Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88xxxx (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 19 October 2011 (→‎User:Joefaust). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion


    Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and WP:NFCC compliance

    Recently, a debate has ensued on this project page with regards to NFCC compliance. Two of the most frequent editors (The Pink Oboe and Fry1989) who respond to requests on this page have become grossly uncivil (see below) and have been restoring images in violation of the WP:NFCC #9 policy, though they are fully aware of it. I attempted to get clarification from one of the editors (see discussion) that he would comply with the WP:NFCC policy, and though I asked several times he never answered. Instead, I get an apparent intention to keep violating the policy [1]. I started a thread to address edits like this and this, but have been met by considerable resistance, open hostility, and gross incivility.

    The incivility has become rather severe; "there's always one dick at every party", "The only recurrent pattern here is your arrogance", "a dick who fucks up the IW page", "Ah, his holy dickness", "piss off with your Borg bullshit", and etc.

    If you get past the overabundance of insults, both editors are insisting that I use a template to correct the problem. I've been asking them to use the template, as they are more knowledgeable about the usage of the template, rather than restoring the images in violation of policy. They are sometimes doing this, but at other times still continue to restore images in violation of policy without fixing the problem.

    I am hopeful that someone would please step in and caution them about violations of WP:CIVIL, but more importantly a sternly worded caution regarding WP:NFCC compliance. Some assistance, please. I've placed a notice regarding this discussion on the thread regarding this issue at the talk page of WP:GL/I, where both of said editors are involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have warned both users; more severely Pink Oboe, as their issues with civility are not acceptable. Any more of this unacceptable behaviour will be met with blocks. If there are any more issues of this type please contact me or any other admin, quoting this thread. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Hammersoft, why do you repeatedly make these types of changes and not use {{GLNF}}? You've been asked to use that template over and over again from what I can see, so why don't you? Scientizzle 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really the point; the point here is the user's serious civility issues and the fact that they revert Hammersoft's changes in violation of NFCC#9. They know restoring non-free in projectspace is a no-no, but they continue to do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see many examples in the log where Pink Oboe is cleaning up NFCC violations (or fixing edits in a way that leave the image hidden). In several cases this was done by reverting a bad edit and then removing the images in accordance with the templates used by GL, but that brief revert really shouldn't be a problem. Maybe he makes a mistake sometimes (or perhaps loses his temper in this case), but I don't think I would accuse him of trying to systematically flout policy. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Losing your temper is one thing; persistently calling people a dick or a fuckwit isn't. Have a look at Pink Oboe's edit summaries in his last 50 edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I disagree. I've been reading around for 15-20 minutes now and don't see any explanation as to why that particular template isn't a policy-compliant workaround that still provides functionality to for this working group. I'm not well-versed in image policy so I'm looking for a reason why this template isn't being used as requested (over and over). I'm not excusing incivility, but if this is a valid workaround template, then not using seems unnecessarily disruptive itself and can reasonably frustrate other editors. All I want to know: why not use this template? — Scientizzle 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scientizzle; I believe it to be a reasonable expectation that people most familiar with how to use a template, with the most stake in given area of the project, should be encouraged to (a) use the template and (b) not violate a core policy of the project. There are a very large number of Wikipedia space pages on the project. I am not aware of even a fraction of the various templates that these Wikipedia space pages use in managing their work. Regardless, these editors are also reverting the bot. I note neither of them has complained to the bot owner, calling him a "dick" and demanding he modify his bot. Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that an NFCC patroller should be required to be aware of all templates a given area of the project uses before conducting any NFCC enforcement edits therein, and attempt to use such templates to conduct the NFCC enforcement? If that be the case, you should seek to have DASHBot shut down, as it doesn't comply with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I honestly don't know how to use it, and don't feel that NFCC patrollers should be required to learn all management templates in a given area before conducting NFCC work in that area. If you're insistent on this requirement, are you going to be equally insistent with User:Tim1357, the operator of DASHBot? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I've not insisted on anything; but I see that you have insisted on doing things your way only. If this template is a policy-compliant workaround that you've been asked to use since October 9, why not learn it? I mean, it looks reasonably simple, and you could ask how to use it. Don't you think if you had put in this modicum of effort, some of this could have been avoided? I think the incivility is unwarranted and, frankly, blockable (i.e., I have no problem with the block above), but it doesn't mean the underlying frustration is not understandable. (I'd be rather irritated myself if I had to deal with, say, a new page patroller that refused to use proper tags.) Can you see how this mess could have turned out differently? — Scientizzle 23:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you not know how to use the colon prefix method that was suggested by TPO? --31.6.26.83 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have sworn that the above question asked you specifically, not the bot. Why haven't YOU used the colon trick, after all your usual edits have also been reverted. So why can you not simply add a colon at the start of the link? Had you done so this would not have happened and you would have still been maintaining policy. So your excuse is? What? --64.9.146.138 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and so is your method. The difference being that your method ruins functionality, is less effort than you go to now, yet you still won't use it. It seems to be that you are deliberately finding a way to be disruptive for no just reason. So have you personally used the colon trick and had the edit reverted on the workshop pages? --64.9.146.139 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I noted below, I am happy to use the colon method and have done so on many occasions in the past, just not on this page. I would be happy to use this method on this workshop if I had reasonable confidence it would not be openly reverted, restoring the non-free violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (more) If the editors in question here of this workshop page would agree to not restore NFCC violations when coming across a colon masking technique, I would be happy to use that method. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scientizzle; sorry, I didn't see your response until now. I've now taken a look at the template, and yes it is easy to use. But again, I don't think NFCC patrollers should have to learn this and any other requirements people think NFCC patrollers should be doing in NFCC enforcement. I've done a lot of this work, across an awful lot of pages. I've seen a rather incredible array of requests to do things differently. I've seen arguments about lack of consensus, demands I ask first, demands I replace with a compliant image, demands I ...you get the picture. I've performed thousands upon thousands of NFCC edits. If I had to keep track of all these requests (even if they were all reasonable), I would never be able to conduct NFCC enforcement. I'd be permanently lost trying to remember what to do. WP:NFCC #9 is very simple. Is the non-free image in question being displayed outside of the main article namespace, yes or no. If yes, it needs to be removed. I'm happy to put a colon before images, and do so on various pages (example), but DASHBot which uses that method is being openly reverted on WP:GL/I, so that solution isn't working either. That's why I came here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "I shouldn't have to learn this" is not cooperative or collegial; neither were your responses to being asked to use {{GLNF}}. Frankly it's obstinate to demand others do things your way because you find it difficult to meet them halfway. I'm in the unenviable position of defending editors who were openly, unambiguously violating WP:CIVIL; it also seems there are improvements to be made regarding WP:GL/I regulars being more careful with NFCC compliance...however, after reading the various threads associated with this, I have to sympathize with the complaints regarding the manner in which you inflexibly pursued your preferred version of enforcement and your seeming indifference (or was it imperviousness?) to others' concerns. NFCC compliance is a relevant topic for discussion at WT:GL/I. I see this dispute as a suite of poor behavioral choices on all sides, the compliance issue being tangential. If you were not willing to work with WP:GL/I editors--volunteers like you & me--are you honestly surprised at how this turned out? If you're not willing to work with WP:GL/I in the future (e.g., use the simple template), I think you should stay away from that project. — Scientizzle 23:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One of your contentions seems to be that there is systematic flouting of NFCC rules here. I've sampled back through six months of GL/IW history and frankly I don't see it. There are several people (in addition to DASHBot) that seem to be patrolling here. Aside from the last few days it seems to be reasonably well-maintained. If there is no particularly urgency, then I would encourage you just to leave it to the people who have been working there. Dragons flight (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be happy to if the policing of the page was being done properly. It isn't. That's why I conducted the removals. DASHBot was being reverted, and now I am too. If the policing was being done properly, this would never...ever...have been an issue in the first place. I don't have a problem with and don't expect editors new to that project page to understand the nuances of how to use whatever management templates that area uses. I do have a problem with editors knowingly restoring NFCC violations, and that has been happening. Alternatively, I'd be happy to leave the page alone if it gained an exception to NFCC #9 policy. A request for that could be made, but no such request has happened. Instead, willful violations of policy have. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scientizzle: Am I clear on this? DASHBot was being openly reverted, I'm being openly reverted and being roundly insulted, and it's me who is at fault for enforcing WP:NFCC #9, which has an absolute prohibition on such uses? Because I won't learn some preferred method this group wants me to use I'm being obstinate? I guess what we're saying is that this page doesn't have a special exemption to WP:NFCC, but anyone who edits it to enforce WP:NFCC has to agree to User:The Pink Oboe's and User:Fry1989's demands on how the page is to be edited (never mind WP:OWN issues)? I have, above, offered a solution; I will use the colon masking technique if instead of NFCC violating reversions care is taken to use whatever template they care to use to fix the problem. The colon technique is used all over the project, and doesn't require anyone to learn any special template, technique, or ask permission, or what have you. It's a reasonable request. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They should have been more civil, no question. They've been blocked for it. Hopefully civility can be improved, but it is also useful to consider whether the conflict could have avoided getting to this point. You edited GL/IW six times. By my count four times Pink Oboe actually fixed your edit by adding the template. In two other cases the edit was reverted without being fixed. That is a problem. However, at the same time, I think it is easy to understand why Pink Oboe might get frustrated by repeatedly fixing your edits after you were asked to do things differently. He absolutely should not have responded by being abusive. But if you were using the template I don't think there would have been any reverts, and the whole thing would have stopped in its tracks. In general, when people are making janitorial edits to actively maintained pages, I do think it behooves that person to be responsive to reasonable requests. Its about working well with other people and avoiding conflict, which makes our community run more smoothly. Obviously what you did was within policy and what they did was not, but even so I don't see why we needed to get to this point in the conflict. Dragons flight (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I went offline for a bit. DF pretty much nailed everything I've been trying to say. Hammersoft, your edits were "right" in that they complied with the letter of policy. Edits by others that simply reverted you or DASHBot without addressing the NFCC concerns by any of the available methods were "wrong"--but they also appear to have been rather insubstantial in the larger scale and not indicative, to me, of a large problematic pattern. But I have to say the user interactions were highly problematic on both sides. Since the civility violations of TPO and Fry1989 are more or less not in doubt, these are examples of edits of Hammersoft I find problematic: your response to this (somewhat intemperate) explanation of TPO's concerns was to dig in your heels. Here you pointedly and repeatedly asked the loaded question "do you intend to continue violating WP:NFCC #9 or not?" and never responded to Fry1989's actual concerns. Here you essentially demanded that others do a job you refuse to do.) It can only improve future editing interactions if you can recognize where you made suboptimal choices in this dispute and determine how to avoid them in the future. — Scientizzle 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The compromise position I've offered is for me to use the colon maskinq technique. That is reasonable. Expecting people to learn how, precisely, Oboe and Fry would like people to edit this page when doing NFCC enforcement is unreasonable. A few months from now I'm likely to forget the template, how to use it, and bump into another non-NFCC compliant image there. The colon technique is an across the board solution that works everywhere. There's no special remembering, no special requests that have to be made of Fry or Oboe, nothing; simple, easy, elegant. But, that option wasn't open to me here; it was being openly reverted. If Fry and Oboe will agree to stop reverting it and instead use the template they wish to use instead of restoring the NFCC violations, I'll be happy to use it. Fair? I think so. But, apparently I'm a fuckwit arrogant dick who likes to fuck things up. So, I guess not. I do think someone should make a request to gain an NFCC exemption for that page. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you haven't yet, see my comment below. You're going to need to provide some evidence that the colon method is openly reverted because I had a brief look until 3 September 2010 and only found 3 instances where it was reverted apparently without fixing the problem, the most recent of which was 15 July and none of which involved either user who's at issue here. It sounds like DF came to a similar conclusion. I apologise if you've already provided such evidence before my post, this is a long thread and I didn't see it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it is getting long and I'm missing some people's comments. Anyway, [2], restoring now deleted File:Bigtv logo.png, which DASHBot removed [3] using the colon method. The file remained on the workshop page until it was deleted nearly three weeks later, an NFCC violation the entire time. In fact, he didn't 'fix' the problem until a month after re-introducing the NFCC violation [4], and by that time the image had been deleted for 11 days. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:The Pink Oboe (who I blocked as above) asked me to copy this over Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The dick who is editing with policy is also editing out of policy, by being arrogant, lazy and fucking up the functionality of the Image Workshop. His worrying obsession with NFCC#9 is his excuse for being a twat. he is deliberately making the workshop non-functional. For the IW to work properly we have to be able to either see or be able to link to the image being requested. Now Mr Dick esq comes along, deletes both the image and the link making the request impossible to deal with unless we go looking for an invisible comment hidden in the source code of the request. In spite of being told of 2 methods of maintaining NFCC#9 compliance and maintaining IW functionality Hammersoft refuses to use them. One of the methods only involves putting a colon at the front of the link. But will Hammersoft do this? No, he has refused point blank. This I firmly definitely and firmly puts him in the "dick" category. His arrogance, his laziness, his Borg-like obsession with NFCC#9 and his truculence are disrupting a valuable resource with WP for no purpose. I would be grateful if you could copy and paste this as a response to his accusations at the incident board. Especially now you've effectively stopped me posting there. This is not an unblock request as I don't care one way or another, it's WP's loss if I can't sort out image requests for 24hrs, it's not my loss. This is a request though that Hammersoft either stays away from the IW or that he implements the methods we've informed him of."
    I have revoked their talk page access for the duration of the block, but not extended the block. The commentary was far far beyond acceptable - even giving blocked users considerable lattitude to vent, launching a new series of gross personal attacks and escalating the situation that badly is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Both User:The Pink Oboe and User:Fry1989 should be blocked for their wanton harassment; I cannot tell the difference that would warrant a block for one editor but not the other. –MuZemike 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Eesh. Umm, I didn't come here looking for a block. I am not surprised Oboe got blocked after continuing his incivility despite being warned. But, it's not what I wanted. For what it's worth, Fry's been considerably resistant to complying with WP:NFCC and at times hostile, but he's been a lot less uncivil. I would not want to see him blocked for anything he's done up to this point. If he continued with NFCC violations past that, that would be a different matter, and I've warned to that end. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree with that; the first user has been massively incivil and was frankly lucky not to be blocked before the warning; the second has merely been obstructive. I am currently having a discussion with the latter on their talk page. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will make one comment, since I saw this way back on Hammersoft's page, and did comment on the NFCC#9 issue then.
      This type of behavior (both sides, mind you) is very very similar to what led to various sanctions/restrictions on Beta/Delta (after months and repeated occurences mind you, not just one event). That said, I do have to agree that Hammersoft's right here, in that it is an NFCC#9 issue that has to be dealt with but I'm concerned that he's "right" that because they want a specialized template on that page that he has to fix it to be that way. The flatout re-revisioning of the image removals and the language used hencewith by Pink Obeo is unexcuseable. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Ditto on that. I was going to make that same observation. This entire exchange is looking all too familiar. The incivility is inappropriate and shouldn't continue. But robotically being "right" during a dispute isn't the answer to working within a community either.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to throw Δ under the bus, and try to make some claim I'm better than he is. I will say this; there is NO wiggle room on WP:NFCC #9. It's unquestionable that it is immune to 3RR concerns. I haven't ever approached that. In fact, I'm the one who started discussion in multiple places trying to get the issue to stop, rather than the edit warring that was happening. That said, I fully intend on continuing to remove NFCC #9 violations, precisely as I have done more than 3000 times now. People have problems with NFCC #9 removals. I get that. It doesn't excuse their policy violating behavior. When it happens, and I can't seem to convince them of their error I bring it here, just as I've done with this thread. So, unless your asserting that removing NFCC #9 violations is a problem, I fail to see what the problem is? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      In 20/20 hindsight, the issue is not your (hammersoft)'s first removal, which I or anyone else would have likely done too seeing NFC used on a non-mainspace page. It got restored (that's a problem) and on seeing that, I think the call for being non-robotic about NFC handling is that one would have realized "hey, this page needs to link to the image in some manner, I won't blindly re-revert but use an alternative form like colon-linking". You're absolutely right that NFCC#9 has to be removed where its not appropriate, but there's more than one way of "removal", and the best way to do it may differ on certain pages, requiring that human element to chose which one. Again, not excusing anything that Pink Oboe said in response as acceptable, the reason that people get huffy like that is because of robotic-like responses to NFCC when a completely-within-policy replace does exists. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ECNNNN with something above) I agree the incivility was unacceptable. I also agree Hammersoft should not have to learn to use the template (although it would be polite to do so). That said, even if the other users behaved very poorly and while perhaps this isn't an issue for ANI, I'm still confused why Hammersoft didn't just use the colon method to fix the NFCC problem which The Pink Oboe has said twice (or more?) in their incivil comments, would be acceptable. Hammersoft said the colon method is used by dashbot and reverted. Firstly, I'm confused why this meant they didn't use it. Was the belief that despite reverting dashbot the people at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop wouldn't revert a method likely to be even more disliked? Or was the hope to convince people at WP:GL/Iw into taking matters more seriously by some sort of 'shock therapy'? Or did they believe the method would be preferred to the colon method?
    In any case, as with Dragons flight, I'm not seeing much evidence of those 2 users reverting dashbot without fixing the problem, or for that matter that it's been a big problem. I looked until 3rd September 2010 and I came across several instances where dashbot was reverted, sometimes with comments saying the bot is dumb or should be fixed (although it's not clear to me if they ever politely approached the bot owner and asked for such a change), but where they also changed either in the same edit (sometimes using a default edit summary which I appreciate is confusing and a violation of the norms) or in an edit soon after to use GLNF [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Two of these cases involved The Pink Oboe [10][11], [12]. I did come across 3 edits where dashbot was reverted without apparently fixing the problem [13], [14], [15] but the latest was in July this year and none of the 3 involved either user referred to in this thread. These 3 instances may be 3 instances too many, but it does seem to me if Hammersoft had used the colon method combined with a stern reminder to WP:GL/Iw not to revert dashbot unless you are fixing the issue in another way like using GLNF, may have partially avoided the bust up, even if the incivility was completely unacceptable. I of course also acknowledge that Hammersoft may have done so, if politely requested rather then the over the top incivil reaction they received, although do believe it would be helpful to know why they didn't do so earlier.
    BTW I only searched for 'dashbot' so I would have missed any reversions of dashbot which didn't mention dashbot, I would welcome any evidence of reversions I missed.
    Nil Einne (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some history is here. At any rate, I at least agree to use the colon method and hope they won't just restore the image when they see the colon, but instead use whatever template they want to use. That works for me, and should work for them. But, if they continue as before to restore images in violation of WP:NFCC #9, we'll be right back here again. I hope they agree to comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the behaviour there is obviously way out of line, but I think we're clear on that. It also seems clear that despite now saying the colon method is acceptable and they made this clear to you, they did not in fact make this clear earlier and in fact suggested GLNF was the only option. That said, I still don't get why you didn't just use the colon method. As despite their apparent dislike for it, it seemed rather likely, and has been affirmed now even if they used such incivil behaviour while doing so, that it would be prefered to the method you used instead; which requires an edit and then copying and pasting to visit the image (rather then the colon method which still allows a simple click thru). Of course as I said earlier this isn't an ANI issue so you're free to ignore it.
    As I noted, I haven't see any evidence either editor of concern here ever removed the colon method without fixing the issue. TPO in particular seems to have only changed from colon to GLNF. And removing the colon method without fixing the issue only seems to have happened 3 times in over a year anyway. While this isn't really an ANI issue, you have made the statement it's been a problem so some clarification would be helpful. As a final comment, even if for the wrong reasons it does seem TPO generally tries to ensure compliance with NFCC, e.g. [16] [17].
    Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my 02:08, 13 October 2011 comment above. The colon method was being reverted, without fixing the problem. I've recognized before, here and elsewhere, that TPO does fix the problems; but not always. That fact that it's not always, and that he apparently intends to continue violating WP:NFCC (and I'm not alone in that interpretation) is troubling. Moving forward, I'll use the colon method. But, if it gets reverted without fixing it we'll be back here again. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for missing that and thanks for the clarification, I withdraw my comments, it's clear TPO has reverted colon usage without fixing the problem. I still feel it would have been best to do use them earlier anyway, but from the behaviour and comments, I'm actually starting to wonder whether things would have turned out much different and I have no doubts you would have done so if it was earlier suggested as an alternative to GLNF. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with the method by which HS initially approached this (dude, if they ask you to reasonably tag images in a certain way that removes them from the page, then just do it instead of making it into a drama-fest), BUT the incivility is WAY over the top. Likewise, if they are simply reverting you, it doesn't matter what technique you employ to remove noncompliant NFCC images. Your complaint is about reversions, not what technique you use; you can't say, "Why should I use a technique that makes Wikipedia more user friendly when they aren't complying anyway?" The answer is, it doesn't matter what they do. Wikipedia is a collegial environment and you need to respect the consensus of opinion (My compliments for you recognizing and becoming a more helpful editor. My heartfelt thanks.)

