 'unknowing SPI tag team', I think you owe her an apology in return for the assumptions you made about her. – SJ + 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Wikipedia space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." [7] I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohana: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" [8]. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed.[9] Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Wikipedia, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, other checkusers have commented publicly that particular highly-prolific sockmasters operating in the same topic area where Red Stone Arsenal ("RSA") made his contributions can't be expected to be caught out by our current tools. And progressively more sophisticated methods certainly do become available to evade checkuser detection the more resources someone has.

Since we've seen such a large upsurge of these day-use accounts (RSA edited for only three days) in this topic area lately, it's hard to escape the conclusion that someone has a new tech-toy they're breaking in. These accounts restrict their editing to short bursts or just a few days overall before moving on to the next account, to make it much less likely that behavioral evidence can be pieced together. We can't be certain with the our current tools, of course, but we'll never see an account that quacks more loudly in this particular way than we've seen here, with the Red Stone Arsenal account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be struck-through?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Strike-through accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strike-through accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that betsy didn't know how to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's not obvious to me at all. I see Ohana asking for input so that he can get further perspective. – SJ + 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Good intentions on both sides?

Okay, I might have responded with considerable heat if I'd been in Ohana's shoes, too. I probably would have, actually. No responsible person likes the idea that SPI would be used to harass editors who hold opposing political views or to bite actual newcomers. Since that's the inference Ohana drew, it's very reasonable that he'd respond aggressively. Checkusers should respond aggressively when people try to use SPI as a weapon. I have no idea how often that actually occurs since I know little about SPI, but it must happen fairly often or Ohana wouldn't have responded as he did. The problem in this case is (sorry, Ohana) that he let his understandably mounting anger at the upsurge in SPI filings and repeat SPI filings boil over and convince him that he could mind-read betsy's motives, and that they were discreditable, when they were anything but. I saw somewhere that Ohana said he found it impossible to believe that betsy didn't see a prominent bar that indicates how to search for previous SPI cases. Well I used to teach user-interface design, and that comment puzzled me. So since I've never filed an SPI myself, I went to went to wp:spi and initiated a "test" case a short while ago, although I didn't save it, of course. I even did so for usernames that I know have had previous SPIs. Perhaps I'm being monumentally oblivious, but I didn't see anything that said "Wait! There's been a case about this just a short while ago!" I didn't see any indication of that at all, actually, and to my embarrassment I still don't know how to search for a pre-existing case. If betsy worked as a checkuser for the next month, maybe she'd be pulling her hair out by the roots and want to knock some heads together, too, at what I assume (from Ohana's comments) must be the rising level of SPI requests that really are POV driven attempts at character assassination to silence or drive off an opponent. Similarly, if Ohana could switch places with Betsy for the next month, he might have a better appreciation for how extremely common throwaway accounts have become in the I/P area recently, and how extremely frustrating that has been. All those articles are on 1rr restrictions, so these accounts come through and make very POV changes in heavily contested articles, requiring editors like Betsy to "burn" a revert if the long-established balance of POV in an article is be to kept roughly even. And since there seem to be literally ten such accounts on one side for every one on the other side of the political divide, these short-term or throwaway accounts are actually very effective at shifting that balance. Despite the lack of technical evidence found to implicate Red Stone Arsenal as just such an account, that account had all the hallmarks of this escalating pattern that we've seen repeated over and over in the I/P area these last several months. That has no doubt contributed to the frustration several of us have expressed at this whole mess, and at Ohana's likewise understandable frustration. For my own part, I'll ask Ohana's pardon for the extent to which I've let that slip into my own communication around this matter. (Please don't comment here since it forms part of a single post.)

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I've just discovered something about how the SPI user interface works that's extremely relevant here. I don't have time right now to post it, but I'll do so later today. I will just say for the moment that what I've found demonstrates that Betsy did absolutely nothing wrong in any of this, absolutely nothing at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Betsy Devine I am traveling around small places with not much internet, but thanks to OhioStandard for great kindness and to everyone who looked at my request. Taking the advice of OhanaUnited and others, I will now be closing this account I used under my real name. I did so because I thought such accountability was of benefit to the project, but I'm a bit sick of benefit to Wikipedia right now. I am accountable to myself, and I know I filed the SPI in good faith, and so does everybody else who looked into the matter, except Mbz1 and Broccolo. Fun times for them! Good luck with those admin tools, OhanaUnited, you do a heckuva job listening to third opinions. Which way to the door that says "Right to vanish"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try the instructions at WP:CLEANSTART. Your situation is exactly why we have that option. I don't blame your decision, I don't have the courage to even try to edit under my own name. -- Atama頭 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, I believe, Atama. And it's not Betsy who needs the clean start, it's every admin who saw all this and turned the other way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Anglo Pyramidologist

Anglo Pyramidologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who racked up a remarkable 4 blocks in April for personal attacks, is carrying on where he left off with 'the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc)' and 'quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified'. I think it might be time for another enforced wikibreak? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Vandalism on the BNP page was already posted here less than 1 week ago and i had several admins agree with me that there are disrputive users on the BNP page. I've not personally attacked anyone, all i've tried to do is work with other users in improving the BNP article (yet anti-fascists/far-leftists etc keep vandalising it/reverting edits). Looks like you are just starting up trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

-Please see multiculturalist's history page where he has numerous warnings about vandalising/making disruptive edits to the BNP page. This includes one edit/comment he left calling all BNP members "nazis" - which he recieved a warning on his talk page for. Also look at his name. Do you really think someone with the name 'multiculturalist' is going to not be baised against the BNP (a nationalist party who oppose multiculturalism and immigration?). Despite having 6 or 7 warnings about disruptive edits/vandalism to the BNP page he has never been banned from making further edits. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, this isn't far from what I've blocked you for before. Assigning epithets to other users is not going to go over well, nor is focusing so intensely upon their possible motives for editing. Concentrate only on content. You'll find things a lot easier that way. lifebaka++ 14:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Labelling and pigeonholing other editors is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not epithets, you can view the user pages mentioned where they self label themselves as 'anti-fascists', 'socialists' etc. I don't see how by pointing this out is personal attacks. The fact is there are a whole load of self admitted BNP haters (view their own pages) who have far-left socialist etc views yet they are allowed all over the BNP page. There are clearly problems with neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In the same way that you self-label as a British Nationalist and a BNP-supporter? Please take a look at WP:COI. You also seem to not understand WP:RS, per this edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

AP also needs to look up the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Even if the allegations about POV and biased editing were true (just for the sake of argument, I am not saying it is as I have not looked into the matter), that kind of editing does still not constitute vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- As i have pointed out view the user 'multiculturalist's page where he has had repeated warnings for vandalism. For the past few weeks on the talk page he has been calling BNP Nazis/racists for which he was reported and recieved warnings. I'm only on the BNP talk page to get the ideology box updated. Currently it is incorrect. The BNP are not fascist or white nationalists. If they were i wouldn't have joined them. The ideology box is insulting to all current BNP members/supporters, its biased and incorrect, and that is why i want it to be updated. Please note: it was me who got the 'holocaust denial' tag removed from the BNP ideology box about a month or so back. I then recieved a message by a mod apologizing that it had been up there for many months when it was a false claim added by an anti-BNPer as a smear. My interest in the BNP article is merely to make it neutral and reflective of the party and their position/policies. If it wasn't for me the holocaust denial smear tag would still be up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"While parties such as the National Front or British National Party have attempted to appropriate national symbols to their primarily racist cause..." "British national sentiment". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (01). 1999. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And, for the record, "Since 1999, under the leadership of Nick Griffin, the BNP has made attempts to modernize and has tried to conceal its more esoteric ideology, such as holocaust denial..." "White Backlash, 'Unfairness' and Justifications of British National Party (BNP) Support". Ethnicities. 10 (1): 77–99. 2010. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

- Holocaust denial has never been a policy or position of the BNP. This is why it was removed from the ideology tag box a month or so back. What personal members believe or write is irrelevant to the position and policy of the party. Several Conservative MEP's for example are personally eurosceptics, but you would have to be mad to then post or claim the position or policy of the Conservatives was anti-eu. We have had problems on the BNP page before where people were linked to facebook posts and other nonsense which has nothing to do with the policies of position of the BNP. I also note in the last week these inappopirate facebook links were removed by an admin (thanks to me again). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If Sarek or Serpent's Choice were referencing Facebook, your argument might have merit, but they were quoting published works. Anglo Pyramidologist, if your purpose is to whitewash (no pun intended) topics related to BNP, you may as well move on. As long as there are reliable sources supporting what's in the article, it's going to stay, whether or not it conflicts with your personal beliefs. You very clearly have a conflict of interest with these subjects. -- Atama頭 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. I have several users agreeing with me that the BNP ideology box needs to be updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Having checked I can see one, along with the IP with who you edit warred. We also have the same pattern of false claims as before (ANI are on my side when a subject has just been mentioned). Personally I can't see this editor ever changing and it might be an idea to try a topic ban for a period as opposed to escalating blocks --Snowded ^TALK 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yet it is you snowded who is attacking anyone or their edits on the BNP article. You are a self-labelled "anti-fascist" on your userpage, and anyone who wants to make the BNP article more neutral you call a pro-BNP supporter, while multiculturalist calls them nazis or racists. Looking at your history on the BNP article in the last month shows you have made no contributions, just about 20-30 reverts of other peoples content. I;m not sure what your obsession is with the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mods can also take note that snowded stalks my contributions. In the past view days he has posted on 2 or 3 articles i set up and just attacked them. There is no way he would have found those article randomly, he is just stalking my posted articles and attacking them to wind me up. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Indent your posts, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AP, I expect more than one person watches your edits. You've shown no evidence that he is hounding you. Your talk page does show one user who seems to share your political sympathies, not surprising he agrees with you. I'm not sure which articles you claim Snowded is 'just attacking'. I found White Amazon Indians, a not very good article where he added a notability tag, but I don't see that as an attack (and he didn't add it to White Aethiopians which should be 'Ethiopians' by the way, looking at the sources). In fact,he's only edite 6 articles that you have edited, and only one article that you created, not '2 or 3' if by 'i set up' you mean created. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- Yes, nonsurprisngly both articles concerning white people or race (those are the only he commented on mine). Also viewing Snowded's history shows he only edits the unite against fascism page, the BNP or english defense league. Snowded seems to have an very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics. I wouldn't mind if he contributed to helping these pages, but he seems to have a political agenda and just reverts peoples edits. Like i said view the BNP article and Snowded's history on it, he's never contributed all he's ever done is revert peoples contributions or criticise posters he thinks are pro-BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is far from the truth. See Snowded's Top Namespace Edits. His top three articles are Knowledge management, Philosophy and Wales. None of his top hundred seem to be about race, and only four or five about fascism. He is not the editor with a "very unhealthy obsessesion with race + and racial topics". RolandR (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I hear a WP:BOOMERANG in flight? Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, except in this case the kettle's one of those shiny new chrome ones. GiantSnowman 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

- The difference is I add articles or information and contribute on race based or political pages, in contrast Snowded does not contribute, he only picks debates with people who don't hold his far-left wing views and then starts to label them (like multiculturalist) - which might i add is ironically rather fascist. To see a typical example of this view the unite against fascism talk page. Or if you view the BNP history page you will see Snowded has never contributed. All he has ever done is revert people's edits and he calls other users 'pro-BNP' who he doesn't agree with (see the talk page). While the user multiculturalist labels people who want to make the article more neutral as nazis (again view the talk page and his own talk page where he got several warnings). At the end of the day you have to ask why you are here. I'm here to improve articles or add articles, and i continuelly seek to improve the BNP page. Snowded in contrast is only on the BNP page to stop it being updated because he has a biased political motives and views. Again you only have to view the BNP talk page to see Snowded's biased posts against the BNP, yet he never has recieved a warning. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo Pyramidologist, you seem to be under the misapprehesion that there is something wrong with being biased against the BNP. There isn't, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Anglo - I monitor a series of articles associated with the far right in order to prevent them being used as propaganda machines. I'm not the only editor to do that and its all a part of maintaining a NPOV. You have been constantly asked to provide references for your assertions, and in the main all we get are BNP statements and photographs of people at BNP events. Those are not reliable sources. Oh and yes, given your track record I do from time to time check out other articles you are editing. --Snowded ^TALK 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite annoying, that Anglo continues to refuse to indent his posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- what normal people use wikipedia to 'track the far right' and stop them becomming 'propaganda machines'? You self-admit you have a political agenda which when it comes to the BNP article is a huge problem and you have no interest in improving the article. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'there is nothing wrong with being biased against the clap' , of course not however the problem is becomming obsessed and sitting all day on those wiki articles. Snowded sits all day on the BNP article reverting peoples edits. Given the fact he openly admits he has a political agenda against the BNP and other far-right groups then i think he should be removed from the article or atleast get reviewed. Snowded has no good intentions with the BNP article, he's only on it because he hates them. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll repeat what GoodDay said, please indent your posts. Secondly, what Snowded actually said is that he wants to keep the BNP page as fair and neutral as possible - stop trying to twist his words to satisfy your own agenda. GiantSnowman 14:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo, not sure if they are "normal people" or not but then I wouldn't like to site in judgement. What matters is if they follow wikipedia rules in the way they edit. You have supplied no diffs to support your various allegations here. You have a track record] of blocks of personal attacks and harassment, and from your comments above you haven't learnt from them. --Snowded ^TALK 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

- And you have a personal history of labelling/abusing/smearing people on the BNP talk page (mods feel free to take a look). Anyone who doesn't agree with your personal political views you call a BNP 'sympathiser' or 'pro-BNP' while multiculturalist calls them 'nazis'. If anyone should be blocked it is you. The fact you also above admitted you are only on the BNP page to 'patrol right winger posters' further reveals your biased political agenda. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please Anglo --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

'Many editors track subject areas that interest them Anglo' - so what is your obsession with the BNP, a party you openly admit you oppose and do not support? Is it normal for people to be obsessed with things they oppose? Its seems to be deep insecurity. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The BNP are obsessed by immigration, something they oppose. I guess they're all deeply insecure as well, then... GiantSnowman 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another lie. Yawn. In there last 3 manifesto's out of 80+ pages only 2 pages are on immigration policy. The conservatives, ukip and labour on theirs covered tens more. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE indent your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is pointless as its clear my edits regarding the BNP ideology box is never going to be improved. I've wasted enough time with this. The biased far-leftists/UAF/communists/anti-BNPer's/labour supporters can continue to control the BNP article. Truth is truth, most people i know who have read the wiki article on BNP acknowledge that it is a biased piece of propaganda written from a far left anti-BNP perspective. Even more embarrasing is its sources (facebook and other smear sources) The article doesn't fool anyone. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if most people you know are, like you, supporters of the BNP, then its is not surprising that they agree with your negative opinion of this objective account. Most people I know think that the BNP are lower than vermin, and have a d8fferent opinion of the article. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Even your average vermin knows to indent its posts properly. It's ironic that AP's posts continue to lean to the left. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As AP has self-identified as a BNP member or suporter, these two comments approach being a personal attack.