    NFCC enforcement should be made simpler. One way is to standardize the way we remove images in order to make them less obtrusive and more easier to fix if problems can be corrected. The aforementioned template retains the links to the articles without removing an image from the article; the colon method makes less desirable aesthetics, but is still effective. These techniques should be incorporated into NFCC enforcement to make them more usable and more incorporating into the NFCC bots/user interventions. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally had some sympathy for the others involved (while not excusing the incivility) but looking in to the situation my sympathy became less and less. As a few users have said, while it would be ideal for HS to use the template, expecting someone to learn a template just to do NFCC enforcement is a bit unresonable. Most agree the colon method is a resonable option instead with others free to change it to GLNF if they desire, and I'm still not entirely clear why HS didn't use the colon method in the first place despite the reversions but considering they had some concerns I ultimately don't feel it can be clearly classed as unideal behaviour.
    However from what I can tell, despite some of the statements, the colon method wasn't actually suggested to HS until very late in the game specifically here which was just before HS came to this page and after a whole lot of incivility in various pages. In fact the tone of most of the earlier discussions e.g. [18], [19], the edit summaries here, and also in the discussion at GL/Iw before the diff I provided earlier seem to suggest early on the demand was for HS to use the GLNF. (And as I said, it doesn't seem to community agrees HS should be required to use the template.)
    If someome approached HS early on and said "Can you please use {{GLNF}}? It's a policy complying method which makes things a lot easier for those involved. Although it would be greatly preferred, if you can't be bothered to use it then rather then removing the links please add a colon to the beginning which is another policy complying method which preserves a link", or at least suggested the colon method early on; I would have far greater sympathy but it seems that this wasn't what happened. In fact, looking more closely at the timeline, Hammersoft never actually failed to use the colon method after it was suggested because their edits to GL/Iw were all before it was suggested. It is possible I've missed something and the colon method was suggested early on, but this doesn't seem to be what happened having looked in all relevant discussions I could think of.
    Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think it should be necessary to tell a 30,000+ editor (with a self-professed 3,000 edits related to NFCC#9 alone) about the colon method (which, I have to say, sounds like a contraceptive technique)? It was my belief that good faith was supposed to be assumed around here; and my good faith was that an obviously intelligent editor would/should know alternate methods. My bad, I shall bear that in mind in any future interactions with HS. The reason I didn't suggest it until late in the day is simply that I didn't think it necessary until then.
    As for the reversions of HS edits (you will remember that none of them left the request usable), that was simply ire at his perceived incompetence/jobsworthyness. I reverted so I could leave a pithy edit comment. I left the reversion for a while so he'd have chance to see it and the comment, then later I used the glnf template. I don't recall any reversions I did that weren't followed by a glnf, albeit some time later. As for why we don't immediately use a glnf after an editor places a request involving an NFCC image? That's very simple, so simple in fact that I'm surprised no-one realised it. Fry and myself don't work here, we most certainly don't work here 24/7. Additionally why should we rush to do it? There's more chance of a request being fulfilled if the wikigraphist can see the image without having to click on it. So, personally, I leave it for a bit to see if the request gets answered, if it doesn't in a day or so then I glnf it. Call it 'exigencies of the service' if you like, not to mention "ignore all rules if it serves a positive purpose". In fact I don't ignore the rule, I sort of bend it a bit. So shoot me, I'm just trying to make this a better place. I'm rubbish with words and research so I concentrate on images, so most of my edits are Image Workshop related, as such I get the hump when some drive-by editor throws a spanner in the works when it isn't necessary.
    Oh, by the way, the question no-one here has answered is how does a wikigraphist complete an image request if he/she can't see what is being requested? I'd very much like someone to answer that pertinent question. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith means. It simply means that the default assumption is that a user is trying to help out the project. In fact, you are supposed to assume they are ignorant of policy or methods before you assume they are being disruptive.
    This doesn't mean you can't punish them for rules violations or discuss their problematic edits, as you've already seen. — trlkly 16:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "how does a wikigraphist complete an image request if he/she can't see what is being requested?" Follow the colon-link to the file page? Seems pretty simple. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to make the assumption that an experienced editor is a buffoon then that's your lookout, my assumption was that he knew exactly what he was (wasn't) doing. As for completing an image request I agree, click on the link and look at the image (or use popups to preview it). Now I wonder why HS didn't come to that conclusion too? But the question was meant how does one complete an image request when the original image and link is disposed of, replaced with a generic NFCC image then left as is with the location of the image unclickable and hidden away in a hidden comment in the source code? That is the question I would like answered. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. It's not about telling them about the colon method, it's about telling them it would be an acceptable alternative to GLNF. As I've said several times, I don't quite agree with the way they handled it but it seems clear from the history of a few reversions of the addition colon method without changing very quickly to the GLNF, including one from you, long before HS became involved, there were some legitimate concerns about whether the colon method would be treated any better. Therefore it's entirely resonable that they were not aware you considered the colon method an acceptable alternative when no one told them. And as I also said, most of the comments did indeed suggest it would not be treated any better, with the suggestion clear that GLNF was the only acceptable method yet it's clear the community doesn't agree on that later point. Besides that, making an assumption that someone knows something and should do something, and then yelling at him to do something else, and then later complaining about how they should have done the first thing even though you never told them, is just plain silly.
    Incidentally, I think you'd find bending the rules on NFCC is rarely accepted by the community (although you're free to take this to an approapriate page and test this if you want). In particular, while I have some sympathy for when you miss problems which are added by users who aren't regulars and are unfamiliar with NFCC, reverting dashbot or any other effort to enforce NFCC compliance without quickly changing to your preferred method should be seen as unacceptable behaviour. Now if someone does come along and tries to enforce NFCC compliance and you quickly change to your preferred method and politely ask them to either use GLNF or the colon method and they continually refuse, I would have greater sympathy to your concerns and may even support a community ban on the person continuing their NFCC compliance attempts if it comes to it. From what I've read here I'm not the only one. But that wasn't what happened here.
    In case you missed it in the earlier discussion, a case where you reverted the colon method without fixing the issue quickly is here. I looked thru the edit history for the first week or so and as the file was still linked when HS came along in October, it seems clear the problem was not resolved until the file was deleted [20] nearly 3 weeks after you reverted dashbot (as HS said above). I don't know what happened here, perhaps you didn't intend to revert dashbot but made a mistake, in that case no one is going to blame you. And if you had asked HS to use the colon method early on, then likely any confusion resulting from this mistake could have been painlessly resolved. Alternatively it may be you intentionally reverted dashbot, but had planned to fix the problem a day or two later but forgot (or whatever). In that case, I have far less sympathy for your plight. Ignoring for a minute it's questionable whether your 1 or 2 days idea is acceptable, if you are going to revert efforts of NFCC compliance for 1 - 2 days, you are taking it upon yourself to make sure it is only 1 - 2 days.
    Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid the only points that are being missed are by you and some of the other guys. As far as I am concerned my first request to HS was polite. The fact was he didn't use "commonsense" (disabling a request unnecessarily proves that) so I stated so. Looking at his contribs it looked to me that he had found a way to rack up quick and easy edits, so again I said so. Other than those statements I was very polite considering the circumstances. As for the future "uncivil comments" of mine, well I don't consider them uncivil, I consider them to be truly holding back and not letting fly. I can think of several different 4-letter words I could have used instead of "dick". I held back though and used what I consider to be a mild slap on the wrist. Even at my first request I didn't suggest an alternate as I considered HS to be an experienced editor who would know the workrounds. It was only after he gave his 'robotic' and non-commonsensical reply that I lost my rag but still, in my mind, remained within the borderline of acceptable civility. Doesn't the fact that HS manage to wind up 2 experienced editors within a couple of messages ring any alarm bells? I still think that my response to HS was justified albeit borderline (in my view) incivility. As can be seen from all of HS's responses. It was only when he was picked up on a few points here at ANI did he start to compromise. At no time during his conversations before it was brought to ANI did he show any sign of compromise whatsoever. Don't believe me, check it out for your self. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPA tells us to comment on content, not the author. Opining that I am not using common sense, accusing me of doing a jobsworth, and asserting that I'm attempting to rack up my edit count, is not "holding back". If this sort of behavior is what you consider to be mild slaps on the wrist, and the behavior continues with respect to editors you interact with, you can expect more blocks in the future. Insulting someone is not a means to a productive end. As previously noted, I've done more than 3000 of NFCC #9 removals. When other editors encounter these removals, there tends to be one of three reactions; (1) continue editing without responding, (2) thank me for bringing the issue to their attention, or (3)insult me. You chose (3). That's not my responsibility; it's yours. Next time, keep it civil. As to "compromise", there is no compromise on WP:NFCC #9. It is an absolute law here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your membership for the Borg Collective came through okay. Commenting on your not showing "commonsense" is a comment on your actions as in my world "showing" is a verb and not an adjective. Yes I was holding back, markedly so. There were so much harsher, more profane words in my mind when I was interacting with you (you will note that I didn't use them). That was purely as a result of your no-compromise, unhelpful, truculent attitude. Ah, I see you're back to your robotic "...there is no compromise on WP:NFCC #9. It is an absolute law here". See now this is the problem, one which is still manifesting itself. You are so obsessed with NFCC#9's 'absoluteness' that you cannot see reason. NFCC#9 patrolling is about not displaying copyrighted images under fair use where they shouldn't be, correct? Firstly "subject to exemptions" means it isn't absolute and secondly it makes some mention of HOW the display is redacted when it's in an inappropriate place. Strangely enough, it does NOT mention your method of redaction. A shocker I know, but anything that involves adaptability on how something is achieved is not "absolute".
    Now please answer this question, as so far you haven't, other than your usual robotic reply. When you enacted your Judge Dreadness on the Illustration workshop you replaced the request image with an image that had no relationship at all to the request image. You removed the link to the request image, you then hid the location of that image in a hidden comment in the source code. Now forgetting NFCC#9 and its 'absoluteness' and its recommended way of redacting, tell me how that image request is supposed to be actioned under those specific circumstances? Taking account that the actual wording of NFCC#9 includes using inline linking and the "colon" trick. I'm not interested in why you didn't use the colon. I'm interested in a specific answer of how you expected the IW to function with the way you redacted several images. A nice straight-forward question, a nice straight-forward on topic answer would be appreciated please. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How non-surprising that you wouldn't answer the question. Point proven in my favour I do believe. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. You can have 10,000 points if you like. Don't care. It's not a game. I'm not aware you even asked a question because, as I stated, I stopped reading your comment after the first sentence when you decided to insult me...yet again. When you can keep a civil tongue, I will be happy to read your comments/questions. Until then, I won't. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It no longer matters whether you answer the question or not, regardless of any poor reason given. It was a simple question with only one answer. An answer that doesn't put you in a good light. Your reluctance to answer was what I was waiting for, so thank you for proving me correct. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, The Pink Oboe, the exemptions are linked, and specifically noted. This workshop is, at the moment, not one of the listed exemptions (and IMHO, it shouldn't be, the display is not needed for the workshoppers to act on them, as long as they have a working link to the image they are fine).
    Maybe the workshop should standard not display the images on the page, but just link to them, or maybe the edit notice could be made more explicit in what to do with non-free material (this would not hurt anyway, so that <PA redacted> who want to disable a non-free image would get proper instructions when a newbie fails to understand it), or even, work on a category based system (e.g. as done Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures with {{Chemical drawing needed}}). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, no one outside of the workshop has found the way you handled this particularly polite that I've seen, so I don't think that's a point worth discussing.
    In case it wasn't obvious, as I've said at least once before, I have read all the exchanges I could find. And what I saw was HS asking for NFCC compliance and basically being told to stuff it, it doesn't matter much and if they want to enforce it they need to use GLNF.
    In other words as I've said several times, it's true that 'none of them showed any sign of compromise at all' but it wasn't HS the one showing that but you. HS just said they wanted NFCC compliance and would continue to enforce it in some way. When then came here, they said they felt it unresonable to expect them to learn to use GLNF and a few people agrees with this point. When it was suggested by others here that they use the colon method, they said they didn't see much point since the colon method was also reverted including by you (which they later backed up). When it became clear you were saying the colon method was an accepted alternative to GLNF, they said they would use it but still weren't sure what was the point since they thought it may be reverted. In other words, I've seen no evidence that HS would not have used the colon method if asked.
    In your case, it seems you were initially suggesting GLNF was the only accepted option and only later after a whole load of what many agree is incivility suggested the colon method when it became clear this wasn't going to fly. You then seem to make a bigger fuss over the colon method when it became clear the community didn't agree with that you could demand GLNF. In other words, what it seems you're saying to me is 'I wasn't uncivil' (even tho few others agree) and 'HS should have magically guessed when I told them they had to use GLNF, I also didn't mind if they used the colon method even though it has been reverted it before and I never mentiond it' which really lead to much sympathy from me. (As I've said before if you or someone else had suggested the colon method early on heck even with the incivility and HS continued to use other methods, this would lead to far greater concerns about their behaviour, but it wasn't what happened. I still feel it would have been best for them to use it, but it's not a major negative having actually looked in to what happened.)
    It is clear that HS, as with a number of members of the community, consider NFCC compliance much more important then you. And it sounds like this is part of the problem, as I believe there are now at least 2 cases where you reverted the colon method without otherwise fixing the issue (and also a few historic cases in the workshop of other people reverting it). These may be accidents, but you can't expect people to be sure of that, particularly when you make comments suggesting GLNF as the only option and NFCC not being important. So you can't expect people to use the colon method, just because they are aware of it. Also I'm a bit confused about the exchange below but if you are removing colons on purpose, but doing it because you're not aware the images are NFCC this is likely to lead to concerns for those who consider NFCC compliance as important. For example some would feel if you aren't sure an image is free, you shouldn't remove a colon without being sure (i.e. checking) that it is. (If the removal of colons was completely an accident in both cases i.e. you didn't realise the image had colons then the last issue obviously doesn't apply.)
    I mention the above paragraph because given the difference in views on the importance of compliance, unless you can convince the community of your views (as I and it sounds like HS suggested), you do have to accept editors questioning what's happened, editors asking you (or the workshop) to enforce it, and editors feeling they can't trust the workshop to enforcing it so taking it upon themselves. And if you don't like the way they are enforcing it, offering them acceptable alternatives like the colon method, rather then expecting them to magically know what you want is going to be necessary. And yes being civil, which unfortunately a lot of your exchange in this case wasn't in the views of quite a few here, will be necessary.
    BTW although you said some of us are missing the point, I don't really understand what points these are. Even if you don't agree with the view of your behaviour as incivil, this isn't missing the point. (As I've now made clearer, I do not agree with your views on how HS and you acted in the exchange.)
    Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any reason why the workshop should keep images on display which are non-free, even for 1-2 days (it is all too easy to forget them, and then they stay for longer). Please disable display on detection. Yesterday, The Pink Oboe reverted the colon method which resulted in the display of a non-free image. The Pink Oboe, I think you made your point that editors, when asked, should use a method which clearly shows that there is an image (not commenting them out, or obfuscating them too much - though that still brings the page in compliance), but please do use these preferred methods yourself then as well from now on. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hold my hands up to the one you just corrected. It wasn't a defiant act but a genuine mistake. I was going through all the requests and refreshing them so the Dycebot wouldn't archive them (there seems to have been a sudden drop in editors fulfilling requests). I 'uncolonised' that one after previewing it with popups and I failed to notice the FuR and assuming that a county's logo was public domain (I always get confused with what is and what isn't PD with American stuff, ie federal, state, county etc) I went ahead. I usually catch the NFCCs, I don't usually cause them. And as far as I'm concerned the longer an image request is seen the more chance there is of it being fulfilled. I probably will take HS's advice and lobby for WP and Commons' Image Workshops to be exempt from NFCC#9, though not straight away as I really don't want to get embroiled in beaurocracy of any kind. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem

    (Non-administrator comment) I must admit I am surprised that, while any number of contributors to this discussion may have access to the most recent edition of Roger Mellie's Profanisaurus, no-one has yet commented on the somewhat ironic appropriateness of The Pink Oboe's username.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did suspect he might be a sock of The Five-Fingered Widow. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Got a point there. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd noticed it. However, it can't possibly count as offensive unless you're aware of its provenance, and frankly if you are aware of that, you're probably not someone who would find it offensive. Hence, I didn't do anything about it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My always very thick skin covers my occasionally very thick head. :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The most famous use of the term is here. If you haven't seen it before, you're in for a treat. This has the background, if you're not familiar with the Jeremy Thorpe trial. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, although you're sort of on the right path, the name appeared far earlier than Peter Cook and Jeremy Thorpe. As far as I know the first usage in an entertainment form to a mass audience was in the mid-50s. It was a character name using a double-entendre to get past (and have a dig at) a naive radio censor. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know - that's why I said "most famous", not "first". Peter Cook had written the sketch the night before but needed a slang term for homosexual. He kept asking around backstage, and eventually a stage hand told him that one, and a legendary sketch was born. Absconded Northerner (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most famous" is arguable. The usage I was referring to had a far larger audience. At that time Cook wasn't as well appreciated as he was later on, that and the fact he was considered to be more a comedian's comedian than the public's. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alain Rolland