Roland and Bugs, you're both better than that. Please don't do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume the reason he won't indent is just to be obstinate. So I don't see any issue with ribbing him about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As i claimed above i'm no longer posting/editing on the BNP article. I tried all i could to get the changes i proposed implemented, but no one wants to update the BNP page more neutrally. Every other nationalist party on wikipedia are not smeared as fascists or white nationalists. What their articles state is that the media label them this, but that they themselves deny the labels as smears. Please see Jobbik. Why can't the BNP page be like Jobbik's and more neutral? Please view the jobbik page open paragraph if you don't understand. Basically the BNP page should open like theirs i.e that their opponents and media call them fascists but that they deny this as a smear. Why is this on every other nationalist page but not the BNP? I would like an admin to answer.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple Anglo Pyramidologist: The BNP are fascists. The only people who seem to think otherwise are their supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when are political parties free from criticism though? In the United States (specifically Florida), where Wiki's servers are located, it's certainly not the case. I am very biased against BNP of course, but I mean some of the company they keep (they apparently also have a relationship with Germany's National Democratic Party who I dislike as well for obvious reasons) makes it so I cannot not be biased against them (though in editing the article I would have to be). This bit right here btw: "Truth is truth" The overwhelming view among the RSs about BNP is that they are fascists or at the very least white nationalists, and so that's how you have to treat it in the article. Wikipedia's about verifiablility, not one's version of the truth, and you should not go against that just because you don't like the article's content. Remember that we are not required, and afaik, not supposed to basically change the info the RSs themselves put out just because we think it will make the article more neutral, rather we find info from the RSs and use it according to the weight of the views. The idea is that so long as we follow the sources as closely as we can, we have maintained neutrality as best we can (because the sources don't have to maintain an NPOV etc etc). Also, if the concensus is against your changes, there's really not much you can do except try a better policy-based argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AP continually refers to the political ideology (real or imagined) of people who disagree with him over the characterisation of the BNP, a party he claims to support. The party derives from English fascism, its leaders celebrated Hitler's birthday while wearing SS uniforms, they denied the holocaust and now allow non-white members after losing a court case. AP's claim that anyone who opposes them, including the Conservatives, are far left is offensive. AP should rely on arguments rather than personal attacks. TFD (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seen through their distorted prism, it would figure that most of the British population would qualify as "far left". It's also important to keep in mind that politicians with hate messages (like Hitler's) can be ignored but with perilous consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Typical distortion/lies above from someone who clearly has no idea about the history of the BNP. Briefly to correct the lies: When the BNP formed in 1982, Tyndall was already a small figure of the party and by that time there were no fascist or extremist links to the BNP. Only several years later Richmond Edmonds took over, and later Nick Griffin. You are confusing the national front to the British National Party. Two completely different parties. Furthermore you are also confusing personal ideologies or backgrounds of prominent members with the party policies and stance. Both are different things - as i have already stated. The conservative party for example have MEP'S who are personally eurosceptic and want to leave the EU, yet that is not a policy or stance of the conservative party (instead its BNP's & UKIP's only). Politicians or party members are entitled to have personal views not aligned to the party. Next lie: Holocaust denial. Again holocaust denial has never been a position or policy of the BNP (or even NF). That Nick Griffin once believed in it 20-30 years ago is irrelevant. Peter Mandelson of the labour party used to believe in communism and even served in the Young Communist League. Does that make all labour party members automatically communists? Third lie posted above is about BNP's membership & non-whites. On the contrary the BNP have worked with orthodox jews, egyptian copts, sikhs and hindus since 2001. BNP have never been a racist party and infact poll well in elections in sikh and hindu areas. The fact the membership exluded non-whites up to 2009 joining is not either racist. The National Black Police Association (United Kingdom) only accepts black or non-white members. Whites cannot join it. Why don't the anti-BNPer's then criticise all the black organisations that refuse to accept whites? The answer is because they are anti-white racists, if you view The Four Deuces comments over the BNP talk page his leukophobia and racism against white people is all over the place. What a nerve he calls me biased or personally attacking, when above rant against BNP also breaks wikipedia stance on neutrality and is nothing more than a paragraph of lies and distortions/smears against the BNP. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...and for that tirade I have indef blocked Anglo Pyramidolgist, as making personal attacks. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

An indefinite block just for the comments is excessive - six months might be more appropriate. However, given new checkuser information an indefinite block for abusive sockpuppetry is justified, according to usual Wikipedia practices. Chester Markel (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Leukophobia"? Fear of "white cells", perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anglo socking? I don't believe it. Perhaps those are his brother's socks. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

White socks, presumably ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of Δ for violation of community inposed sanctions?

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.

I'm sorry some particularly vocal opponents of Delta don't like my compromise; my talk message to Delta tried to convey that the reduction was not a vindication. And I have long felt that it is arbitrary to require consensus to overturn a block for something as subjective as incivility, without requiring consensus to block in the first place. Either way, this is done here; further discussion of Delta, if it is required, must leave this thread behind to get anywhere. Options:

1. Propose a site ban for Delta at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future.
2. Propose a topic ban for Delta relating to WP:NFCC images at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Either now or in the future. Moot. Done it myself, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:.CE.94_editing_restrictions_on_NFCC.
3. Somehow fix the underlying problem with NFCC
4. Start a new thread proposing a longer block for the specific incivility incident, even though there's no way consensus would be achieved for that.
5. Amend Delta's civility restriction to specifically exclude staleness from consideration.
6. Complain about me, in whatever way you see fit.
7. Reopen a thread even though it's far too long, clearly served its purpose and going nowhere. Wikipedia slogan after all is "the free theatre" [I think, maybe I should check that].
8. Other (suggestions on a postcard).

Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Δ (a.k.a. User:Betacommand) is currently under a community imposed sanction for civility issues.

"Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator"

Seeing as this edit clearly violates that sanction (I'm pretty sure "Your stupidity astounds me" and "SHUT THE FUCK UP" are demonstrably uncivil), I believe a block is in order here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC) [additional info added for clarity]

That was a good three and a half days ago... NW (Talk) 05:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Then make it retroactive to 3 1/2 days ago. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. To NW: So it somehow doesn't count? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was uncivil, but the comment to which he was responding was an extraordinary accusation of bad-faith editing by someone who was wrong on several counts, and this smacks of forum-shopping, since you participated in the thread on the noticeboard on which that thread originally appeared. Horologium (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me!?! Perhaps you should read the thread cited and not the entire page (which is an amalgam of ANI discussions related to delta). I certainly have participated in other discussions, but not this one. In either case, he's still in violation and needs a block. Honestly, I don't care how long it is. Even a single day (retroactive) for each is fine with me as it logs that this was yet another violation and serves as incentive to not let this happen again... — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's simply a continuation of the three sections before it, all of which deal with Indonesian banknotes, and you did participate in that discussion. Saying that you didn't participate in one specific section of a long discussion is disingenuous, to say the least. Horologium (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to get completely technical, let's get technical:

1. Yes, I participated in the single discussion prior which consisted of three subheadings. They were not three separate discussions.
2. In that discussion, I only made comments as clarification to copyright law.
3. No comments were made in response to anything said by Δ.
4. No comments were directed toward Δ.
5. No comments ever criticized Δ's contributions.
6. While the last discussion on ANI regarding Δ and the previous were on the same subject, they addressed slightly different issues and were 3 days apart. I did not participate in the latter discussion in any form.

In any case, my involvement is inconsequential. Your accusation that I'm forum shopping is baseless and completely without merit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And for good measure, he's also violated "Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time."

See his edits on 19 May (from 18:08-18:18): [10] — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sanctions, I don't see a statute of limitations, e.g. that it has to have happened within the last 24 hours or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes 2 of us. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

30 edits over a period of 10 minutes is less than 4 edits/minute. Seriously, are you trying to look for a reason to get him blocked? NW (Talk) 18:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive? Nothing good will come from a block here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are indeed supposed to be preventative. Blocks with continuously increasing severity should make his sanctions abundantly clear. It should also be noted that the second link I cited occurred less than 8 hours after a previous block expired...for violations OF THE SAME THING!!! By letting it slide, it only encourages more behavior in violation of the community sanctions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta was already blocked for the May 19th edits. That's off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. He was last blocked on the 18th, and the complaint mentioned above by BQZIP occurred after that block expired. As regards the "punitive" vs. "preventive"... well, he was blocked for an entire year, and it still didn't "prevent" once he was unblocked again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So he "got away with it" as I assume you might put it. The strange thing is that none of the participants in that exchange reported this; it can therefore be assumed that none of them was sufficiently offended. Now three days later, you, who was not even part of this discussion, dig it up. Seems to me that when none of the participants reported it, that should be the end of the story. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I point to this VPR thread (per his restrictions ) on the 14th Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_73#Heads_up which occurred after the 13th block for the same issue and where he seeks permission to continue the task (per his restrictions). Again, off the table. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's OK for him to violate the restrictions? Then what's the point of the restrictions? Just toss them out the window and let him do whatever he wants... which he will anyway, as you well know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, given that his community sanctions say that he should engage VPR for 24 hr before starting a bot-like task, he did that after his block on the 12-13th (for not doing that the first time). --MASEM (t) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lift the sanctions totally, OR indef-block, and these kinds of discussions go away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Δ blocked

A pretty clear textbook violation of the community-based restrictions. I've put him on ice for 48 hours, if other admins feel this is unduly harsh I'd be open to reducing it to 24 hours. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pfff... there should be some common sense on having violations expire, lest we get people being hunted down for days and months. Would anyone block for something that happened in March? 2010? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were anyone else, I probably would just tut-tut and let it pass. But in this case, the community has determined that there are certain standards that this person must follow, there is no statute of limitations, and honestly they ought to know better by now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

You have had four (as of this writing) uninvolved editors telling you your block was inappropriate and incorrect, you shouldn't be defending it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, and if you knew anything about Beta/Delta's history, you would know why you're wrong: He is constantly "testing" his limits to see what he can get away with. If you enable him, you spit on the sanctions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think I don't? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you admit spitting on the sanctions? Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Clarification of my previous comment: What makes you think I don't know anything about Betacommand's history? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you reached the wrong conclusion. If you knew about his history, you would reach the right conclusion: Indefinite Block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I strongly disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Beta/Delta has played you for a sucker yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and Overturn Purely punitive block at this point. N419BH 06:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Unblock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly object to block, overturn at once. Clearly punitive. Slap blocking admin on wrist. Bad block. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Clearly punitive at this point. Horologium (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block since the last "preventive" block, for a year, did nothing to change his behavior. Either that, or remove the community sanctions, if you're not willing to enforce them anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support an even longer block If this was a single user on even their third incident, I'd agree that this is harsh. But this particular user was blocked for an entire year for this kind of behavior and was let back in only upon condition that this kind of behavior completely ceased. Given the multiple violations (even a recent one immediately after a block for a violation of the same community sanctions,), this is a clear-cut blockable situation. Also, every block is punitive, by definition. The prevention portion comes from preventing more contributions that are uncivil and/or violate his community sanctions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (Note: I changed a bit of my phrasing which was quoted accurately below)