    This page Alain Rolland has been fully edit protected after three hours of no activity and only three or four vandal edits in direct contravention of WP:NO-PREEMPT, there has been no vandalism that is not excessive in comparison to article involved in the world cup such as Bryce Lawrence or a number of other articles throughout Wikipedia though the admin involved has presumed that this article will become so. Until the article becomes a hotbed, standards say it should be left open and as of yet serious contentious editing has not been seen and full protection is not warranted. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a good call to me (non-admin) by User:Stifle after persistent vandalism and "the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles". Also, the lock is of limited duration (3 days).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's just one of those things where it's 99% possible that the page will be hit by vandalism by people claiming he cheated the Welsh or wanted revenge for Ireland's exit or something silly along those lines. Back to the issue, I think its up to the admin in question's discresion. I'd suggest maybe leave a message on his talk page saying why you think it shouldn't have a long block to start with. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think as I stated at the beginning it goes against WP:NO-PREEMPT, and that as such little vandalism had been seen discretion/discresion would be that the article wasn't a serious target, and as I had left a message on the talk page I was wondering what would be the next recourse? Also I'm interested in what Bbb23 considers is persitent vandalism. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit history is fairly clear. First, there was persistent vandalism, mainly from IPs, and User:Materialscientist semi-protected it. Then, the disruptive edits continued, even by autoconfirmed users, hence the lock. There's no magic number or amount that has to be satisfied to fully protect the article, and, as the policy says, it can be based on a reasonable assumption about the future, not just the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm interested Bbb23 what do you consider the difference between the semi PP and the full PP with respect to the Alain Rolland article? Thanks 178.250.210.5 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The C, it's not a "long" block. To the IP's credit, xe raised the issue on the talk page, and Stifle referred the IP to WP:RFPU, but the IP chose to come here instead and said so, although I'm not sure why.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a lot to add; controversial refereeing decision, several inappropriate edits made to the article, three-day protection while people calm down. Similar has happened at least twice before over at Wayne Barnes. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) That's not exactly how WP works. Admins have no more discretion than any other user, they just have extra tools that allow them to enforce policy as written. However, there is no hierarchy here, we're all equal - at least in theory. Noformation Talk 20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter tosh, the tools are there, the block is in place against guidelines, and the hierarchical control is in place. In response to the admin, because WP:RFPU is usually used when I have a specific edit I wish to make instead of questioning the block in it's entirety. Though it should be noted the admin addressed the IP without taking into account the standards that were referenced. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside the fact that I find the phrase "utter tosh" quite amusing (American's don't talk like that :-) ), I'm not sure where you get the idea that WP:RFPU is "usually used" for specific edits (there are templates for that). The board makes it clear it's for requesting unprotection of an article period.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just imagine for a minute I might know what I'm talking about with respect to Wikipedia. An admin full-pp's an article that has seen no activity for three hours and has seen less than a handful of malicious edits. Please tell me me how doesn't that fall foul of WP:NO-PREEMPT. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    cooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee I know for a fact this has been read. Who has stones to act? 178.250.210.5 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No stones whatsoever here except those I happen to collect. Sexist language doesn't help the project either. LadyofShalott 20:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sexist language will not be tolerated and will get editors indefinitely blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll note that hateful usernames have started to appear in reference to this article. LadyofShalott 20:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's three days protection. I can't really see that anything needs to be added to the article now that can't wait that long (WP:NOTNEWS), and by that time tempers will have cooled (see the note about abusive usernames above). You can always use the {{editprotected}} template for anything that you believe desperately needs to be added. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you see it needs to be added or not is not the matter of debate, this is an encycolpedia that anyone can edit. We have PP in place that is stopping new editors from editing the article with a rationale that it was heavily vandalised and that it warranted full PP in direct contravention of WP:NO-PREEMPT. Now Black ask yourself the question why is Wikipedia driving away editors when they are confronted with this. PS I am an admin and might know what I am talking about, call it an experiment apply the guidelines if you wish. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Call it a point of principle if you will, testing the the prevalent wiki lawyering so to speak. You neatly sidestepped the question of the PP in spite of question, so how does any article that has seen no activity for three hours get a full PP in spite of WP:NO-PREEMPT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.250.210.5 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now try to imagine how a new editor feels when they come against the admin brick wall. Me personally I can go against the system and can change this one poxy article, but the average editor can't. I have Wikipedia's guidelines on my side but as an IP I'm impotent. Think about it Black, or ask the WMF what they think about the loss off editors? 178.250.210.5 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC) —The preceding comment signed as by 178.250.210.5 (talk • contribs) was actually added by Atomises (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • I'm not an admin, but it's hard to believe that you're an admin and would create this thread without being logged in. I'm not sure precisely what policy applies here (but see WP:ADMINSOCK), but I can't believe what you're doing is permissible. Therefore, I'm assuming you're not an admin but just saying you are. I also wonder what the policy is on a user posing as an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A rogue admin (admittedly hasn't misused the tools) goes AWOL and there's silence. Yes let's face it boys n girls there's a problem. We abuse new editors out of the system and at the same time wonder why no-one wants to play with us. I've spent a few months and after a recent message from the WMF, started to look into why we alienate editors. To be honest I realise the account that was Khukri is WP:TOAST, do I care not really. I did my bit for the project and I was proud of it but at the end of day everywhere is a battleground or a bikeshed we play around pretending that which is unimportant is important and all the time with our bureaucracy and guidelines we refuse access to the very editors we need to survive. Call it someone losing the plot, a breakdown, burnout what ever make you feel happy; let's face it at the end of the day my edit count is insignificant, I'm not a Newyorkbrad or an Essjay but I've been around. I created an article on a new account and within seconds it was posted as being not notable etc. We drive editors away, not being rude but I couldn't give a fuck if you look at this as a bleeding heart story, but if you think of one new editor and try to guide him without smashing him/her with templated messages the project could survive. I've had enough, burn my accounts do what ever, at least I know if I want to change anything I can come back as an IP but I'll know the rules I need to make my edits stick, unlike all those other poor bastards. Ciao, A+, sayonara 178.250.210.5 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    However, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Arbitration motion related to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla, ArbCom has established precedent that no action would be taken. This is no different. –MuZemike 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Where has Khukri made any "assurance that he will not repeat [his behavior] in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project"?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that decision as saying action will be taken if necessary. but in that particular case it was not thought necessary. In this particular case, whether a precautionary desysop is required is up to arb com. Whether a block might be required is up to us, and confirmed socking usually does result in blocks. As for it being a preventative block, as required, I would not necessarily take the word of a confirmed sockmaster that they are leaving Wikipedia for good as a final statement in good faith. There are too many counter-examples. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. It's difficult to navigate in this quagmire, at least for me. I opened a WP:SPI report on the issue of Khukri, Atomises, and the IP, who are supposedly all Khukri. User:Risker closed it with no action but with an explanation that didn't make complete sense. See here. I've left a message for Risker asking for clarification. I've never taken a case to arb com, so if that's the only way an admin can lose his privileges, I'm not sure if I'm ready for that experience. I resent Khukri's deception and don't think it should be sloughed off as harmless, but I also know that some of these processes can be tiring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for one thing, the sockmaster wouldn't be Atomises, it'd be Khukri, with Atomises and the IP as socks. That said, Atomises is a self-admitted sockpuppet account, that was used by an admin without disclosing it was being used by said admin until it popped up here. I've blocked it accordingly. As far as actions against Khukri, anything beyond the application of a {{whale}} is up to others more experienced at Arbcomming. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. When I first opened the report, I thought Khukri wasn't involved and the IP was posing as an admin. Then, later when I was disabused of that notion (smoke and mirrors), I added a comment to the report about Khukri. I agree Khukri is the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Atomises has requested unblock, claiming privacy and WP:SOCK#LEGIT, even though he openly admitted editing under that IP here. –MuZemike 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a hard time believing that anyone as ill behaved as 178.250.210.5 has been in this thread can be a user that at one time received the mop, but I don't know anything about the incident other than what I've seen here, and the admittedly strange message from Risker. I've never seen her step in on a case like this before, and while Risker is, in my opinion, one of the better Arbs, I've really lost any semblance of trust I have for the committee. I say decline the unblock and block the IP for abuse of multiple accounts. If 178.250.210.5 really is Khukri, he can log in. If he scrambled his password, then this situation is a direct result of said rash action. Considering how abrasive 178.250.210.5 has been, AGF isn't forthcoming right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let another admin handle the unblock request, seeing as I was the blocker. I will say though that the claim of it being WP:SOCK#LEGIT is rather spurious in my eyes: first, there was no talk-page message claiming that until post-facto. Having an admin having a fully undisclosed alternate account that, had he not "slipped" at AN/I, is pretty obvious would never have been disclosed, is simply unacceptable, IMHO. And the fact that he clearly used the IP here in an deliberate attempt to obsfucate who he actually was is blatant "editing logged out in order to mislead" - the fact he edited out his signature as Atomises, replacing it with the IP, simply makes it more blatant misleading, and his behavior here - as Sven mentions - was simply atrocious. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined the unblock request. It is perfectly clear that the 178.250.210.5/Atomises combination was used in attempts to deceive. The claims of legitimate reason are not, as far as I can see, backed up by any clear explanation of what the legitimate reason is. I am making no judgement as to whether or not Khukri is also the same person, as claimed by 178.250.210.5/Atomises. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An explanation was provided, and according to WP:SOCK#LEGIT, "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users". Logging out is not mentioned, but the purpose may be the same. Also the block seems to be punitive, and is against an account that isn't being used disruptively. The change of signature doesn't look like an attempt to mislead - it would be more misleading for the comments to remain signed with different names. Peter E. James (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, something was given that could be regarded as explaining the creation of a second account ("So I decided to create an account to write about what I do know about, particle accelerators, where very few editors can stick their nose in and minimise as I mentioned above the bikeshed issue"). However, I have yet to see any explanation of the combination of that second account with logged out edits that contradicts the impression that it was the intention to give the impression of being two different users. Moreover, the editor referred to editing this page using the account name rather than anonymously as a "screw up", which strongly suggests to me that the intention was to hide the fact that it was the same user. I don't see any gross abuse, but I do see what looks very much like a concerted attempt to deceive. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see that some action has been taken against the participants in this deception, but I still don't understand why User:Khukri has not been blocked. I left a message on User:Risker's Talk page ([21]) about her closure of the SPI report, but, thus far, there's been no response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider whether Khukri should be blocked. However, I cannot really see any serious abuse, apart from, as I said above, the clear attempt to make the 178.250.210.5/Atomises combination look like two different people. Preventing the user from using multiple accounts/IPs to give such a misleading impression seems to me legitimate, but as long as only one account is used that is not a problem, and I don't see any serious abuse that would justify trying to prevent the user from editing at all. That being so, I see no justification for blocking the user's original account. Another point worth mentioning is that, so far as I know, the only evidence that Khukri is in fact the same person as 178.250.210.5/Atomises is anonymous posts by 178.250.210.5 saying so. IS that reliable enough evidence to block Khukri? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I have a few points. First, wouldn't a checkuser indicate whether Khukri is related to the IP or Atomises. I confess I don't understand how checkuser works, so I don't know the answer. Second, given that Khukri is an admin, can't he be asked directly if he is the IP? Third, assuming Khukri is the master of the IP, why is his failure to disclose who he is on this board not sufficiently severe to warrant a block?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw this in passing, and had to comment. I was a reasonably frequent contributor to content and images but retired (some time back) due in large part to the templating, wikilawyering and "boys club" atmosphere which, to my mind, makes wikipedia annoying to established users who want to contribute content, and downright intimidating to new users. I made a mess of scrambling my password when retiring, so I can still log in... When I retired I made a few edits as an IP to see what happened, and edits which would have been fine as Begoon were instantly reverted as an IP. Seems to me that was the point to this "experiment" unless I'm reading it wrongly. Also seems to me that there is a whole wall of text above discussing blocks, socks, deception etc, and not one word related to the result of the "experiment". I realise this is the Admin Incident board - so maybe not the best place to discuss such an experiment - and maybe even not the best way to have performed it - I won't judge that. But it does speak volumes to me that in the haste to wikilawyer some "remedy" for the incident, one is left with the real elephant in the room - that WP is unwelcoming for IP/new users, and that goes almost without comment once again. Maybe discussing blocks, deception and bans is easier or more fun than contemplating the need for culture change if it is desired to encourage new contributors? Or maybe it's easier not to encourage them at all, because they are "hard work" to embrace? Yes, I know, this is where admins do adminny stuff - but I do recommend a sense of perspective... (now /me shuffles off back to obscurity again...)  Begoon&#149;talk 06:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikistalking/Wikihounding