  Given you're the one who requested the block, it's not surprising you're "siding with the admin on this one". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Since short-term blocks have proven not to be preventive, only an indef will prevent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn - Civility is a two-way street. If people don't respect civility in discussing issues with Delta - and are aware that Delta is under such restrictions, this is simply gaming the system and creates entrapment for Delta - or otherwise he's forced to sit back and take ridicule. Yes, I could say that Delta's response could have been more tempered, but the editor in question has been dogging Delta for a few weeks now over image issues, so frustration is likely high here. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm waiting for you to retract the "off the table" comment from earlier, since you got the sequence of events wrong. That's one of two things you've gotten wrong here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Horologium. Thinking there should be a link to WP:GROWATHICKERSKIN. Yea, Delta/Beta can be rude, crude, and ignorant; but I don't see a personal attack here. @Delta/Beta .. come on dude, think before you post. There are tender ears here, and they are easily offended. Play nice. — Ched :  ?  06:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So "PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP" is not a personal attack? Or is it okay because he said "Please"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
    • No, "please shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack. It doesn't attack the character of anyone, which would be the definition of a personal attack. It's incivility at worst. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • That's right. Unless you are from the OMG-the-f-word crowd. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I thought he was sanctioned against incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • How about "Your stupidity astounds me"? (also in the same posting) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that every "involvement" I've ever had with Beta/Delta has been extremely unpleasant. Because of him, I long ago gave up on uploading any images except amateurish pictures I've taken myself, which he can't touch. From where I stand, he's to be avoided like the plague. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Note civility isn't the only player here: he also violated his edits-per-minute restriction. On top of that, he violated his civility restriction less than 8 hours after a 24-hour block for the same thing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that, based on his contributions; he's limited to no more than four edits per minute, and at no time on the 19th did he exceed that even once. Horologium (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Check 18:08-18:18 — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no point in that block on the 19th where he exceeds 4 edits per minute. Heck, it looks like he's operating at 3 edits per minute, at most. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite blockper Baseball Bugs. Clearly a recidivist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support If this was any other contributor under the same restrictions, this action would be entirely uncontroversial, and that's the standard we should apply here. The user is being offensive and treating other contributors with outright disrespect. It's not a case of "if you have lots of friends on AN/I, you can get away with it". Orderinchaos 07:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  The comments were made three days ago! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  And that makes it all OK? If I go out and hit somebody, and the police come knocking on my door three days later, I'll be sure to remember that one. It's still a breach of the restrictions. Orderinchaos 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Uncivil? Yes. Stale as mouldy bread? Also yes. Unblock.Courcelles 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Where are you seeing a statute of limitations in the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I just found that line that says discussion must take place prior to blocking. I'm simply assuming this means the discussion must be conclusive... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Which it never is conclusive, because his defenders are convinced wikipedia would collapse without him. So the sanctions are meaningless, and you might as well revoke them and let him do whatever he wants - which he will continue to do anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Bugs, you seem to be under a misconception that those of us opposing this block are some kind of defenders of Delta. As far as I know, I've never said one word about him, anywhere. If this edit had been made tonight, or perhaps even yesterday, I'd have enforced the sanctions myself- it's uncivil, no doubt about it. But just like blocked for 80+ hour old edit wars doesn't actually do any good, neither does blocking for 80+ hour old incivility- it doesn't prevent anything. The sanctions say he "may be" blocked, not that he must be; we still have to filter violations through common sense and fairness, and blocking for one ill-tempered comment from Wednesday on Sunday morning is not the best course of action. Courcelles 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • I just wonder in amazement that the same arguments are going on here, for the last several years, and always with the same conclusion: The guy breaks rules, and his defenders find ways to be sure nothing comes of it. So why bother with bogus "sanctions"? If he's so freakin' valuable to the project, then just officially trash the sanctions and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• OK .. the Your stupidity astounds me part I'll admit is a personal attack. Look, Delta/Beta is a fantastic "computer" person, and has a ton of technical skills which benefit the project greatly. On the other hand, he does lack a lot of inter-personal skills we like to see here. I have no desire to argue with the blocking admin, (lord knows he'll find plenty of support), I'm just saying that when someone gets poked constantly, they will tend to snap back. And heaven knows that Delta/Beta has been poked plenty during his tenure here. Ya'all do what ya want, I'm way too tired to argue this tonight. — Ched :  ?  07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Why are you so butthurt? Unblock them for mierda's sake. It's not worth it to block him now, as somebody else pointed out above, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and that's what I'm just seeing. Diego Grez (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - it's worth pointing out that the fact that the incivility is a few days old also means that the user has allowed the incivility to stand for a few days, having had ample opportunity to go back and strike it or apologise. This, given the civility restriction, makes me support a block despite the circumstances that justifiably provoked anger. However, given that there hasn't been a civility block since at least October, 24 hours seems enough. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Δ has been slipping back to the attitudes and issues that has resulted in him being banned previously, and needs to be made aware that there is little tolerance for this manner of interaction. I recently noticed that for someone who claims that their actions are enforcement of community derived policy, that they are truculent when having the same criteria applied to them. Another unfortunate return to old habits is the manual archiving - the page has an archive bot - of complaints rather than responding further. As of old, when violations of his restrictions are noted to him Δ responds by disregarding the fact and by emphasising the "benefit", even after acknowledging the restrictions earlier. A regrettable return to Appeal to authority" is also apparent, where reference to expertise in policy is substantiated by links to an essay and a guideline, and in an instance where such knowledge has determined that "...consensus means nothing" when it comes to Δ's interpretation of WP:NFCC. However, these issues are nothing to do with the policy regarding Fair Use for copyrighted material but how Δ interacts when his edits are questioned. I have for a little while been concerned that Δ is dropping back into the bad old ways that got him banned previously, but since I am very likely an "involved party" following a dispute over a Fair Use image, which resulted in my concerns being removed as "trolling", I have not brought up the issue - although, as can be seen, I have been keeping note. One last point, in regard to the argument that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punative; if Δ does not wish to examine the point of whether the previous community ban has never been voided, but simply superceded for a year by the ArbCom restriction, or whether a new one need be put in place, then this block and the other one this month should serve as a reminder that he edits at the sufferance of the community, regardless of the quantity and quality of the vast majority of his edits, providing his communications remain respectful and he does not exceed a certain number of edits per time period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Good block and, should, in the usual way, double at the next offense, if there is one. Clearly preventative, as the history shows that the user will continue unless checked. It would be very unfortunate for the technical aspects of Wikipedia , a well as for delta, if he were blocked indefinitely, and strong action is necessary to prevent a descent into circumstances that would make this necessary. "Delta's response could have been more tempered"-- I don't really see how it could have been less tempered, and it does not seem appropriate to me to try to diminish the nature of it in view of the record. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Stale as hell and none of the participants complained. To dig through days later and use it to stir the pot when no one involved found it offensive enough to complain about is petty, juvenile and borders on wikistalking. -- ۩ Mask 15:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, the person at whom the remark was directed DID complain about it, but the discussion was closed before anything was done about it. Moreover, stalking or hounding has pretty clearly defined boundaries...which haven't even been approached in this case. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, the person at whom the remark was directed at DID complain MOST VEHEMENTLY, saying "Also, wasn't one of the terms of your probation to stay civil?"... er, well, maybe not that vehemently. Rd232 ^talk 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment (general) Looking at the discussion here so far, background, and the history, this has been escalating for sometime. Sometimes, moving against simple solutions leads to more complications - which are considered worse (or less preferred) for all involved. I think the make or break point is really going to depend on whether everyone can come to some form of agreement, consensus or compromise on the (ongoing) underlying issues in dispute, particularly in how to handle those issues. If there is no change though, I don't see how this situation surrounding delta will be able to avoid ArbCom intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Also, replace the restriction by something more effective (if people feel this is needed). One of the first lessons you learn in Kindergarten is that words don't hurt. In the real world the people who use bad language tend to disqualify themselves. So, I think a sanction that would place a warning on top of his talk page that points out that this user has civility issues, is far more effective. He can then appeal to have such a banner removed after behaving in an exemplary way for, say, a year. Count Iblis (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, a little icon of a piece of coal could be added to his signature. No presents for you this year, Delta! Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support block This a collaborative project, that environment is damaged when editors act this way. He's under sanctions and no one should be surprised when they are invoked when they are violated. Also support blocks of increasing length if he continues this behavior. RxS (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per RxS. We're here to collaborate, not to shout at each other. Either you learn that, or you find another place where you can shout at people all you want. --Conti|✉ 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support block, oppose ban I doubt the block will have any power to convince beta/delta that the restrictions matter if it is overturned immediately. And despite my lingering reservations about civility blocks, I'd be hypocritical if I supported them for some vested editors and not others. I would prefer that we somehow find an amicable solution to all of this, as beta/delta is a valuable contributor. Also, "shut the fuck up" is not a personal attack, as those above have suggested. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support block/ban DELTA has been the subject of at least two ANI threads just this month and it appears he's been in similar hot water for a long time, as in years. Deja vu his friend Damiens.rf, who's now the subject of a third thread just on him in the last month. These two users have had multiple chances to learn to work in this collaborative environment and since they obviously seem incapable thereof, I regretfully support banning them both. BarkingMoon (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support block; re-open ban proposal. Crystal clear community sanctions are in place, and the blocks arising from them are meant to be punitive. That's the whole point. We aren't playing a game of cops and robbers here - just like in the real world, people on parole do not get free passes so long as they evade scrutiny for a certain amount of time. Even so, it's definitely not OK that it takes the admin corps 3 days to act on this user in the way the community has already asked them to do so in response to such blatant and flagrant violations of their parole, and it's not OK that the resulting block length in this case is so short as to be meaningless given his past record. The fact we have to even have this discussion shows that community imposed sanctions clearly don't work with this editor. Indef blocks don't work with this editor either, even if it had been imposed as one as it should have - he has made promise after promise after promise. An arbitration case over what to do with this editor would be the 3rd of its kind, which must be some kind of record, and would most certainly see Delta banned for at least another year if not longer, even if the evidence was restricted to his repeat violations over the last 6 months in his new incarnation, many of which seem to have been being ignored just like this latest breach. We are getting to the stage now where editors who have never even heard of Betacommand are making the exact same observations about Delta's failings as an editor, not that this stops them from being attacked as 'harassers of Beta' by his regular enablers. People justifying his violations based on the work he does, or the grief he attracts due to his own failings as an effective communictor, are tired old excuses which wore out years ago, and on basic principle had no real validity even then. Delta is an unreformable editor. It should be game over by now. As the second block for violating his restrictions with a month, a community ban proposal was more than in order, and it should not be within the powers of a single admin to shut it down before a consensus is even remotely able to be reached, even if it turned out to be a SNOW rejection. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Any ban proposal should be made at WP:AN. A ban of an established contributor is a response to a long term pattern of behaviour and it should not be mixed up with handling a single, minor incident which there is barely even a consensus to block for. Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wrong venue? Don't make me laugh. Minor? Ditto. No established pattern? Unbelievable. Consensus? To ignore a community sanction? Not even close. MickMacNee (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the wrong venue (as I just explained), and it is minor: it's a single civility incident. For the rest, you invert my statements, which is good for the dramaz but not much else. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was simply the 'wrong venue', you would have moved it yourself, so please, let's have no more in that regard, unless you are now prepared to move it yourself, or will give explicit permission to the initiator to do so if he disagrees with your unilateral shut down. As for your continued refusal to accept established facts and pretend that this was a "minor" incident worthy of treating in complete and utter isolation, not even blockable apparently, then I will be more than happy to quote you on that in a request for arbitration clarification, to get these apparently worthless community sanctions placed within the purview of AE enforcement, instead of admins like yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Mick, Mick, Mick. I closed it because it was both the wrong venue and ludicrously disproportionate; and nobody who wants to make a genuine proposal (I don't think the thread initiator actually wanted a ban outcome, seeing as they opposed the block) needs my permission to do so. And I've repeatedly stated that it's a minor incident, because it is; but if you'd pay attention, I did actually endorse the block, albeit suggesting 24h was enough. And I can only echo Protonk's sentiment in this thread - you seem rather keen to fashion precedents which would apply to you at least as much as anyone else. Rd232 ^talk 00:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've finally admitted the real reason for closing it - you in all your powers decided it was not a 'genuine proposal' and so uniltaterally shut it down. On an editor/issue you've admitted further down below you weren't even familiar with. I don't give a monkeys about Proton's threats, neither you or him seem to have the slightest idea that in comparison to Beta/Delta, my record is that of Mother Theresa. If either of you want to insult me further by suggesting that we are even remotely the same, then I really will start to take it as a personal attack on my reputation as an editor. Also, you can stop insinuating I am blind and have not read the whole thread too, or that I am not making these comments precisely because you have decided to repeatedly wrongly describe this as a "minor" incident. Your personal endorsement of a 24 hour block on that flawed basis is neither here nor there with regards this habit of yours for shutting down proposals on ANI uniltarally. MickMacNee (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without it sounding like a threat, so I'll just come out with it and you'll have to take my word that I don't personally bear any animus toward you or plan to act on this. If this sort of ban/block etc process becomes commonplace for borderline civility violations you are on a (no so) short list of editors who will see the business end of it. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If and when I find myself in a similar situation to Delta, with 2 arbitration cases behind me, a year long ban and a return only allowed with promises to be civil in the utmost from now on, and with several community restrictions put in place on me to ensure that, and to deal with all my other problems, with administrators advised to block me whenever they see a violation, with no clauses inserted about how quickly they need to notice such violations, then I'd have no issue with the community being allowed to have a ban discussion should I so flagrantly take the piss out of the community in this way by violating said restrictions not once but twice in a month so unambiguously, and on numerous other times recently. As such, I could care less if it was a threat or not, it was pretty much irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You will of course do what you feel is right. I'm just asking you to bear this in mind. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I really could care less. If you want to actually threaten me, then come to my talk page and do so, so I can remember the where's and the why's incase it becomes relevant in the future. If you want to make a valid point regarding this user and this incident, then hurry up an make it. Because you're doing neither at the moment. MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Ched: Be nice. Looks bad from the surface, but the 10,000 ft view sees this as ineffective at preventing something that took place several days ago, and is being rekindled for who knows what. Wisely, the section below was closed out. A look at the comments (or egging on) in that section, doesn't seem to instill confidence that this was initially brought to AN/I for the reasons stated. This discussion in itself will give Delta an opportunity to reflect on his civility. A late and long block called for by a third party with an agenda will only fill him with a sense of injustice or punishment being served. 70.177.189.205 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support short block Oppose longer block. Given the sanctions, the wording choice is clearly a violation. However, I've not seen a convincing rationale for extending the block at all, much less to indef.--SPhilbrickT 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  How about the fact that he's had years to correct this behaviour and failed? We were to use an analogy, he's probably on his 80th strike..but still the crowd calls another shot..--Crossmr (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock short blocks like this do nothing but rile up those who were blocked. Either make it sufficiently long (couple weeks or months), ban entirely, or ignore it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - uncivil behaviour has no place here, especially when Delta has sanctions against such behaviour. May I add, however, that all this talk of bans etc. is utter nonsense. GiantSnowman 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I get what the "it was a stale complaint" people are saying, but lets face it. This editor was given far too much leeway the first time around and ultimately became nothing but a time sink. I see no reason for us to go down this road again. In short, specifically because it is Delta and specifically because of his history, I think this is a good block. Letting him off the hook only wastes more of our time in the future. Resolute 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Fuck me, he said the word "fuck" four fucking days ago! Lock him up and throw away the key, I say! Or recognise that people lose their tempers sometimes, especially when faced with flase accusations and assumptions of bad faith. That works too, but it's not as satisfying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately for Delta, this is only a symptom of a greater problem. Unless you edited before your account, you only joined us a couple years ago which is more towards the tail-end of the whole betacommand thing. You really didn't get to experience the long thumbing of the nose at the community that some other people involved in this discussion did. Many of them are quite tired of it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