    Inspite of my repeated warnings, User:DBigXray is continuously wiki-stalking & wiki-hounding me just because he couldn't resolve the matter on the talk pages as early as he wanted. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].

    On the relevant articles, commenting is one thing (yes he might be right on some occasions, but trivially that's why a discussion on talk page is taking place), but starting sections like "edits by 'so n so user'" and then posting a copy paste of that everywhere has pushed my patience over. Yet I have not made any inflamatory remarks on any talk page against him.

    You can see him continuously campaigning on the talkpage (and editing) each and every article I have edited (regardless of the fact that his comments have no relation to pages) like [27]. The 'non-reliable' sources he's mentioning aren't even being used here and in so many other pages of which I have now lost count.

    Edited my talk page [28] [29] [30] to put up with the harassment campaign and spammed it with the same issue about pakdef.info's reliablilty which I was readily discussing on the articles to which it was cited. Infact I even let them be making no more edits since at least two days. Yet there's no way that I can stop him of pursuing wp:canvassing.

    And then after I got tired of his repeated comments, I told him politely not to edit my talk page again soon after which he posted the same spam on my page [31]. He also disrupted the article in question [32] and added unattributed content even though a clear consensus was just established with other editors on the talk page [33].

    Also, I'll like to add his hostile attitude in his initial interaction with me [34] assuming vandalism instead of good faith. At another point in the same initial interaction he warned me about removing content from my own talk page, when it is trivial that diffs are always there and I'm not hiding something [35].

    The issue is not of the current sources and their reliability he has mentioned because I'm open to discussion and have even stopped reverting (without violating 3rr) on the pages in question. I've exhausted all ways of explanations and warnings, and I'm sure he will continue to keep this campaign going since he goes for an edit war as soon as I revert & talk on page (see the references provided). I'm sure he simply stalks my contributions.

    My preference would be to see a response by DBigXRay first. My intial thoughts, after reading the diffs and your arguments above is that neither of you really have much standing here. DBigXRay has been taking WP:CIVIL to a bit past its limits with all the caps usage, you've been threatening him with sanctions (so has he). I'd like to see his argument in this situation. It seems like the best course of action would be to just stay away from each other at the moment. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't read through all this yet, but after looking at a little bit I can make a helpful suggestion straight away – a lot of this would be much easier to clear up if you included edit summaries, particularly when making edits which could be seen as contentious. It would give him less of a leg to stand on if he starts reverting. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is that he's pasting the same content (about a given source and my 'vandalism') all over, even to the pages that are not related to those links. I haven't threatened him anything above warnings to be reported on edit warring and warnings in response to him blaming me with vandalism and repeatedly editing my talk page with spam. Its the canvassing that's the problem.
    I do put in edit summaries (mostly) to which he simply reverts with vandalism tags. I've seen him doing stuff like masking his edits and removing previously established reliable and neutral sources under the cover of wiki-linking some text in another paragraph (and mentioning only that in edit summary). [40] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have repeated it on a number of occasions on talk pages that i dont have any personal grudge against any user. If the edits on a page i see are not in accordance with the reliable sources, i raise the issue on the talk pages. About wiki-stalking & wiki-hounding The admins can see that i have a number pages in my watch list (about military history(my interest)) that have been edited. I dont need to stalk any user to see if new Changes have been done in these pages, i get the notification on my watchlist page itself. after this while verifying the edit on the page in my watchlist ,often i need to see (related/main article of that incident) if i come across a related page that has also been edited by the (same or different) user. i raise the topic on the talk page and/or revert the change if it is in clear violation of the entry as cited. I always give enough discussion on the talkpages of the articles i edit. Whereas lTopGunl (talk) Seldom disusses the issue on the talk pages. recently he has done a number of edits with the title removing POV on Edit Summary, he does not even care to explain what led to his conclusion that he is removing POV (while in fact he is inserting one).2.i have raised the issue of non reliable source pakdef.info on talk pages, as i felt it is necessary to point out this mistake. 3 an EDIT WAR always occurs when both users keep reverting without discussing.Whats more surprising is user lTopGunl reverts the edits and warns other user of EDIT WAR (without considering that the very last revert that he has done (while warning other guy) also falls in the Category of EDIT WAR and he is equally responsible for EDIT WAR by reverting (without even discussing on talk page about reverts)) The Time stamps of talk pages and reverts can be observed. This disagreement of opinions would have never arised if user lTopGunl had spent time in voicing his opinion on respective talk pages of articles that he edits, like me rather than Warning others and FRAMING CASES & false REPORTING. About the allegation of Canvassing i would like to clarify that i have told about the edits on articles to an experienced wikipedians and on Noticeboard of India related Pages to verify the change since i am a newbie, is it bad to get opinion of other editors who are interested in these articles on the recent edits to for the the sake of neutrality ? --dBigXray (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • also it can be checked that lTopGunl (talk)( in his edits) neither bothers to give an edit summary nor a comment on the talk pages of the Controversial modifications that he makes by inserting POV. (or removing POV acc to him), what shall the other editors make out from this behaviour ?--dBigXray (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC). For example [| his recent edits ] and [[41]] without any explanation as of now. the citations are not in coherence with his edits and probably thats why the user is adamant on removing them so that his wrong edits cannot be verified--dBigXray (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still editing my talk page with allegations!! When he fails on one page he starts on another. And I expected him not to edit my talk after so many warnings, but here we go again. He just disregarded Mitchazenia's suggestion. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would again repeat that i dont have any interest in a particular user but i am interested in sanctity of wiki articles. The admins can please check that the article Sinking of PNS Ghazi is also in my watchlist and if a disruptive editing takes place on that article, i have the rights to raise question. i have noticed and [raised a number of issues on the talk page of ] article Sinking of PNS Ghazi.the above user had done [| multiple edits ] , without any explanation on the talk page until i raised questions. the time stamps can be checked if the admins wanna have a look at this it is upto the admins to decide if the explanations are sufficient or not. The explanations present as of now is not sufficient for me at least. --dBigXray (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shii

    Shii (talk · contribs) This user continually is making personal attacks against me.

    Comment attack

    Talk page personal attacks, NPA warnings Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's important to remember to notify a user when you make an ANI report against them; I've done it for you. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I've already started a discussion of this content dispute and edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (Ctrl+F and look for my name), and Me-123567-Me is talking with me there. I think having to maintain the discussion on three (!) separate pages at once is a little overwhelming. Shii (tock) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You reported yourself for edit warring and are complaining about the need to maintain discussion on 3 seperate pages? Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on your talk page, the self report at AN/Ew combined with [44] makes it seem like you're just fooling around. I suggest you stop it now if you don't want to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did as the user themself asked - and they have a block for a whole range of improper behaviours; the length according to the level of disruption overall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shii has been an editor here since 2002. Has this strange behavior ever been a problem before in the past 9 years? Because I find it odd for that to start after such a long time of productive editing.--Atlan (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's a compromised account? It's truly odd behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What did Me-123567-Me do to provoke this, anyways? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The self-filed 3RR report by Shii had to be caused by something, but having been able to interact reasonably well for so long ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it's both: an enemy of Shii could have hacked or compromised his account. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no technical indication that anyone else is using Shii's account. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's odd nonetheless, but we'll see where they go from here.--Atlan (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shii has a strange sense of humor. He contacted me off-wiki to assure me his account wasn't hacked; I'm not sure if I should unblock, though, since Bwilkins' block rationale was for the incivility on the article itself. humblefool® 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't think the possibility of hacking arrived until after the block for other purposes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    <-- Shii has now requested to be unblocked, characterizing the request at WP:AN/EW as a request for help with the dispute, and his "turning myself in" as humor (rather than trolling). This is where I'd post one of those "Not sure if serious..." image macros... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin "turned himself in" as a cry for help on dealing with a situation? *blink* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was my thought. Thus, why I brought it here instead of declining outright. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin status

    Shii is an admin. Such behavior is entirely inappropriate for any editor - especially an admin. Perhaps. While no admin privs appear to have been used, I think a review of administrator status is in order whenever an admin is blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps Shii is just having mental health issues. Maybe we should wait until the block ends. I am thinking on this situation: "Why would I block myself". Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, even if that's the case is it a good idea to have admin rights with these kinds of mental health issues? Noformation Talk 03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't overstate this guys. Maybe he was inebriated or something like that. A bit of trolling is not proof of serious mental health problems. Talking to himself [45] did sound a little weird, but maybe he did it for the theatrical effect. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone intimately familiar with the mentally ill, and the capabilities of an admin: don't worry about it. Unless you have specific reason (examples not included because of WP:BEANS) to suspect immanent harm, contact ArbCom and/or a steward. Otherwise, please avoid speculating on the mental health of others based on sparse information and exaggerating the danger of it. Administrators are not cops. We don't carry guns. --Tznkai (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur ... leave mental issues out of it. That said, I look forward to hearing from Shii when possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not like we can delete the mainpage anymore. Alexandria (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that Toddst1 is likely correct. If they "don't know" where to go for help, so turning themselves in as "humour" is what they considered the best way forward, something is wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin observation, I have interacted with Shii for a long time in editing Religion, and I've long noticed periodic incidents of Shii being needlessly battleground-inclined when other editors question some very esoteric academic theories about the subject. It's made me wonder about them being an administrator, I have to admit, so I'm sympathetic to the thinking behind Toddst1's opening post. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Block not in line with current policy and normal practice

    As someone who has been watching this thing unfold from the outside, the current 72 hour block appears to be much more punitive than preventative and goes directly against the Purpose and goals of our blocking policy. Shii hadn't even edited in nearly 7 hours before the block was placed so there is simply no way to claim the block to be preventative. His last edit prior to the block was at 14:33, 17 October 2011 [46] and the block was placed at 21:12, 17 October 2011. [47] Further, this bit of poking (and elsewhere) by User:Me-123567-Me would eventually begin to irritate even the most veteran of editors.

    Shii has been an active community member since 27 April 2002 [48] and an administrator since 6 February 2006 [49] (RFA). Those of us who have interacted with Shii in the past can certainly speak to his unusual sense of humor (which actually tends to be an asset while dealing with troublesome individuals), but that was also no reason to block him. Considering that Shii had an otherwise clean block log, and has been an active community member and administrator for a very long time, a 72 hour block as a very first block seems highly unusual. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Shii has apologised. Block pulled as a result.©Geni 12:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tothwolf, thank you for the spirited defense. However, I do think I have "done wrong". Most of the communities I participate in on the Internet encourage creative and sometimes unusual repartee between members-- for example, Reddit. Wikipedia is different, I already know it is different and I expect different behavior from the community at large, so I'm afraid I have not been living up to those common standards. If I was disruptive to anyone, I apologize. It was absolutely not my intention to disturb the encyclopedia (and see my talk page for a much longer and detailed apology). I will go back to editing now with a humbled spirit, and I will look at disputes differently in the future. Finally, this block was really weird, and was a jumble of acronyms like WP:OR and WP:TROLL, which do not appear to be policy. Like Tothwolf, I don't really understand the point of it. I'm always ready to talk with people, and I've never proven unreasonable! Shii (tock) 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR is a policy. Kind of an important one, too. Good luck, Shii! Doc talk 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right! I meant that it's not usually used as a block reason ("Somebody stop me before I original research again!") Shii (tock) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My main point was the block did not seem to be preventative and hence not justifiable under current policy or standard practice. I too found out the hard way that not everyone understands sarcasm and less obvious forms of humor. Last year I found myself indef blocked (ultimately lasting 18 days) when I made some ill-advised sarcastic remarks off-wiki via email while frustrated with a long term problem I had been dealing with since 26 May 2009. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the blocking admin, here's what I saw: 3RR, significant NPA's, sarcastic responses when the "victim" asked him to stop, and the muddling around creating self-reporting EW entries showed me someone fucking around, and not caring when asked to stop. I combined the individual issues to a slightly longer block - yes, based on these, the block was preventative.
    To be honest, I did not check that he was an admin before blocking - it wasn't until afterwards that the concerns around the behaviour unbefitting an admin came forward. I have no issues with the unblock, based on the apparent sincerity of the apology. I continue - based on a chain of e-mails between Shii and I this morning - to be concerned about the skillset of an admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Even though I've not seen any of the private communications between you and Shii, given the public back and forth, there is little doubt some of it has been heated. Based on my own email situation with the admin who blocked me that I briefly described above, the advice I'd offer here given my own experience is for both of you to simply back away from it and let it go. Nothing beneficial is going to come from more heated discussion at this point. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to mention sticks to me ... I've made recommendations to the editor. It's up to them if they follow. Calling it an unjustifiable block without even reading any of the background seemed ... bizarre to say the least. Hopefully you have a better understanding (although seeing as your original subheading title remains, I doubt it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cossde and Nalanda College Colombo

    Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

    Your behaviour and attitude towards Nalanda College Colombo is appauling. I know that you are a highly decorated and awarded wikipedian. This time you even put "Nalanda Central College Colombo". What's next name on the list ? (Masu7 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC))

    Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda_Maha_Vidyalaya_Colombo

    (Masu7 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

    Eeeerm...who are you reporting? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think their issue seems to stem from the vast amount of images that they upload and which then gets deleted for not having the correct fair use rationale. Masu7 has done some extensive editing on the article, but it's pretty hard to follow from the history since there are no edit summaries. Presumably they are talking about this edit [50]--Blackmane (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read through the article history and their talk page, its obviously not about the image deletion. --Blackmane (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reporting about User: Cossde He is deliberately attacking this web page and this time gone too far (Nalanda Central College Colombo). He seems to think that he only knows English and every thing he writes only is correct. I have gone through the pages that he had edited most and he is mostly inclined towards slinging mud towards a good looking and well written page like Nalanda College Colombo. Can a single user just because he is got highly decorated awards by wikipedia keep doing like this ? Nalanda College Colombo has got a high rate given by the viewers too. May be this guy is jealous of this. Will keep writing useful translations to SINHALA as well. In reality this school has it's own web pages nicely done on internet too.(Masu7 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

    You are supposed to notify users when you report them here, I have done this for you. On the topic, you haven't provided any evidence of wrong doing. Noformation Talk 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thanking you so much. Well my question is "Why is this user Cossde is not allowing me to name this article as Nalanda College, Colombo. He is always reverting it back to either Nalanda Vidyalaya or Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya and this time have been so smart and added (Nalanda Central College Colombo) within brackets. This shows what his attitude even though he is won so many awards from wikipedia. In that case I myself (I am talented and fluent in English too although my native language is not English) too have immensly contributed so many pages both in Sinhala and English even though I have no user page created for myself. Cossde may think that he is the only person who knows correct English and he is the only person who is honest and reporting extremely accurately. I strongly suggest that a senior administrator should keep an eye on his editing and attitude as well.(Masu7 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

    You need to post the ANI message to a user's talk page, not here - we can obviously see you've started the thread, but it doesn't notify the person you're complaining about by posting the template here. Anyway, his edit summary says "move to name registered under government." I haven't checked that this is true, but if that is what the source says then why would we use anything else? A name officially recognized by a government is probably the best bet. Also, this is a content dispute, which is not dealt with on this board. WP:ANI is for administrator attention, meaning that someone is breaking policy is a serious way. Content disputes are handled on article talk pages, and if that doesn't work out you can try WP:3O and WP:DR. On top of that, it would be better if you didn't attempt to confer bad motives or even try to ascribe motives to Cossde - you don't know what s/he thinks about other user's English skills and I would advise that you read a very important WP policy called assuming good faith. Noformation Talk 03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This link was posted to Cossde's talk page where an IP user has logged a page of disgruntled posts detailing their naming dispute. It's basically an attack page on how Cossde has been changing the references of Old Royalists to Alumni of various colleges in Sri Lanka back in Nov 2010. (I might nominate this for MfD) Basically this is boiling down to a content dispute which hasn't actually been discussed on any talk page. Masu7 has posted the same text they posted here on Cossde's talk page, which reeks of bad faith and ownership of the article. Having a look at Masu7's contribs, they're obviously a WP:SPA, not in a bad way, devoted to editing anything related to the Nalanda college. The problem is that this user has been here since 2007 and has a few thousand edits of which I can count on barely two hands the number of times they've used an edit summary. I suggest that Masu7 actually talk to Cossde and discuss the edits before hurling accusations at them. --Blackmane (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, since I was named here, just wanted to say that my recent edits have been to rectify a naming anomaly on the articles since the name used in the Sri Lankan Governemnt Gazette [51]. The name stated Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya, translated to English it means Nalanda Big College, however Maha Vidyalaya is the name given to a form of government run schools known as central colleges hence the Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya would mean Nalanda Central College. Since it appeared so on the Sri Lankan Governemnt Gazette I renamed the articles accordingly as its a government school. Cossde (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yes you are named here (a complaint about user Cossde) no doubt. This user seem to make words according to his/her own wish and still dominate and specifically target Nalanda College Colombo. It is extremely interesting to read user Cossde history pages [It's basically an attack page on how Cossde has been changing the references of Old Royalists to Alumni of various colleges in Sri Lanka back in Nov 2010. (I might nominate this for MfD) - please do so if Wikipedia has got a proper administration, I request as any one who understands English and read this page can understand what Cossde's motive is]. This is a classic clear cut of this user's [Cossde] ATTITUDE (specially towards other schools other than Highly Esteemed Royal College Colombo). I am amazed as to how this user got so many awards from Wikipedia. I am [user Masu7] not a super speaker of English or have no super understanding of millions of rules that are on Wikipedia web site (I think majority of users are in same boat as me). (Masu7 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

    First of all, do not keep putting up the ANI notice template at the start of each of your posts. I've just done some map searching on Google Maps. The two names refer to different locations. A search for Nalanda College Colombo locates to central Colombo (next to Ananda as the article says) while a search for Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya locates to separate girls and boys schools in Minuwangoda. To make things even mroe confusing, there is another Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya article for an obscure school in Elpitiya which Google maps locates to another Ananda College. I think the editors need to hash out which schools they're talking about before going back to the article. Masu7 please refrain from attacking editors when you have not attempted to discuss the article content at all. Also, Cossde's "awards" are not from Wikipedia, they are signs of appreciation of their work by other editors here. Any editor can place an "award" on any other editor's user page. Please read this policy. --Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    List of bhangra bands (again)

    Can someone take a look at List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the user Noxiousnews (talk · contribs)?