  Then those relevant issues should be discussed, not incidents like this. Using this sort of incident to block someone as a stick to settle some other score (that perhaps does needs to be settled in some way), does not lead the editor to accept this sanction, so he will then continue to thumb his nose at us. From his POV that's the natural thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Except this incident is one of those issues. Betacommand/Delta has had issues with civility stretching back for years. His involvement in NFCC always ends up the same way. If he were anyone else, he'd still be banned or at least on a topic ban. He has had years to reform his behaviour and he's failed to do so. He's been giving far more chances and far more time than any other user, except maybe giano, to turn it around, but he's utterly failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• support indefinite the fact that we need to have this discussion again is all that's needed. It's clear he has made no real changes to his behaviour, and I loathe having to play this back and forth game for months and years on end until he's finally punted again. He was given ample opportunity to shape up and has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Betacommand...Wasn't he the one who had that bot program and any time someone had an issue with it, his response boiled down to "my bot works fine, you're just a moron"? HalfShadow 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - I see a vendetta pushed by an anti-NFCC crusader, and nothing more. BQZip01 is playing off of Delta's bad reputation to try and remove Delta, a strong voice in the pro-NFCC camp, from the picture. Delta isn't an ideal editor, but lets not for a moment pretend that BQZip01's championing of a block here isn't politically motivated. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn Sven is spot on. Looking through the diffs, I find the following:

• A user opens a discussion with multiple taunts at Delta, taking a final swing at him with this.
• Delta fires back with the offending comment.
• The incident took place on an admin's message board or was moved to one, where there are plenty of adults to handle the situation if it got out of hand. It seems to have ended without any lasting injuries.
• The purpose of that discussion wss to fight another battle in the continuing war between the forces of "Keep" and those of "Delete".
• An editor involved in the battle, but not the recipient of the comment decides to bring the incident here. Is it just me, or does it seem that this 3rd party is playing this forum, (and the communities short patience for Delta) for the advantage of those opposed to Delta's Keep/Delete views? I would like to AGF, but the more you dig into it, the clearer it becomes that this in nothing more than a politically motivated complaint. 12Minutes to 10pm 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours

In view of the failure to achieve consensus for a block here, the staleness of the complaint, and the fact that it was brought by a third party seemingly in furtherance of an unrelated dispute, I've reduced the block to 24 hours, which is 3 hours short of "time served", and is a compromise that makes no-one happy but allows a productive editor to get back to editing. It's a compromise which removes (most of) the punitive element many objected to, whilst acknowledging that Delta was uncivil in a way which breached his civility restrictions. Now, let's argue about that some, because none of us having anything better to do. Like, say, look at the size of Category:Wikipedia backlog and wonder how much smaller it might be if we could just (ahem, I phrase this advisedly) let shit go. Rd232 ^talk 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've left anyone any choice but to have these community sanctions upgraded into arbitration remedies so that they can be properly enforced, and the community can be assured that admins like you will face sanctions yourselves for so blatantly thumbing your nose at the community, who have been drained by trying to deal with this editor for years now in ANI cluterfucks just like this, and came up with those sanctions as a last last last last resort. The message you've just sent out to this editor, who you acknowledge below you weren't even too familiar with, is nothing short of outrageous. The message you've just sent out to any admins who might still be willing to block this editor for blatant violations is also loud and clear. That's two actual blocks placed for sanction violations in a month, and countless other violations that went unnacted on presumably precisely because of nonsense like this which passes as review at ANI. It's frankly unbelievable that you can remotely claim that the people who objected to a 'punative element' have any leg to stand on whatsoever. It's beyond ludicrous. And the user himself hasn't even commented yet, so we don't even get to see him explain why he decided to be so blatantly incivil (and bearing in mind that such explanations have in the past been rare). Sure, we've had the usual attempts at excusing his behaviour which you have presumably also counted as part of a 'consensus' that this was a bad block, but as I said, in a third arbitration case on this user, those sorts of pleas are going to be worthless, because it's all be seen before time after time after time. We ended up with those sanctions for crystal clear reasons, that you have just completely and utterly ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, given the false claims made by rd232 below, I honestly see his actions as disruptive and I wonder if he's open to recall. He tossed himself into a highly controversial situation that he admittedly wasn't fully informed on, and then to back up his reasoning he made statements which have been proven false and which relied on a total error of logic. If it takes us a third trip to arbitration to be done with this, so be it.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I know it is long past the event, but I thought that you needed consensus to undo an admin action, providing it was not egregious or an obvious mistake - i.e. consensus for a change in the status quo? (Of course, the same understanding means that no one should undo your change unless there is consensus to do so.) From a reading of the comments there may have been a slight minority who agreed with the block as it then stood, but that includes those who thought the block should have been longer or indefinite. I have to say, this is not an application of "consensus" that I find persuasive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Note also that some opposers only did so on the gounds the restrictions are clearly ineffective - a message this block reduction fails to counter in any way whatsoever. The punitive/stale comments could not be more irrelevant - the sanctions have no such clause, and he was left under no illusion that they are binding when they were placed. If admins cannot block for breaking them when violations are brought to their notice, then what the hell are they actually for?. And note RD232 has even had the gall to imply Lankiveil was somehow wrong to block while the discussion here was ongoing, even though no such discussion is even required by the sanctions for such blatant violations like this. And let's not even pretend that had this been reported at the time, that we wouldn't have also seen all the same usual excuses - it was the other guy's fault, Delta does good work, Delta is a victim, it was a "minor" incident, etc, etc, etc. Delta has gone back to editing thanks to this reduction as if this incident never even happened, he's not made a single comment on it or even acknowledged it even occurred. We can all apparently go fish for some sort of explanation or some sign of regret for breaking his sanctions, failing to keep yet another promise he has made to the community for the second time in a month. The targetted user can go fish for an apology also it seems. I cannot think of a more contemptuous way for Delta to signal that he doesn't give a flying fuck to be honest, he clearly has the community's number on this one. And the hilarious thing is, these sanctions were placed in full knowledge that all of this was already the situation, but people thought that sanctions would do the trick inspite of this. But RD232 just apparently forgot to read up on what he was involving himself. Hence, the administration of these sanctions needs to be taken out of the purvey of those admins who do not seem to either know or care that Delta is fully justifiably no longer considered by the community to be just another editor, and the community does not expect these incidents to be treated as "minor" or for the sanctions to be undermined until they pretty much become irrelevant, almost a standing joke just like situation with the other famously unblockable unbannable editor, and we just regress to the situation we were in 2 years ago, as if he had never even been banned for a year, let alone all the rest. If we're not already there already. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban

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.

There is a disturbing tendency for people to rapidly escalate discussion of minor incidents into ban discussions. This must be squashed - it is highly detrimental to adequate discussion of minor incidents, and leads to needless repetition of old issues and much aggravation. Bans should normally be proposed separately, ideally on WP:AN rather than WP:ANI, especially where it's a long-term contributor who has previously been discussed at AN. Remember ANI is for incidents, not for long-term behaviour patterns. Rd232 ^talk 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Let's take that cat out of the sack: It's obvious that some people want Delta gone. So let's be frank and discuss a ban, shall we? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - He will continue to play his defenders like marks unless he's permanently put out to pasture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Delta does good work around here, even if some people are too thick to realise that NFCC is non-negotiable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • OMG, the old "he does good work" nonsense. And apparently sanctions are negotiable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Did I ever say his sanctions were? They're not. But to act on comments made three days ago which no one, including the target, complained about then, is punitive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're saying that "good work" override sanctions. And if you make the block indef, then it WILL be preventive rather than punitive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I'm not. I'm saying his good work means he should not be banned. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are in fact saying that "good work" overrides sanctions. He's to be blocked if he violates sanctions. He violates sanctions, and you don't want him blocked. Ergo, "good work overrides sanctions." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whether you agree or not that Delta does "good work around here", that doesn't excuse his deplorable behavior. Despite numerous blocks (including one lasting a year), his behavior still hasn't changed and he continues his poor behavior. He was let back onto WP under the proviso that he refrain from very specific behavior. He has proven himself incapable of abiding by these restrictions three times this month alone. When is enough enough? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose As an involved user in this discussion or with Delta, this subsection is extremely WP:POINTY: "Some people wants him out, let's kick him out". The block is puntative at most and preventive at least, the best to do is unblock him and watch him, if he returns with the same immediately come here and do not wait 10 days. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 07:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • [inject]I basically DID come here as soon as I noticed it. If you'll note, I didn't have any contributions for the past week or so since I was on vacation without internet access (both a blessing and a curse). I noted it as soon as I could. Furthermore, I agree with Bugs that there isn't a statue of limitations on this subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there are only two possible "best" options: (1) indefinite block, for permanent prevention; or (2) stop being hypocrites, and remove all sanctions. If you're unwilling to enforce the sanctions, then you have already de facto removed them, so you might as well make it official. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's pointy, so please don't link to "disruptive": Some claim it's a severe problem of personality, then he needs to be out. As it stands, the block is merely punitive which won't have any effect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Make it permanent, and it will be preventive. You know what the sad part is? That this exact same discussion has occurred countless times here - and Beta/Delta always ends up doing things the way he wants to, with the bedside manner of a scorpion. He's to be avoided at all costs, his damage to wikipedia be hanged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. No way. Horologium (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you support lifting the sanctions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not a case of "if you don't want him banned, it means you don't support the sanctions". Don't put words into others' mouths. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

There is a disturbing tendency for some people to try and shut down legitimate discussions. Anything regarding Delta is hardly minor. He has a very long and storied history on Wikipedia, and his long ban was a result of his uncivil behaviour among other things. He's continuing that which is an indication the discussion needs to happen again, since it's clear that the long vacation he had before didn't change his behaviour. Do we really need to play the back and forth game again until he pisses off enough of his supporters that we finally end up banning him again only for someone to have a change of heart a year and a half later?--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not desperately familiar with this, but I've done a little digging. The last time this user was blocked for civility issues was in December 2008 [11], which was just before a year-long ban for breaching this restriction relating to image tagging. It is impossible to overstate how much of an overreaction it normally is to seriously talk about banning for a single civility incident. It is very difficult to overstate how much of an overreaction it is to seriously talk about it here and now for this user - in primary reliance on this single incident. I'm happy to concede that it is possible that Delta should be banned ASAP, and if anyone wants to make a serious case to that effect with the necessary evidence, WP:AN is not far away. But to build a case based solely on what this thread started with is offensive and ridiculous; and frankly everyone seeking to do so should be a bit ashamed of themselves for acting like the archetypical ANI lynch mob. Rd232 ^talk 01:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you might want to dig more. Part of the problem that lead up to the banning was several threads being started on AN/I about betacommand's interaction with other users. Yes he was finally banned for violating his editing restriction, but there is a reason civility patrol is part of his restrictions now. One of the other problems in this situation, which makes the whole betacommand issue a poster child for what's broken with wikipedia is that were no end to the amount of administrators who wanted to come in and alter/remove blocks rather than deal with him. As the issue spiralled out of control administrators who had previously lept to his defense found themselves no longer backing him. He's already exhausted the community's patience and he was let in once again on a super duper pretty please ultra mega last chance, and here we are again. He's obviously learned nothing, and neither has the community. I expect the rest of his tenure to be more of the same, because all I'm seeing is more of the same. If he remotely wants to stay here, he needs to stay away from NFCC. It's done nothing but get him into trouble for years, the project carried on just fine while he was gone, and it will continue to do so. Wikipedia didn't get sued into oblivion, it didn't crumble down around us, and if he can't handle NFCC work politely and in the spirit of working in a community, frankly they don't need to be here. He's shown time and time again that this is an impossibility for him.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"He's obviously learned nothing..." - well he was block-free for 6 months from October until 18 May, in which time he made well over 10,000 edits [12]. Since 18 May, there is only the block arising from the current thread. For a contributor who was previously so problematic, that seems a decent record. PS If NFCC is such a particular problem for him, how come no topic ban? Rd232 ^talk 06:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Absence of a block is not proof that he's learned anything. It's proof that he didn't get blocked during that time. Many admins are loathe to block him even though they want to or know they should simply because they know it turns into a giant storm of garbage for days on end. We saw it for years previously. As we see here, even though he very clearly violated his restrictions many people insist the block be overturned, or that it should never have happened in the first place. If that was the case would you hold that up as evidence that he's learned something? And as for why there is no topic ban for NFCC? because last time around he just ended up flat-out banned finally. The only thing keeping him in the project before was some people's insistence that he was a special snowflake and that the project would go belly-up without him. Should he be cast out NFCC would have inevitably failed and Armageddon would have been upon us. I'm paraphrasing obviously, but as you can see during his absence none of that occurred. But if you do read up on the full history you'll find that the majority of his issues come from NFCC. Most of the civility complaints came from users he'd interacted with over NFCC issues. The editing restrictions often came from issues he'd had with bots and automated tools. He wasn't properly checking his edits and causing issues in articles, sometimes with NFCC, and of course opposition to this was sometimes met with further incivility.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As a previously passionate and prolific contributor, if I had to name THE one thing (out of many) which finally led to my irreparable disgust with Wikipedia, and finally my total abandonment of ever contributing here again, it would be behavior like BetaCommand's, and the community's limitless tolerance for it. For whatever that's worth... Dekkappai (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Delta repeatedly and blatantly violates his editing restrictions