    Recently, I noticed the user had returned to the article and restarted the same behavior that had resulted in their prior blocks. In addition, when I went in and manually removed the additions that were based solely on their non-verifiable original research and re-warned the user.[52]. The user not only restored the WP:NOR content - they posted on the article talk page "Somebody that goes by the handle Barek keeps inserting JOSH, a PA act from Canada into the 'list of bhangra BANDS'. Please refrain from vandalism."[53] - a blatantly false claim that is clearly proven false by viewing the page history.[54]

    Over a year ago (July 2010), the user Noxiousnews was blocked as a result of a prior ANI discussion for repeatedly inserting original research which they claimed "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves"[55]

    See prior ANI report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#List of bhangra bands, which resulted in the user being blocked for the same behavior.

    I have blocked the user in the past (after they returned from a prior block to resume the same behavior), but do not feel that I should act directly myself this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    barek, so whats your favorite bhangra band of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    seriously though, this is purely ethnocentric behaviour. you dont see me editing articles on country music bands because I know nothing on the subject. I have allready mentioned to you the sources are cassette sleeves. The magazines/newspapers are not available online because bhangra died out by 1994 (a year before the internet became popular). Its a form of underground music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiousnews (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately your word and the cassette sleeves do not satisfy WP:V, which is a core, non-negotiable policy. Furthermore, anyone is free to edit any article they want, regardless of ethnicity, so long as our policies are followed. Noformation Talk 01:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that to be the case. Not every reliable source has to be available on the Internet, or even easily or widely available. There's no essential difference between citing the liner notes on a cassette and citing a rare book only available in a few libraries in the world. The policy is not that everything must be easily verifiable, simply that it must be verifiable.

    The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. (from WP:SOURCEACCESS, emphasis added)

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If they would at least mention where each band is sourced from, that would be an improvement. Currently, all we have is their generic statement that "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves"[56], with no specifics being given as to which band's listing is sourced from where - ignoring for the moment if the bands even meet WP:BAND (which, as the article states it's a list of "notable" bands, would also be an issue). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: To get around the issue of the list being for "notable" bands, they removed the word "notable" with no discussion.[57][58] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree simply saying "this information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves" is not sufficient. As much specific information about the cassettes being used as possible should be provided, such as title of the release, catalog number and year. Also, the cassettes should be official releases and not bootlegs or self-released (which would run afoul of WP:SPS). Information gleaned from talking to the bands is probably WP:OR and shouldn't be used either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm the article does seem fishy, and it needs lots of work. It doesn't seem like a blatant hoax, but it still isn't exactly suspicion-free. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is clearly only here to promote some record company which is located at Multitone records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). And not only that, but he is inserting libelous unsourced material onto BLPs. His only intent is to disruptively edit articles regarding bhangra so why should we allow him to remain as a member of this site?—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the article has now been reverted 4 times by the user, so I've issued a 3RR warning to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, they're now up to 6RR - they reverted twice more while I was posting the above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Noxiousnews has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ryulong may also be in violation of 3RR, depending on whether or not NN's edits are counted as reverting vandalism or not. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only reverted 3 times. I do not think that my series of removing information from the article would count, as this is drastically different (Oh. Those are basically the same. Shit.). But one could say that I am reverting an "addition...[that is] a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Frankly, we should be rid of Noxiousnews completely. He's been blocked now 4 times for disrupting the bhangra topic area, and his repeated assertions that (paraphrasing) "Wikipedia hates brown people" are showing that he is never going to be a helpful contributor to the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: watsup

    love me, hate me spew out your guts here

    lets hear your sob storeyNoxiousnews (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC) was also blocked for edit warring in July 2010 on the exact same article - that time it was 72 hours. The current block prevents continued abuse for now, but doesn't resolve the fundamental WP:NOR and possible WP:OWN issues, not to mention their repeated accusations that those reverting their edits are acting from an ethnic-centric bias - while ignoring the actual issues that are repeatedly pointed out to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh. Most of these are just undabbed articles pointing to actual notable topics. There are only 11 items that have actual articles.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In other news, Ryulong speedied the article and I declined it because it technically made a claim of notability. I PROD'd it for not having sources and possibly not meeting GNG, but the blocked user has added sources. I'm not familiar with the topic nor of what constitutes RS for these types of articles, would someone mind checking the sources and determining whether they should stand as RS? Obviously the blog doesn't, but there are two other sources. Noformation Talk 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong article speedied. I've but List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) up for AFD within the past hour. I did put a speedy on Multitone records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but you did prod that one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops sorry, yes I meant the record company was the article you speedied and I prod'd. Do you have any thoughts on the source? Noformation Talk 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is how he reacts to an AFD we shouldn't let him be a part of this encyclopedia, anymore.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another one of those people whose definition of "neutral" is "biased torwards me", it seems. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban proposal

    Let's just cut to the chase. Noxiousnews (talk · contribs) is never going to be a constructive contributor to this project. He refuses to acknowledge our notability guidelines (as is evident from his edits to List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), has no assumption of good faith (as he automatically assumes anyone who opposes him is "ethnocentric"), and has very recently violated WP:BLP (by adding potentially libelous unsourced material onto a biography page).

    This has been NN's fourth block for disrupting the bhangra bands list alone, and he simply does not understand that Wikipedia is colorblind but has rules that he does not want to read. He has been at this for several years and he shows no signs of changing. Seeing as I doubt that he will edit pages other than those on bhangra music, a topic ban will become a de facto site wide ban.—Ryulong (竜龙) 17:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. He is no more abrasive than many esteemed Wikipedians with ongoing RfCs on them. His work on the main bhangra article and a few band articles of that kind does not appear controversial to me. He obviously has little Wikipedia experience as evidenced by his low edit count. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He has been on his site for two years. And he has been obsessively disrupting the bhangra pages. Rather than dealing with another year of him accusing other editors of being racist or ethnocentric, or filling our articles with BLPvios, he should be dealt with ASAP.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please take a look

    at Freddie and the Dreamers. Editwaring, probably RRR violations, sockpuppetry, spam, it all seems to be happening there. And Freddie was such a nice man. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, bit of a quagmire, here is the previous sockpuppetry archive. Via CheckUser, I can Confirm that the following accounts belong to Quinn2go (talk · contribs):

    I also find it very  Likely that Noel Walsh UK (talk · contribs) is a sock or meatpuppet. WilliamH (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All blocked and tagged, notice left on talk page. It should settle down now. WilliamH (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Im so glad you acted the way you did this person has tried to discredit my name using the sockpuppet "Quinn2go" and cause so much vandalism on the page, and to beleive he was a member of the group posting with the ip address 77.100.205.72. Would it be possible to clean up some of the mess written on the discussion page? it doesn't look good for outside readers, I just want people to know Quinn2go has nothing to do with me. Mike Quinn.Mikequinn10 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Novaseminary (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone else think the diffs noted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Marshall_Strabala constitute a legal threat along with this? The editor has done it before here and already been warned about it here. Novaseminary (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I certainly do. I will refrain from blocking though, given my history with the user. --Danger (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'd be just fine blocking. No amount of being involved is involved enough to not block for a clear cut legal threat as the policy exists to protect WP during litigation. Noformation Talk 03:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked indefinitly per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's at least the second new entry for "famous last words", in the last week or so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think DavidSycamore (talk · contribs) could need a look. It's only had 4 edits but I would say the evidence points towards it being a related account. Myk60640 (talk · contribs) and Mykjoseph1958 (talk · contribs) are probably related too but very stale. At first I didn't anticipate a problem but given the collection of articles edited and history of issues spanning all four accounts, the problem might be bigger than first thought. OlYellerTalktome 21:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After a second look, I'm not sure about the other Myk accounts, even if they are stale. Maybe there's a lot of people named Myk out there? Regardless, DavidSycamore needs a look. OlYellerTalktome 21:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The DavidSycamore edits do seem to have been at least an example meatpuppetism. In this discussion, Mykjoseph indicates DavidSycamore was a "colleague". As for Myk60640 I note that 60640 is a zip code in Chicago, the same city that Mykjospeh has claimed to be a PR person in. More telling are edits to Hess Tower to add mention of Marshall Strabala and the nearly overlapping edits at Marshall Strabala. Mykjoseph1958 also edited there, and also at LG Arts Center immediately following Mykjospeh. Mykjoseph has also admitted to editing from 216.80.92.229, and this IP has edited a Mykjoseph-related article as recently as August. But unless they reappear, I'm not sure any action is worth it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    purely promotional userpage

    Not sure whether I am at the right place, but the page NIKHIL MAHARAJ (talk · contribs), which is so far the only edit[59] of the associated user account, seems to have purely promotional purposes. In addition, NIKHIL MAHARAJ (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of Nikster115 (talk · contribs), as suggested by his own statements[60],[61] on his own userpage. Some attention might also go to Nikster115 (talk · contribs), as all of his edits since opening the account deal with himself, even his only 2 edits[62],[63] outside his username space at Nigahiga. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The userpage has been deleted (next time you can add {{db-promo}} to the top of it). I'll look into the other aspects in a sec ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that popups tells me that Nikster115 has 85 edits but his contributions log contains only five. I guess that means the other 80 involved edits to now-deleted pages. His only two edits to article space are acts of vandalism. Two more are to add to and delete from his own talk page personal information about Nikhal Maharaj. The fifth was a personal message to himself at User talk:NIKHIL MAHARAJ. I think an admin should try to determine whether he's here to edit an encyclopedia and act accordingly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsure how to address

    I'm not sure how to draw the line between RBI vs DFTT vs BITE, but could someone uninvolved with the affected pages please look at contributions? TIALeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1 edit in a month, 4 edits total. Not end of world. Also not a sentiment that person is alone in feeling. I'd suggest reverting and explaining, either on the user's talk page, the article's talk page, or both. In fact, why don't I do that. --GRuban (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks,  Done LeadSongDog come howl! 01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Masking one's identity in a way that only wiki-savvy editors can see through

    Please review these diffs, in which an established editor uses the "pipe trick" to mask identity on AfD page, but not in edit summary. This is misleading, at best. I seek admin assistance if it also violates policy. [64], [65], [66], [67].