and since RD232 asked me about his editing history during the last few months, on May 17th, he clearly violated his editing restrictions of 4 edits/minute by making 15 edits in a single minute, and 6 edits the minute after, that's 21 edits in 2 minutes. He then made 10 edits at 11:19 the same day, 10 at 11:17,

Example edits
# 11:49, May 17, 2011 (diff

So no, he's violating editing restrictions, and being uncivil again. I don't think he's learned a thing despite his ability to dodge a block. He may not have gotten 40 edits over 10 minutes, but 21 in 2 minutes is clearly against what his restrictions indicate.

• Oh, and on May 12, from 22:44-22:53, he made 53 edits,
• from 22:35-22:43 he made 45 edits. so any way you slice that, that's over the 4 edits/minute rate that he's allowed. That's twice he's violated his editing restrictions (that I've found so far) and once that he's clearly violated he's civility restrictions (that I've found) and you want to claim he's learned something?
• Not to be outdone, on the same day I find that he's made 44 edits at exactly 20:10. I don't know about anyone else..but that seems like more than 4 edits per minute to me..
• 72 edits on the same day yet again from 6:14-6:23. Should I keep going or can we just nail this thing closed finally??
• 6:05-6:13 56 edits, may 12 again. Banner day for him.

I'm refactoring this into a list for readability.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This all happened 2 days before he proposed the task at the VP as noted in the above discussion, and frankly I'm tired of counting editing violations, May 12 just goes on and on, you could easily find over a dozen times that he violated them.--Crossmr (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If today were 12 or 13 May, then I would have no hesitation in blocking. However, given the section immediately preceding this one there would be no chance of consensus supporting any block for them today. I think at this point we have to say that Delta will not be blocked for any infractions or alleged infractions made before his latest unblock, regardless of merit or otherwise. Personally I feel that nobody who acts in the way that Delta does can be a net positive to the project, but others feel differently and we have to work with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Were it anyone else the key would have been thrown away long ago, but even though it is not May 12, or 13th, this is simply just more evidence of on-going and very long-term behaviour issues that simply have not rectified themselves over the years. I'm not seeking a block for a single disruptive incident, I'm suggesting the ban be reinstated for being an utter failure of yet another super duper extra mega ultra right down to the wire pretty please last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you that he has had more than enough last chances. If he violates again (although I sadly think it's more likely to be when than if) then I'm all for a ban, but until that time then I'm not going to reblock for offences prior to the most recent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I may not be in a position to be Delta's official biographer, but I do know that Delta has already been blocked (on 18 May) for these infractions. However much Delta has pissed people off in the past, and disrespected or tested the limits of sanctions, it remains the case that this lynch mob behaviour is ridiculous. For those in cheap seats if you think a ban of Delta can be justified, then start a new thread at WP:AN, providing coherent, well-argued, well-evidenced justification. Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Admin reaction needed

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

One simple stuff, but Admin needed anyway...

Just follow the link... :)

Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators can't resolve content disputes. Hut 8.5 14:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

...although they can point to other means of dispute resolution. Just follow the link... :) Rd232 ^talk 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Rafi

Please semi-protect this article. It is regularly being vandalized by assorted IP's. See this. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe try at WP:RPP? GiantSnowman 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the vile personal attacks by this specific (and apparently dynamic) IP, is a rangeblock tenable in these circumstances? --NellieBly (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[13] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[14] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[15][16][17][18] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[27] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fractyl and writing prose

For the past several years I have been dealing with Fractyl (talk · contribs) (who edits as 72.184.129.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) lately [it was confirmed by a checkuser a while ago, but I can't be bothered to find the case]) in my topic area. As of late, several other users who I work with (Areaseven (talk · contribs) & AlienX2009 (talk · contribs)) have grown tired of dealing with Fractyl's apparent inability to write with proper English grammar. Whenever he writes prose or expands on prose, his grammar is atrocious and occasionally there are words or entire sentences missing that makes it impossible to even decipher what he is trying to convey.

I have told him multiple times (you can see several threads on User talk:Fractyl and User talk:72.184.129.252) to run a grammar check in Microsoft Word or whatever other word processor he has before he saves, but I see the same spelling errors and horrid grammar every time he expands an article. I have told him that I will revert him outright, but I often find that fixing his text is better. However, I am fed up with cleaning up after him as are Areaseven and AlienX2009. Something needs to be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have spell check. Besides, I'm trying to better myself. I am sorry if you think otherwise.Fractyl (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Use an Internet browser that does, like Firefox. And perhaps better yourself off-wiki. Everything on Wikipedia is public; if you want to practice with Wikipedia articles, copy them to pastebin.com or something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And there's OpenOffice, which is free and has a spellchecker - see http://www.openoffice.org/ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he is just doing his best to provide information. I know I shouldn't be saying this myself since my grammer isn't well either. But these things just happen. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 19:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a certain level of competence that's necessary to provide that information in a useful manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why I have brought it here. I know that Fractyl means well, but it has gone on for far too long. This goes beyond misspellings like "preform" (perform) and "destory" (destroy), but involves phrases used incorrectly, phrases used way too often that don't carry the right meaning, and words missing that make sentences nonsensical. While the topic area isn't necessarily professional, it makes it difficult to edit when I do not know what he was trying to say to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, I've had to deal with grammatical errors that are much worse than what Ryulong has described. Every time I post a plot summary on the List of Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger episodes article, "72.184.129.252" literally ruins it with his own words that only he seems to understand. It's very frustrating for me to go back and clean up his mess every time. - Areaseven (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Csteffen13

Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) appears to edit solely for the purpose of supporting Winchester2313 (talk · contribs).

• His very first edit was to support Winchester2313.[28]
• The only AfD he ever participated in was in support of Winchester2313.[29]
• The only AN discussion he's ever participated in was to defend Winchester2313.[30][31]
• His first, and until recently only user talk page contribution was a gushing praise of Winchester2313.[32]
• His second, and most recent user talk page contribution was to admonish another editor for talking to Winchester2313 in a way Csteffen13 did not like.[33]
• He returned to Wikipedia on May 20, after a 5 month editing break, to edit-war in support of Winchester2313. Winchester2313's edits:[34][35]. Csteffen13's edit:[36] His Talk: page comments were also all in support of Winchester2313's positions.
• He has edited a total of 16 unique pages,[37] 11 of them in common with Winchester2313.[38]

Many of Cteffen13's other edits are in support of Winchester2313, though he has also made a small number of other "decoy" edits. Because his writing style differs from Winchester2313's, I doubt Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, but it appears that this little-used (85 total edits) account's purpose for editing Wikipedia is to act as Winchester2313's meatpuppet. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, this seems like it would be more appropriate at WP:SPI as opposed to here. - SudoGhost™

I'm not (as yet) overly informed about the methods and workings of these things, but reading the charge above, I feel a few obvious points would serve everybody well:

1.I am quite active on some fairly controversial articles, particularly Elazar Shach, Chabad Lubavitch and other, similar articles. These seem to attract a number of sporadic, narrowly focused editors, e.g Csteffen13, Yonoson3 and others on both sides of the debate. Brewcrewer has focused here on Csteffen13, but much of what he says might be equally applicable to an editor like Yonoson3 editing sporadically in support of an editor such as Jayjg ?

2. The positions I take in controversial articles are well-sourced, and I hardly rely on others 'support' (or lack thereof) to establsh validity. That others may see things as I do regarding Elazar Shach is not surprising, as the man made a career of attacking other Rabbis and groups, so I'm sure he's viewed with an equal measure of disdain across many lines and by many different groups.

3. I'm not sure what significance an editing crossover of 11/16 topics might have, considering the confluence of so many popular debates within the Jewish religion and various groups of its adherents, especially, again on highly controversial subjects...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Csteffen13's only purpose for editing is to support Winchester2313, and this is done in many different venues, which one would not normally find an editor with so little Wikipedia experience or with a specific topical area of interest. The question here is, does one actually need to make an SPI report if one is fairly sure a meatpuppet (not sockpuppet) is editing? Or can this board simply ban a little-used obvious meatpuppet account? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious enough an SPI is a formality. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat

Hi, in a dispute with an ip with regards to edits made to Pacers–Pistons brawl‎. He originally made an unsourced edit to which I reverted. I explained to him/her about rules like WP:V and WP:OR. In his/her reply on my talk page, he/she made a legal threat, see [39]. Because of that, I am asking an admin to look into this and perhaps block the offender. Thanks.—Chris!_c/t 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also he/she made several personal attacks, calling me an "ass" and lazy.[40]—Chris!_c/t 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Chris. When you begin a discussion about an editor, you should always notify the editor and provide him or her with a link to this page so they know exactly where the discussion is occurring. This is especially important for an IP user who may have no knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I've added a notification to the IP's talk page. In the future, you can simply add {{subst:ANI-notice}} --~~~~ to the editor's talk page. Ignore the above - I was having a peabrain moment. --NellieBly (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?—Chris!_c/t 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the IP address for this threat. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The user has circumvented the block by hopping over to 24.209.249.23 (talk · contribs), and continues to attack Chris at Pacers–Pistons brawl and User talk:Chrishmt0423. Perhaps semi-protection is needed? —LOL ^T/_C 17:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is block evasion, but I've blocked the second IP per the legal threat block as I don't see any retraction of the threat. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable behavior in talk computer

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.

See#Dispute at Computer, above. lifebaka++ 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion on my being harrassed by an administrator was closed rapidly claiming that it was more than 5 years old and since the incident happened just one month ago, I am reopening it. I don't understand why my original title was renamed just talk Computer.

About a month ago I was verbaly harrassed, threatened, insulted, during a period of 5 days (and 40k of discussion) by ErrantX, an administrator and Nafsadh, a user, simply for removing unreferenced material from the computer article. From the moment we started, it took less than 24 hours for our "discussion" to turn into a relentless four day attack centered around a paragraph that I had written in the same article.

I believe that Errantx which took over the account of tmorton166 are two different persons.

Five years ago, on May 23, 2006 at 15:20, in his User page, tmorton166 described himself (this sub-page page was deleted a week ago) as "Courteous, kind and friendly - if not then it is not me editing".

Last month, ErrantX behaved in an uncourteous, unkind and unfriendly way.

During this discussion the protagonists showed:

• Use of improper language.

• Unexpected behaviors: comments like: "I wrote a whole section on the problems... but am not posting it because I went into detail on the problems, which you mostly ignored, above". This kind of comment should be expected from an early teen person, not a young adult and even less from an administrator. NafSadh is not far behind with "I felt offended by some of your talk revealing your own level of expertise which seemed like you looked down on us".

• Threat: My strong stand is that, disputed edits by Ezrdr, those we wanted and tried to resolve, should be eliminated. Any other editors' act on this regard is NECESSARY.

• Insults: It may well be, but your view is irrelevant using Facepalm in the comment, and also the comment: it was like beating my head against a brick wall communicating the problem to you

• Discussion: The discussion that took place for five days in April 2011 had the following hearders:

Talk:Computer#Unsubstantiated statement about the castle rock

Talk:Computer#Unreferenced

Talk:Computer#From sublime to ridiculous

Talk:Computer#Reference showing that Electronic calculators come from Mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Definition of Harassment

Talk:Computer#Was the computer first Theorized By Babbage while trying to develop more powerful mechanical calculators

Talk:Computer#Was Babbage developing more powerful mechanical calculators ?

Talk:Computer#Can the invention of the microprocessor by Intel while developing a calculator engine be called Serendipity

Talk:Computer#Is the Electronic calculator a direct descendant of the Mechanical calculator ?

• Discussing in bad faith: This is sprinkled all over the discussion.

--Ezrdr (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This belongs in WP:WQA not here. There is nothing requiring admin attention William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As you were told before re-posting this thread... GiantSnowman 21:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As someone who takes WP:CIVIL very seriously, and someone who is generally supporting of new users, I'm afraid there isn't any uncivil behaviour towards you on that talk page. Possibly some form of dispute resolution, such as a third opinion would be good.

I think this is probably the wrong place for this discussion and that WP:WQA looks better, but <shrug> it doesn't seem worth arguing about that too much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Neptunekh2 - long term competence issues

Although user:Neptunekh2 is probably a well-meaning contributor, their extreme lack of competence appears to be detrimental to the project. I noticed this edit which categorized an actor as an atheist because, as Neptunekh2 states in this post at the Help Desk, "it says in her personal life: Powers does not adhere to any religion". That post to the Help Desk followed the additiion of the category. Note that this same editor had previously categorized the same actor as a Scientologist and had been reminded of WP:BLPCAT.

Looking through Neptunekh2's contributions, I came across this edit where they copied the text of another editor's answer to a question they posed on one of the help desks. Yes, they posted another editor's answer into an article.

I asked someone who had experience with Neptunekh2 to see if they could get anywhere, but their message was deleted without comment. I suspect that unless someone is willing to do some very close monitoring and mentoring, a block will be necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also tried to work with the user, and see her messages pop up on various talk pages I watch. Another problem that Neptunekh2 has is that she tends to post the same question to more than one place; for the most recent example, see the same two questions on the Help desk and Elen of the Roads's talk page. The other recent concern was the creation of categories about living people of highly dubious need, particularly category/ethnicity intersections where the intersection may number only a few hundred people worldwide, and thus the list of those notable enough to even appear in Wikipedia might be as low as zero. Elen of the Roads has probably done the most to try to help this user in terms of clear explanations. The problem is, Neptunekh2 has never, as far as I know, responded to any message any user has left her, except for one that Elen left, and that result was quite unpleasant: see Elen's friendly warning, followed a few days later by a stronger statement from Elen, to which Neptunekh2 responded on Elen's talk page with this threat. Then, less than 10 days later, Neptunekh2 was back to asking Elen questions on her talk page.

The underlying behavioral problem is presumably connected to Neptunekh2's self-identified Asperger's syndrome (indicated in a userbox on her talk page). I've previously asked Elen whether or not she feels Neptunekh2's problems cross over into WP:COMPETENCE area, and she, like I, seems uncertain. It's certainly the case that asking in multiple places is irritating to other editors (I got annoyed a while ago after writing up a big explanation to one set of questions only to find another editor had already taken care of it); and the excessive creation of categories, along with improper categorization, certainly costs other editors' time. But some of Neptunekh2's work has been valuable, I think, as some of the categorization does seem to be accurate. This is a very tricky issue, because we (I think) never want to invoke WP:COMPETENCE on a well-meaning editor unless we're really sure that there's no way to help him/her achieve a minimum acceptable standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I know I have no answer here. I'm going to go notify Elen since I've now discussed her extensively. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have seen much of these events; and I, too, am baffled regarding how to resolve the issue. This really looks like a situation of the immovable object/irresistable force nature. It needs some sensitive handling but, on that score, I cannot fault Elen - has been very, very understanding over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If the medical condition is making this user behave poorly, I think WP:CIR is relevant and a block is needed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I should mind my own business, but if hypothetically Bill Gates were editing Wikipedia, would you propose to block him for having Aspergers' as well? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe medical condition is the problem here in-and-of itself, but rather if that is providing a problem with WP:CIR then yes, it would be an issue for him as well. For my own, limited interaction with this user, it is frustrating to interact with someone asking for help, but failing to engage in the resolution. I would suggest reaching out for mentorship before enforcing a block.Tiggerjay (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify to FuFoFuEd: I would never say we should block/ban anyone for any medical condition, age, lifestyle, or personal opinion (with the one known exception). We can, however, block someone for being generally disruptive, refusing to communicate with anyone, and causing a drain on the resources of other users disproportionate to the value they bring to the project. For example, I think Tiggerjay's suggestion of mentoring is great. However, assuming Neptunkh2 does the same thing she does with every other talk page message, and simply deletes it without response, and then continues the same behavior that's frustrating other editors, then what? Note for example that today Dismas told her to stop double posting; the comment was blanked about 5 minutes later. Yes, blanking means that she's read it and acknowledged it; however, since the behavior never changes, we're starting to get to the point where we're running out of options. If she won't accept or is unable to accept criticism/suggestions for improvement, we either have to decide to put up with that irritation forever (as long as she wants to use Wikipedia) or start the unpleasant but potentially necessary work of stop the disruption via blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed some of this going on at the RefDesk periodically, and I understand why it's annoying. I think a mentor, should she want it, would be a good idea (I wouldn't mind doing it myself). However, she'd have to agree to it first; until there's some positive response to that, we're faced with the choices directly above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) And god knows, FuFoFuEd, a lot of users would have been blocked if we followed that logic; I myself have PDD-NOS, and a relatively high percentage of users here show various signs of being on the spectrum. This is the sort of activity that attracts our kind, for various reasons.

It's certainly not just the Aspergers that is an issue. I blocked Neptunekh a while ago for copyvio, and we had a few conversations by email before I unblocked her, in which she did expand a bit on what caused her problems with the project. The effects (as they affect wikipedia) are no patience - so she asks the same question in half a dozen places; a desire to categorise to the nth degree, a failure to understand existing categorisations (on her talkpage, you'll see that she has both "this user is a christian" and "this user is an atheist" userboxen. This is not some deep philosophical statement), feels she can't to write prose (she's said this herself, feels she has poor english skills and it makes it difficult to interpret information and rewrite it for the encyclopaedia, hence the copyvios, the copypaste of Marco Polo's response on the reference desk, and the endless requests for other users to clean up articles), and a fascination with poking around in odd corners (hence the current Inuit/Nunavut/Grise Fiord questions that resulted in Looty Pijamini and the addition to Canadian English that was fine once SlimVirgin had found a source and rewritten it.)

I'm sure if one met her in real life, one would really like her. She's passionately inclusionist and against discrimination, and she takes delight in finding out information. However, at least 75% of everything she does gets reverted, deleted, or it's a duplication. I have tried to explain. I have asked her not to remove the messages from her talkpage, because I think that 'out of sight, out of mind' is a big problem. If a mentor could get her to compile a list of "things I have been asked not to do" in her own words, I think that would be a start. I'm all for The Blade of the Northern Lights giving it a go, but I think someone may have to block her to get her to pay attention, and I'd rather it wasn't me as I just feel way too involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See this. I have asked her to respond to us. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's give her a chance to respond; she hasn't edited since you left her a message, and she's probably logged out at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to wait. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I think that most of the people in this discussion have tried to reach out to Neptunekh2 at various points, or repeatedly as is the case of Elen, and, as is noted above, the continual deletion of talk page messages and lack of response makes it difficult to make headway. Everybody seems to want Neptune to accept mentoring and transform the 75% delete / 25% keep ratio into its opposite (wouldn't that be great?)

Apparently Elen managed to have an e-mail discussion with her before, but, in general, I get the impression our posts to her talk page (to encourage or try to help) are taken as a "telling off".

You can lead a horse to water ...: unfortunately, unless Neptune decides to open up to some sort of dialogue this is going nowhere, and I understand Elen's preference for someone else to take over. Is a block necessary to get this person to enter into communication? A real shame, I will post to her talk page too, to ask her to please come see that people want her to continue on Wikipedia and transform her enthusiasm into something positive. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Twinkle Little Script... How I wonder where you went?

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.

Not an admin issue. If you're having problems with Twinkle, please see WT:Twinkle. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Any one know why Twinkle is not doing its thing? I tried to use it on Vandalism but it aint there! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor on welcome templates. I think this may be due to the ongoing merge with t'other script because the dialogs are showing up in a different design also. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the best place to raise problems with this is, either https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle or Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I've also given AzaToth (talk · contribs) a shout on their talk.  Chzz  ►  01:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had an on again off again issue with this for the past few hours. The boxes will disappear for a few minutes and then come back N^oformation ^Talk 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand why we're starting to move tools like Twinkle off Wikimedia onto sites like github.com. I ran into another tool that as doing same thing recently. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I had problems nominating articles for deletion with it. It only completes some of the steps at random. It will add the article to the log for instance, or notify the article's creator, but not do the other steps. Pretty weird, because it worked fine some days ago. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Resident Anthropologist, I think that's a non-issue, to be honest; any problems raised on WT:TW should get a response, so the 'github' bug logging can just be viewed as another option. For coders, storing the code, docs, bugs and other stuff elsewhere is quite justifiable, as other sites can provide resources that are helpful with specific technical issues - obviously, as long as the on-wiki stuff is sufficient for the wikipedia needs.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also having issues. Twinkle seems to be down completely with no response to the github bug report in 8 hours. Get ready for a huge backup at WP:NPP. N419BH 05:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I unchecked, saved and rechecked and saved the twinkle setting in preferences and it reappeared. Jarkeld (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is relevant or not, but I seem to recall a box at the bottom of the Gadgets page that was something like "Twinkle Developer" and this box is now gone. Also, I am unable to tag pages for the past few hours, I keep getting the error "You must select at least one tag!" regardless of how many tags I selected and I've been having rollback errors on and off all day N^oformation ^Talk 05:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Twinkle has been updated. The new version was deployed in the early hours of this morning (UTC). Please direct commentary to Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. Skomorokh 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald question re verifiability policy

I just queried Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) regarding an apparent misunderstanding of WP:V, [41].

It was removed with no comment [[42].

I therefore raise it here, as I am concerned that the admin does not understand core policy, and refuses to discuss it.  Chzz  ►  00:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Users are at liberty to remove messages from their talk pages. Chzz appears to be forum-shopping and attempting needlessly to escalate a non-event. Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely not forum-shopping; this query is unrelated to any other discussion. It's about Scott MacDonald's apparent misunderstanding of V, which I used 2 lines to explain - taken from elsewhere. The 2 lines make it clear that he either fail to understand, or fail to acknowledge, a very simple statement of policy. His refusal to discuss it astounds me. this removal of the ANI notification with edit-summary of "don't be silly" furthers my concern over the behaviour of the user. Of course, he's quite at liberty to remove things from his own talk page - I do not dispute that, at all. But this apparent disregard of a query is not appropriate conduct from an administrator.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "don't be silly" edit-summary adds new dimensions to this non-event. Mathsci (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, hold on a second. Let's say that you and Scoot actually have different interpretations of WP:V and your reading of WP:V is more correct than Scott's (by consensus I suppose), how is that a matter for AN/I? He's not editing disruptively is he? He disagreed with you at deletion review. I hate to say it but this is beyond frivolous and I recommend you withdraw your query here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of removing comments from ones own talk page, mathsci is right. Users are at liberty to remove anything from their talk pages they see fit except for unblock templates. However, just because someone can do a thing doesn't mean they should do a thing. Removing others comments may suggest that one doesn't give a rat's ass about their concerns. However, on the issue of verifiability and sources, a lot of editors confuse sources that are used to verify information in an article with sources used to demonstrate "notability" at AFD. The latter I like to call supersources. (a redirect to an essay you wrote Chzz) However, a source doesn't have to be a "supersource" to verify that something exists. For example, an IMDB entry can verify that an actor exists but it can't be used to demonstrate notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I take your opinion very seriously, and thus if a couple more people tell me to withdraw this (and if you still think I should after reading the rest of this comment), then I will. Possibly there's some other more suitable venue; sincere apologies if I got the wrong place.

Mr. Ritzman - I totally agree re. user pages, but yes - admins seemingly not giving a rat's ass is exactly my concern. I don't see how the V policy on not having articles with no third-party refs at all can possibly be unclear - that was the specific point I raised. Admins just ignoring a good-faith attempt at questioning them, and just tossing it off their talk with "stupid" - that is NOT appropriate conduct. I believe that admins must be exemplary in their conduct - quite literally; setting a good example. I'm not saying this is a 'blockable' / 'desysop' thing, or anything so crazy - but to ignore my dispute, it ain't 'nice', it's not 'exemplary'.  Chzz  ►  03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)I tell you what. When it's time for me to pass out banana stickers, he won't get one. Other than that, I'm not really seeing any action that could/should be done here. - SudoGhost™ 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Chzz needs support here, as he has discovered a fairly serious problem of a whole series of unsourced articles about future events in the martial arts. It appears that Wikipedia is being used as free advertising space for unsourced articles about these non-notable pay-per-view events. I have looked at a few of the articles, particularly the contributions made on behalf of K-1. Have a look at {{2011 K-1 Events}}: you will see a series of self-sourced articles about non-notable pay-per-view events that are the property of this organization. Chzz noticed this problem and is hoping to do something about it. So to dismiss his concerns about the lack of sources is problematic. This kind of work is pretty much the opposite of fun, and without the support of the administrative team he is quite likely going to lose interest in pursuing it. We gotta decide here if we want to play web-host for K-1 and others who post COI advertorials, and offer support to editors like Chzz who are not keen to have the encyclopedia used as a free web host in this manner. So I agree with Chzz that Scott's behaviour was inappropriate for an admin. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I agree with Diannaa here. I don't know if this is the correct venue but I will say that there a way too many articles on Wikipedia that are either not notable or sourced very poorly or not at all and it can be very tough to get them removed if the talk page consensus is to keep even in spite of core policy violations. If this was a deletion discussion I could think of a few reasons why this and similar PPV event articles should be ditched. N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)Me, too. Trying to keep the weeds out of the garden really is a thankless task, and it actually annoys me that certain people / groups are using WP as free-advertising space. This is not what we're here for, and an admin who seems not to understand the underlying problem could appear to be condoning the use of the 'pedia in this way. It's definitely a concern when the majority of people turning up at deletion-wossnames are fans, and effectively shout everyone down just by sheer weight of numbers. If it's against policy, then it's against policy - and, as they say, "300,000 people shouting the same thing doesn't mean it's right". I think we do need a new CsD criterion to deal with this kind of misuse of the 'pedia. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's take this in chronological order.

1. At a DRV launched by Chzz, Scott Mac endorses a redirect, relying on WP:V ("Remove all unverifiable information." leaving nothing but a substub, so redirect is preferred).
2. Chzz challenges this, drawing on the part of WP:V which quotes the nub of WP:N: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Implicitly, he's saying even a redirect is a sort of article which requires sources, which makes a sort of sense, but poses a bit of a challenge (I've never seen a redirect with sources in it).
3. Chzz technically asked a question of Scott Mac on his user talk page about this, but it either was a rhetorical question or could easily be mistaken for one, and either way it didn't illuminate the nature of their disagreement, and was brusque and somewhat confrontational. There was also no obvious need to do that there rather than carry on discussion at the DRV. Scott Mac's removal without even a reply in the edit summary was unfortunate at best; and most people on the receiving end of that would feel it was rude.
4. ANI post which would have been more suitable for WP:WQA (though there's no obvious alternative home for the "admin doesn't understand core policy?" aspect).
5. Diannaa illuminates the background issue is the serial creation of articles on pay-per-view events without evidence of notability (independent reliable sources).

Conclusion: WP:V is not WP:N. They intersect, but they can lead to slightly different conclusions. Obviously in deletion debates the key thing is WP:N (notability).

1. Somebody should look into who's creating all these K-1 articles. Perhaps some form of sanction would be appropriate to prevent the creation of spammy COI articles. Rd232 ^talk 04:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna talk to Chzz and see if he wants to pull together a mass deletion nomination of some kind for the K-1 stuff. Then there is the question of people creating self-sourced articles about non notable events. They don't qualify for speedy under A-7 and by the time we get them through a deletion discussion the organizer has already taken advantage of our servers and resources for at least a week of free advertising. Then there is a big obstacle with getting them deleted as all the fans show up at the AFD and make non-policy based arguments for keeping this junk. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a potential expansion of CSD criteria - A7, or possibly A9. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt it'll happen (much as I'd like it to), but you can take a crack at it here if you think otherwise. I think a mass AfD here would be a good idea; I may take some time to sift through the (s)crap heap here myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been involved with this too, I did not find Scott's advice to be effective at Slammiversary IX.  I think the problem is not just spammy COI articles, it is announcements of future events in general, which is related to "breaking news stories".  Editors keep trying to deal with these at AfD and DRV.  This doesn't work, because the notability of the topic changes at the time of the instantiation of the event, or during the on-going course of events for the breaking news story.  Has anyone forgotten Serene Branson?  You can check on the latest medal totals today for the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics.  There are two of these cases at DRV right now, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 25 (Winnipeg NHL Team) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_27 (Slammiversary IX).  Unscintillating (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: in filing this at ANI, I had no intention of raising the "Future PPV wrestling" issue here. I'm quite happy that it's being discussed, but we've got 2 things going on here, right now. 1 being the problematic articles on future wrestling events, 2 being admin conduct of Scott MacDonald. So may I ask...could some clerky-type-person possibly sort this out into two bits? If #2 isn't appropriate here, that's coolio, and I'll go elsewhere for it, or drop it. Many thanks for all the input.  Chzz  ►  05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my comments above, I think you should drop #2, not least since it isn't admin conduct in question - he was not acting as an admin. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, you're absolutely correct that #2 is not re. admin-conduct, it's re. user-conduct. The only caveat there being, I expect 'better' conduct from Admins than I would of other users, in as much as, I like to see exemplary behaviour - and thus am more likely to criticise actions of an admin which, if they were a new user, I'd turn a blind eye to. Thus - is ANI unsuitable? (genuine question) ta.  Chzz  ►  05:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per point 4 in my comments above, though it's not the end of the world. I understand the issue, and particular in terms of communication, we have a right to expect admins to generally set positive examples, and Scott didn't here. But in this instance I set against that the things I said above in point 3. Rd232 ^talk 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. If ANI is the wrong place re. #4, yes, I'll move/drop; that's cool, but for better or worse we're 'here' now, so maybe it's best staying threaded here. Ta.  Chzz  ►  06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I should have offered a more complete explanation to you, and I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh. For the record I agree with your concerns about these clearly promotional pages and I'm glad that you are tackling the problem, but that is a content issue. When I saw your post what I didn't agree with was the need for an AN/I based on admin or even user behavior. Perhaps WQA would have been a better venue. Sometimes bad interpretations of policy lead to actual disruption, edit wars, and talk page incivility. In such cases I would find AN/I appropriate, but I didn't see that from Scott. You are right to be frustrated by his response to you and I'm sorry that he didn't respond in a more collegial manner. Maybe he will next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is always a sad day when experienced editors reach such an impasse; especially when one of them outright refuses to discuss the issues. Diannaa appears to be spot-on here, and I agree that Chzz has cause for concern. I don't think we should be looking at any "admin. vs. editor" issues here though, as no admin actions have been taken. However, "experience" should dictate that there would be some sort of understandable communication when questions such as this arise. Anything sanction-able? Doubtful. I'll note that Scott has been in the thick of things lately, and I do commend him for his efforts in the BLP/FR areas, even if I don't agree with all his actions. Perhaps he's operating on a bit of a raw-edge lately, but it's not my place to presuppose his mindset. I'd like to think that perhaps someone could talk to Scott, but I have no idea who he'd be willing to discuss things with. In regards to the "fanboy/cruft" stuff with the wrestling articles, while it's been quite a few years since I followed it, I do agree that these articles being developed before the event happens do seem to thumb their collective noses at wp:crystal. But, meh - I admit that the higher end of the chain (Wrestlemania) meet the wp:v and wp:n policies, so I'm not going to dive into any of that stuff at the moment. In the end, I'm not really sure what, if anything, can be done; however, hopefully someone will be able to have a chat with Scott and find a way to breach this divide. I don't recall having ever interacted with him myself, so it's doubtful he'd care to discuss the issue with me personally. Any takers out there? — Ched :  ?  16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin closure needed

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.

BelloWello blocked for one week by Edjohnston for edit warring on Southern Adventist University. Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Would an uninvolved admin be willing to close Talk:Southern_Adventist_University#Splitting out Wedgwood Trio before it archives? There was a partisan attempt to close it by Lionelt which was promptly undone by Hrafn. Thanks! bW 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Southern Adventist University is currently under 1RR sanctions. Of those who voted, one is indefinitely blocked (Tatababy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and the other (Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been blocked for a week for violating the sanctions. BelloWello is himself currently under investigation for possibly violating the sanctions. Under those circumstances, how can an administrator, uninvolved or not, decide on a vote that took place two weeks ago? Why should an administrator adjudicate on a content issue? Mathsci (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current state of the report [43] on WP:AN/EW, it seems that BelloWello is again at odds with the editor of the page that reported him (Lionelt), whom he has labelled a "conservative apologist" [44]; and that he has reverted three times in 24 hours. Another user (Mtking) suggested there that he stop editing the page for the time being. BelloWello subsequently filed this request. In addition, he has followed the same user Lionelt to VDARE and is revert-warring on that article with edit summaries that display a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude,[45][46] irrespective of whether the edits are justified or not. All of these edits seem far too disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Post by dubiously blocked user at WP:IAR

See this diff. The IP admits that they're a formerly blocked user, but not which one. In my view, it isn't clear-cut enough for WP:AIV, so I figured I'd bring it here for wider attention. elektrikSHOOS 03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The revert was appropriate. However since that was the only edit, I'd consider it to be simply vandalism, and not worry about the self-promotion of being blocked. Unless they are performing vandalism, there isn't much to be gained by a AIV. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SDPatrolBot Blocked because of repeat warnings getting out of control

I blocked the bot because it's getting out of control with the repeat warnings and looking through the history it looks like it has a problem with that overall (sticking on a user and reverting all their speedy removals, and then warning them). This has led to issues like UserWicklypickle where the user got 38 warnings in an hour (the article in that case did get deleted) or the more recent User:Tsuchiya Hikaru where the articles were actually good and all he's getting is all these warnings. It is clear that this is somewhat intended behavior but I think the damage being done by it is incredibly large especially for new users (and especially for issues like this when the tags were bad, there is no doubt this is scaring people away). I really think before it gets unblocked we need to get a fail safe in here that limits the amount of warnings/reverts it does (and maybe just dumps it into a noticeboard or something to have a human look at

Obviously any admin is free to undo me if they think it's a bad block and I understand the need to watch for these things but I think the damage that is being caused by this behavior is considerably less then the damage being done by the speedy deletion template being left off for a short bit (especially if we have a noticeboard dump or something). James of UR (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Necessary block, unfortunately, but is there anything that needs to be done aside from throttling the number of warnings per editor per time period? Skomorokh 09:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the biggest thing is the throttle but trying to find an "escape hatch" for the bot may be good too if we are worried pages won't get looked at because of the removal. I think that concern is understandable even if I have a feeling the articles would get seen in relatively the same amount of time (we actually have a category for recently removed speedies I believe). Perhaps posting on AIV or something asking for a review (preferably with a note that a speedy review with deletion or denial being preferred over a block) credit to User:Courcelles for this suggestion James of UR (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this sort of flood common? From what I can see, the bot was behaving as it was made to do. Pickle got 38 warnings because he removed the speedy deletion template 38 times (I didn't manually count, I'm just going by the history). Hikaru's talk page was already flooded with deletion notices because another user decided to CSD dozens of his articles all at once; the bot was just doing business as usual here as well. Still, if there is a way to get the bot to limit itself to a certain number of messages per hour, and maybe make the last notice more "aggressive" than the others, that would be good. —Soap— 13:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Since continued removal of db tags is a blockable offense, why doesn't the bot simply report repeat offenders to WP:AIV? (Perhaps with an attached note, or in a designated "bot-reported" section like the one at WP:UAA.) It always struck me as how basic this bot was in its warning functions. elektrikSHOOS 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right... I don't really think ANI was the right place for this, or that blocking the bot was entirely appropriate. Anyway, I've spent most of my day getting the bot to work within your suggestions (which seem mostly reasonable, but I would have been happier doing this if it had simply been discussed at my talk page). I've allowed a lot of the controls to be onwiki, see User:SDPatrolBot/configuration, this will allow you lot to squabble over the specifics without having to bother me ;). I would appreciate if the bot was unblocked now. It may get off to a bit of a bumpy start, since I've obviously been unable to test the bot with it blocked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As it seems to be fixed, and the reporting to AIV has been speedy approved by a BAG member, I unblocked. FWIW I agree that a block might have been overkill, but in this case there was no soft-stop option provided, so it seems the reasonable approach. --Errant ^(chat!) 9:00 am, Today (UTC−5)

Thanks. I'll be starting it out slow, to allow me to fix any errors with the new version without causing a lot of harm. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

3rr violation by User:Florentyna

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 10:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This user reverted 22 edits by another editor (User:JamesBWatson) within a couple of minutes maybe some sort of action is needed? [47]. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Like what? All those edits are to different pages; Florentyna never edited any page more than once in that span, and a quick glance over other surrounding days doesn't show me any other contributions to those pages. 3RR applies per page, and it's a good thing: it's possible (I say this without having looked at the edits or the reversions) that JamesBWatson made some good-faith but very unhelpful edits to all of these pages and that Florentyna did the right thing by reverting all of them. Unless there's another problem, I believe this should be marked as "resolved, no problem here". Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson removed Wikilinks from "Woon Khe Wei", since the article on that badmitton player had been speedied. Florentyna restored them, thus adding yet another redlink to pages already swarming with redlinks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone actually talked to either JamesBWatson or Florentyna? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a content issue, not something that needs admin attention: making single reverts on multiple articles is definitely not a 3RR violation. By the way, we have a page specifically dedicated to 3RR violations; this isn't a "wrong" place, but the other page is a better place. Nyttend (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think here is no problem at all. It is a pity, that I have not seen the article about "Woon Khe Wei" because it was speedy deleted. This badminton player is clearly relevant, so there was no need to remove the Wikilinks from "Woon Khe Wei" (as done by JamesBWatson). This 3RR violation notice of user Intoronto1125 is again nonsense, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese National Badminton Championships. It costs a lot of time for all of the discussing people, nothing else. --Florentyna (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The articles you have written are poorly written and sourced. Reverting 22 edits by another user in two minutes should not be acceptable. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I gather some of these articles are translated? From? By machine or by hand? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not depend on the time, it depends on why! So, that was my last statement here, no more time for discussing troll attacks. For me the (never existing) problem is solved. --Florentyna (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a troll attack, how does one edit 22 pages in 2 minutes? Please remember to indent as well. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As in many situations, looking into content disputes may reveal behavioral problems, so I wouldn't be so quick as Nyttend to write this complaint off. Intoronto1125 is indeed incorrect in that 3RR does not apply here, but we do have an editor restoring wikilinks to a non-existant article for a (probably) non-notable badmitton player, and not paying any attention to apparently good-faith comments made about their editing, dismissing them as a "troll attack". That warrants, at least, a closer look at Florentyna's editing behavior, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, back again. It's getting too fancy. Beyond My Ken, I hope you looked at my editing behavior and you found out, that I made around 50.000 edits in de, en and commons. And be sure, after 5 years working with wikipedia I know what a troll attack is. For me it seems, that user Intoronto1125 tests all the functions here in wikipedia, like the already mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese National Badminton Championships, where he nominated around 20 articles for deletion within 5 minutes, because there were not working references. Now he tests 3RR without knowing what it is, and also without looking at the reverted changes, he is only wondering about the speed of reverting. Probably after only 6 months working with wikipedia it seems like a very phantastic number to him, but every experienced user is able to do this within 60 seconds. User Nyttend is very right with his suggestion what he made here. You can also ask somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Badminton/Members, if they also would revert the changes made by JamesBWatson. I'm sure that yes! By the way, Woon Khe Wei is very notable, see de:Woon Khe Wei. --Florentyna (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Define troll attack. Of course I am going to nominate articles for deletion if they have no sources to indicate importance! some that has been here for five years should know that, it looks like you just joined Wikipedia. Why, are you turning this on to me, I saw what I saw and reported it. I never mentioned 3rr in my original statement just look above. The title is named 3rr, because it is the closest to the situation. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you...

Resolved

 – User blocked for username policy violation - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

...keep an eye out for this account, Accountadmin (talk · contribs) please? I want another opinion on if it's a vandalbot. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 13:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It breaks the username policy anyway - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User blocked by User:Lectonar - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Full deployment of Article Feedback 3.0 planned for tomorrow

This may not belong here but it doesn't appear to have a natural home. It appears that there is to be a full deployment of MW:Article feedback tomorrow, and so far as I can see there has been no community discussion about this. I asked about this recently but didn't get very far. [48]. Shouldn't something as massive as this be discussed by the community first? There's been a little discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article Rating appears immediately after creation?. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the template that has appeared at the bottom of some articles asking readers to rate them? --JN466 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it can and will get tweaked, but having seen it in a couple of articles, I liked the idea. --JN466 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went looking yesterday for somewhere on our project that documented our approach to this extension but couldn't find any central location either. Has this all really been thought up and put into motion without local consultation? A recipe for trouble, if so... Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to Guillaume Paumier from the WMF who said that he has raised this issue with those driving the project (Alolita Sharma on the technical side, Erik Möller overseeing) and is awaiting a reply, but that a response might not be expected today because it's a holiday in the U.S. Skomorokh 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a good idea to launch something like this the day after a three day weekend (and thus also during a week when a lot of people may be on holiday). Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a shallow tool. It won't give much to Wikipedia except a bunch of headaches and stats that won't guide editors to any specific point. People rate what they *like* or *dislike*. This means there is an inherent bias built into such a system that doesn't necessarily correlate with encyclopedic content. Also, such a system usually ends up being gamed by people who like or dislike a particular topic, or by those who simply like to mess with people. All told, the number of people who actually thoughtfully consider their rating based on a whole picture of the article are few. It seems based on the page you linked to, that the creators are primarily looking at this as a tool for engaging more people to become editors. I'm sure once this tool is deployed across all the pages, those working on creating this new feature will be getting a TON of feedback about how it is working. -- Avanu (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Having done a little digging, I've found an announcement on May 9th cross-posted to the technical Village Pump and the Wiki En-l mailing list. So while not an ideal level of community engagement, there was at least a local heads-up. Skomorokh 14:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The mailing list makes sense although it isn't widely read (I think), the technical Village Pump doesn't seem to make sense to me, although there are technical aspects to the implementation I wouldn't call it a technical change. It seems to me to be a pretty basic change in how Wikipedia works, implemented without either a community discussion of the proposal or so far as I can see a discussion of the trial (why a trial if it isn't discussed?). Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Aye; for all the trouble that came with the pending changes trial, at least there was a local policy on its use and local community discussion before and during it. Skomorokh 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to Avanu's comments above this rating item creates a target for those who have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. I foresee this rating tool being used by blocked, banned etc editors to leave negative (or in some cases positive) feedback on any article that they find it attached to that will have little to do with the actual content of said article. Since, as others have pointed out, that there has been almost no community input on this I do hope that the results are going to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Just to use one example what is going to happen when a "featured article" receives mostly negative feedback. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see this postponed until there has been a community discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that community discussion needs to take place, and add my comment on the terrible timing for U.S.-based editors, many of whom are at the beach or grilling hot dogs and hamburgers. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was not smitten by the rating notices when I came across them during the test, and agree that they will probably be subject to gaming and abuse.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We definitely should have discussion on these sorts of things—I understand maybe the WMF was OK in enabling it without community consensus for a research trial, but if this is going to go on indefinitely and for all articles, we need to postpone it. Unless, of course, the WMF intends to exercise its right of doing what it feels is best, which it is perfectly allowed to do, consensus or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are just going to turn this on for a day, and at the moment it's not even clear to me that that day will be tomorrow. MW:Article feedback says it will happen "on a date near 31 May". As the people involved don't seem to be reading even the talk page of that Mediawiki wiki page regularly, I am not sure they would have updated the date if it has been moved. Hans Adler 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I questioned the other day as to why the feedback template only allows users to issue "good" ratings, and not neutral or bad ratings, but that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This page on software deployment says tomorrow. [49] I don't see any reason to think it won't happen tomorrow unless someone stops it. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, where does it say it will be turned on fot only one day? ----

87.244.124.223

87.244.124.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to be the same person as

82.112.145.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

who was blocked before for vandalism.

Here is this user's latest unconstructive edit, which looks very similar to the unconstructive edits which got the other account blocked.

Thank you. —Tommyjb Talk! (13:58, 30 May 2011)

Update: This user has continued vandalising Alternative cancer treatments, and is now vandalising my own pages (1, 2, 3). —Tommyjb Talk! (15:12, 30 May 2011)

If it's likely to be uncontroversial, you can also report the IP at WP:AIV. (In most cases, that's actually the preferred route.) That may also move slightly quicker, depending on which admins are watching it. elektrikSHOOS 15:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. From looking at that page, I see that another user has reported 87.244.124.223 within the past few minutes. —Tommyjb Talk! (15:47, 30 May 2011)

IP blocked, the article is now semi protected for two weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd

FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added a book source to Star (Unix) and today a "new" editor named FuFoFuEd began trying to add a date qualifier [50] [51] which isn't backed up by reliable sources in order to downplay the utility being the fastest known tar implementation. It is pretty clear from this editor's contributions he isn't a "new editor" and rather than edit war with a sockpuppet, I'm reporting this here. A quick search also turned up several related discussions, including an AN/I discussion and related MfD, along with a stale SPI.

There are already major problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star (Unix) with cross-wiki harassment/wikihounding of Jörg Schilling (User:Schily) which appears to have begun off-wiki, spreading to the German Wikipedia, and now showing up here on the English Wikipedia. With the creation date of the FuFoFuEd account, it is quite likely related to this. Given that Schilling is a very well known software developer and somewhat high profile, with the cross-wiki aspects of this with what I found on the German Wikipedia and now what has spread to the English Wikipedia, I'm tempted to contact the WMF if this continues. No one should ever have to put up with being harassed and persecuted/wikihounded. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Island Monkey

Undid all my edits by calling them vandalism, called me a troll. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free or unfree (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well lets see. In the middle of several discussions about images a brand new user shows up and start tagging images for deletion. There seems to be an aroma of WP:SOCKPUPPET in the air along with all the charcoal for barbecues. It also looks like the kids are playing with WP:BOOMERANGs as well as Frisbees and lawn darts. MarnetteD | Talk 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be serious if a real editor accused me of something, but this - LOL! Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm lawn darts :) --Tothwolf (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Returning vandal blocked. TNXMan 17:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly. Now the proper image mafia can do their annoying (but essential) work. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Look into this commons account:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hold_and_wave

46.184.211.5 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Large number of aparrent copy-paste page moves; possible copyright concerns

This is why we need more people at WP:NPP. Patrolling from the back of the backlog reveals this extensive issue that's been on the Wiki since May 1. It appears as though Looc9 (talk · contribs) began removing the plot summaries from Pretty little liars into separate articles on each individual book: Pretty Little Liars (book), Flawless (book), and Perfect (book). Steamroller Assault (talk · contribs) discovered the plot summary of the first one was possibly copyrighted, deleted it, and warned Looc9. The user hasn't contributed since. A google search of the text reveals several hits on various websites. I'm not sure if these are all mirrors or if one is the original copyrighted source but either way a whole lot more is going on here than I can accomplish, and furthermore I have not fixed a cut-and-paste page move before and don't know how. I'll try and figure it out in the interim but the copyright issues deeply concern me. N419BH 17:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, the revision history of Pretty Little Liars is certainly a mess. In addition to the problems noted above (for which my personal recommedation would be a merge back to the main article and a copyright review), I checked the section on Unbelievable in the main article and found that it's a copy/paste of this Amazon "review", dated 27 May 2008 and introduced into the article here, only a couple of months ago, though there are different plot summaries earlier in the article's history with which it could presumably be replaced. It's all too complex for me at the moment; but it would certainly be a good idea for some actual adults to monitor these sorts of articles, which obviously are largely written and "maintained" by children. Deor (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the very least we need to merge the first three books back into the main article, which will require admin intervention. The problem with all this is these plot summaries are everywhere on blogs and amazon, and it seems as though most are likely old revisions of our wiki pages, copied without attribution. I'm still trying to sort out the mess and figure out what to do with everything. I think it's highly likely that these were originally copy-pastes from somewhere, they read like teaser-adverts for the book, not regular plot summaries. But there's so much vandalism on the edit history that finding out for sure is a near impossible task. N419BH 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Continuing to investigate, it looks like the copyright concerns are mostly a red herring. It appears as though people are copying text from here into their own personal blogs/facebooks/fansites/etc. without attribution which makes sorting out the mess that much harder. I've proposed all three articles for merger back into the main article, but I'd like to get an admin opinion or two here before actually doing it. I've also undone the copyright deletion by Steamroller Assault as it looks like we are the original text, not the facebook page he references. What a mess. N419BH 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the conduct of User:Kumaripriya

I wish to bring to your notice the conduct of User:Kumaripriya who has been indulging in POV-pushing and personal attacks on Wikipedia. User:Kumaripriya had previously removed a well sourced and well-written section on "Controversies" in Devasahayam Pillai article. When I reverted User:Kumaripriya's edits and restored the cleanest and most neutral version, Kumaripriya responded by labelling us "anti-christian fanatic elements".

User:KUmaripriya has also been passing extremely objectionable comments in User:Fayenatic London's talk page.

Some samples:

Invoking a Wikipedian's religious sentiments. By the way, does this statement mean that all non-Christians are prejudical

Kindly go and study sincerely the Christian martyr's history, without any prejudice,if you are a Christian before attempting to poke your nose!

Now, this is a blunt justification of POV-pushing

This is a page written about a Christian martyr. It has no place for character assassination, whatsoever

You might also observe here that User:Kumaripriya has been indulging in personal attacks against a Wikipedian with a good reputation for neutrality. It also appears that Kumaripriya has also been labelling people as "infidels", etc.- The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You must notify any user discussed here. I've gone ahead and done that now, provided my cheap Internet connection will allow the edit through. elektrikSHOOS 18:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo

Ghostofnemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of disruptive editing regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. For the past year or so, he's been tenditiously pushing for two changes to the article:

1. Inclusion of a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2. Inclusion of a section on Building 7.

Regardless of the merits of these changes, both have been discussed numerous times and have never gained consensus.

Regarding the first change, Ghostofnemo forum shopped at the Fringe theories noticeboard, Neutral point of view noticeboard, the Neutral point of view noticeboard talk page and also tried to change our policy on WP:OR and then WP:Disruptive editing to make it easier to implement his changes. During these discussions, Ghostofnemo exhibited an extreme case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU:

• 9/11 conspiracy theories 10 March 2010
• 9/11 conspiracy theories 2 December 2010
• Original Research June 16th, 2010
• Fringe theories noticeboard 7 December 2010
• Disruptive editing 2 January 2011
• Neutral point of view noticeboard 1 January 2011
• Neutral point of view noticeboard talk page 7 March 2011

Regarding the second change (inclusion of a section on Building 7), three times he's tried to add it to the article:

• [52] January 1, 2011
• [53] January 2, 2011
• [54] May 23, 2011

Here's the thing that gets me. Yesterday, he asks on the article talk page why his change was reverted.[55] He should know full well why. He participated in the discussion[56] yet again demonstrating a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Ghostofnemo has been warned regarding the 9/11 discretionary sanctions.[57] He stopped editing the article for a while, but he's back and exhibiting the same problematic behavior as before.

I note that Ghostofnemu has been reported to ANI 3 times now.[58][59][60] I have no idea how valid those complaints were but clearly he's having issues across Wikipedia.

To cut to the chase, he contributes virtually nothing to our 9/11 conspiracy theories topic space so at the very minimum, I'd like a topic ban on Ghostofnemo regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemu has been notified of this discussion.[61] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)