    I'm fairly wiki-savvy, but had no idea a frequent longevity editor was signing posts on this AfD in a way that masked his identity until I read this. It sure tests my assumption of good faith. Does it violates policy as well? If so, might an admin have a word or two with the editor? David in DC (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of people don't use their actual username as their signature. WP:SIGN#Customizing your signature. Does the user consistently sign the same way, or are they signing in a way to make it look like they are more than one person in the discussion? --Onorem♠Dil 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What level of "savviness" does one need in order to be able to click on a link? My goodness. As long as there is a link to the person's actual user account in their sign somewhere, everything else is fine. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very poor practice to use a signature which is not at least derived from or obviously connected to one's actual username (as elaborated at Wikipedia:Signatures#Dealing with signatures' behaviour issues) but not strictly forbidden. A 'level of savviness' is required to know that clicking on (or hovering over) a link might be necessary to confirm a user's identity; even if an editor knows about and understands piped links, it's not reasonable to assume that every other editor's signature needs to be checked.
    A user who wants to sign under a completely different name should employ the Wikipedia:Changing username process to avoid confusion as a matter of simple courtesy. In this case, the username Makila is not registered, so it would be a simple matter to rename the account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew about this rule against pipelinking usernames. --Jimbo Wales (talk)
    Neither did I. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the name of another editor isn't the same as masking your own. These, especially the second, wouldn't work with the current guidelines. (Just for clarity. I'm sure the pair of Jimbo jokers here were just being clever...) --Onorem♠Dil 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course! But, if impersonation isn't permissible, I wonder what ever will we do? :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    To me someone should really use their own username however i cant say any case to answer here he hasnt tried to mislead during the AFD as has used the same signature on all posts. I may not like it but he as far as i can tell hasn't done anything wrong. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Take up another hobby. The main issue was he misleading the AFD i don't think he or she was. Its not impersonating someone else either. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. There's at least on administrator who does this "pipe trick" to sign as Fut.Perf. instead of his longer user name. I don't see anything wrong with that as long the signature cannot be confused with that of another user. User:petervermaelen signs as Makila (there's no User:Makila), which is surely less ambiguous than say User:Objectivist signing just as "V" (there is a User:V). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:petervermaelen is a name well-recognized among longevity editors. Makila is not. If it's ok to hide who you are, requiring any participant in an AfD to check if the visible signature of every contributor is that of a set of fresh eyes rather than a long-time editor whose general editing philosophy is known to other editors, so be it. Thanks for the serious consideration you've provided and the conclusion you've reached. I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused 23:09, 18 October 2011 (EST)

    Men's rights

    Some time ago, I noticed that Men's rights seemed to be doing an exceptionally poor job at following content policies - especially WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. The article in the state before (diff) I started editing it had amazing problems. As a brief examples, from the lede: "The term men's rights refers to freedoms and rights of boys and men. This term is specifically related to focusing on rights which are protected for girls and women of all ages, yet inadequately protected for boys and men of all ages" - an unsourced ridiculously POV statement. There was tons of other silliness further in the article. I started cleaning it up, and discussed the majority of things that I removed on the talk page. I also put up a list of the criteria that I was using to remove sections just to try to be absolutely clear about why I thought the removals were necessary. My initial edits did end up removing most of the content in the article, because most of the content in the article completely failed to follow even our most basic sourcing policies. I didn't add much content after this set of removals because I didn't have enough time to rewrite the article from scratch - acceptable quality sources are remarkably hard to find.

    Most of the positions initially espoused in the article were from 'men's rights activists.' I'm not going to try to sum up their world view, but a quick google is informative. A few days ago, a large number of MRA websites noticed that men's rights had been changed, and have started a bunch of external threads about the issue, and about me and other contributors. User:SarahStierch posted a list of some of these external posts at User_talk:Steven_Zhang - instead of trying to recompile them, I'm just going to directly steal her list.

    Here's an example of the tone of offsite discussions about this:

    "Let’s show hippy boy what the real world is like. Perhaps we should tell everyone at UC Berkeley what a rotten person Kevin Gorman is. How he raped men’s rights. How about a few “castrate Kevin Gorman” signs posted all over the place. Maybe we can get some of the faculty to denounce Kevin Gorman and hound him until he has no space to escape from what he has done. Let’s go for blood."

    The external threads have attacked many editors in ridiculous ways, and have brought a huge number of meatpuppets to the article. (They've also branched in to off-wiki harassment, spamming the hell out of a couple email addresses they could find of people they thought were connected to me.) The flood of meatpuppets have not been familiar with our policies, and have generally proven unwilling to follow our policies when made aware of them. Jayhammers (currently blocked for two weeks) was blocked for violating NPA for this and a couple other things. A huge number of other meatpuppets at Talk:Men's rights have failed to respect AGF, to the point of being unwilling to discuss content issues and continually trying to hijack discussions of content issues with allegations of my motives, even after being asked to stop repeatedly (including being asked to stop by uninvolved administrators.)

    There have also been reoccurring complaints from the meatflood about a lot of ENWP's most basic policies, especially WP:RS and WP:NOR. The new editors drawn to this issue have generally not understood (or been willing to understand) that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, published sources, and that we should try to represent views in a way that is roughly proportionate to the proportion of people who hold those views in reliable sources. Most of the flood of new editors don't understand why men's rights cannot simply reflect the views of men's rights activists, and have not been willing to engage in civil discussions or in discussions based on our content policies and guidelines. A lot of them have explicitly said that any sources that are not pro-MRA (by which they mean any academic sources at all) are not acceptable in their eyes. (I haven't tried to keep the article in the trimmed state, and I do know that the state of the article when the offsite canvassing started was pretty bad - I am/would be happy to see it improved, I just don't think WP:RS/WP:NOR are negotiable policies.)

    There have been some previous discussions about this on several administrative places so far - there was a Request for mediation opened by now blocked User:Jayhammers that was denied for fairly obvious reasons. There was a thread on DRN opened by User:Hermiod earlier, which has since been closed as an inappropriate venue. After the DRN thread was closed, Hermiod opened a Wikiquette alert, which is currently open.

    Given the level of meatpuppetry and offsite harassment this has generated, it needs more outside eyes - it's gotten to a point where it's pretty clearly no longer resolvable by the participants currently involved. I have not tried to include a complete summary of the behavioral issues involved in this post, just because it would take me eons to compile. Most of the problems are fairly obvious from the talk page of the article and from the other links and diffs I have already included, but I'd be happy to provide specific diffs for any issues.

    I will start notifying involved editors as soon as I submit this. Since there are so many involved editors, I am not confident that I shall notify everyone required - please feel free to notify anyone that I miss. (Also, there were a couple editors (like User:TickTock2) who showed up earlier on who made an active effort to discuss things civilly - I don't at all mean to include them in my complaints about the behavior of new editors in general.) Kevin (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have now notified all of the most directly involved editors. Kevin (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to do with the above men's rights groups or Reddit and I do not appreciate the connection. If the above threats against you are true then I can only offer my sympathy, but I did not and do not engage in such disgusting behaviour. Whatever dispute you and I may have, the things that have been said about you there are unacceptable. I have tried and continue to try to improve Men's Rights as an article and have seen your behaviour as obstructive to that. I tried to engage with you in a friendly manner and was met with more stick waving. Hermiod (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can generally support kgorman's summary of this situation; I've been putting out small fires in this topic area with my admin hat on all week, and it's simply beyond one admin's ability to control at this point, with too many people involved and too many accusations being flung. Offsite harassment is occurring, both on the reddit threads kgorman notes above and in real life, with the place of employment of at least one "anti-men's rights"-labelled article editor having been contacted. It's clear that the men's rights advocates genuinely believe they're being victimised and shunted aside, but it's also clear, at least to me, that there is a distinct lack among them of willingness to read or understand Wikipedia policies. Editors who object to following WP:RS and similar are going to find themselves running into a brick wall very quickly, and without the ability to back up and understand the policies, they'll never quite understand why that wall suddenly appeared "out of nowhere". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I do not appreciate this continuing link between a relatively minor dispute between myself and kgorman and the threats made against him. I have read all of the relevant policies and I understand them. There are parts I disagree with but that is not the discussion here. Hermiod (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hermiod, you're assuming that you're the only one involved here besides Kgorman. There's a number of editors on both sides of the issue here, not just you. Alexandria (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been involved with the article in question and the discussion of it for the past several days, whatever edit warring that has taken place that has caused the article to be locked has stopped. I have been trying to contribute to the article in a positive manner, as have several others. Locking it was completely unnecessary and will only serve to drive good users away. I raised a specific, but relatively minor issue between myself and Kgorman as a request for informal moderation earlier today. It was not an attempt to cause this article to be locked. Hermiod (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad it was locked, though I doubt it will change the tense situation on the talk page. If it drives away good editors that are causing problems, so be it. Or perhaps they will move on to edit other articles about subjects they are interested in. The issues between you and Kgorman have moved beyond just the two of you, it's Wikipedia, there is a community involved. And to say that WP policies are irrelevant is not very helpful to the situation at all. They are being reiterated by Kgorman, Fluffer, Kaldari, myself, and others because people aren't listening. That is a problem. SarahStierch (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say ALL WP policies are irrelevant or that I disagreed with the policies quoted, only that the specific policies quoted were not relevant to the edits being made. Hermiod (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've upped protection on the article to full for one week. Hopefully that'll stop a lot of the disruption and give everyone time to go over the sources to be had on this topic and find a way to deal with them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have added a request for unprotection. I don't expect it to be approved but it had to be done. Hermiod (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did it have to be done? I'd say that's an admission of a pointy behaviour. --Slp1 (talk)
    It had to be done because the lock was unnecessary. If anything, locking it is as pointy as anything else. Hermiod (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note on the talk page[68] but I'll just add here that the approach which is being taken to editing that article is exactly backwards, and cannot possibly result in an article which meets our standards and policies. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks that way to me. I said something more about it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied to both of you separately. As I've said, the list I posted was a list of suggestions, not an outline, which I explicitly asked people to contribute to with the intention of discussion what does and does not need to go in to the article before people go in and start adding it. As you've both pointed out, I didn't make enough of a point about requiring sources so I've corrected that and your points about writing a list of opinions and then citing sources that support those opinions is well taken. Hermiod (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On a topic like this, one will tend to find lots of more or less reliable sources which don't agree. Echoing this is a pith of writing a neutral article. There's a mossy old saying here, that if a reader can't tell one's outlook on a topic by how they've written and sourced it, encyclopedic neutrality isn't far off. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I surely hope the article doesn't get unlocked - I feel it's a lost cause to hope contributors on this article will hash out their issues. Like KC said, there is a really bizarre method of editing going on here and things were rather peaceful until recently - it takes time to develop a quality article, regardless of what side you lie on, and this frantic madness that has happened with meatpuppets and old editors coming out of the woodwork who didn't seem to care until now is just strange, and overwhelms the original goals of editors involved over the past two months. SarahStierch (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I see this as a threath, both to a User and Wikipedia itself. Action must be taken to prevent harm and kee Wikipedia peaceful. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I'd agree also with Kevin's summary. I am utterly appalled by the external (and internal) attacks on him. Though not altogether surprised given past experience with men's rights activists on WP such as Rich Zubaty and friends, and User:Davidrusher. I really am sorry, Kevin. It's as clear reason as they come for why many of us hide behind pseudonyms, and why even then, many are reluctant to try and edit these articles. I think the full protection will help, as it will allow editors to discuss issues like appropriate sourcing and avoiding original research. --Slp1 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully, some positive contributions will be made here in the meantime, then, but please do not tar everyone with an interest with the same brush. Hermiod (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 It broke my heart to see Kevin, and then the campus ambassadors (at my alma mater!) being "dragged" through the mud. SarahStierch (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wanted to sound off here, even though my view point may not be completely necessary; I've worked with some of the editors (such as Kevin and LikaTika) for the past month (or two), I admit keeping this article NPOV has been challenging, as some of the additions (and removals) are very POV sensitive. I criticized some of the approach (such as UNDUE on women's issues), and was working to expand and move it towards the right direction, and I believe that we were working towards a good goal. This rash of new editors however has not been positive (in as afar as advancing the article) and some of them have not appears to be working in good faith, I hope my mind will be changed in that matter, but right now it's decisively so. If what Kevin is saying is true, then I find this even more so unsettling and corrective action is necessary (what that is I'm unsure of). My thoughts are with him to hope it doesn't impact his life anymore. TickTock2 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • <ec>Looking over the talk page, I've got to say that Kevin has made some statements and edits that I find very disappointing. The article is certainly a mess and could really use a lot of help. But removing a section because the source didn't specifically mention men's rights [69] is taking WP:SYNTH too far. If a source claims there is a disparity without claiming the disparity is related to "men's rights" that doesn't mean we can't address the disparity an article on "men's rights".
    On the other side I agree there is very (very) little academically on this topic that doesn't come from a "negative" viewpoint. But that's the way it goes. Those arguing to create an article on the basis of blog posts need to really understand WP:RS and "verifiable not truth" (yes, I know that might be going away, here's a good case for why it's important!). But reliable sources shouldn't be tossed out just because one editor believes them to be a synth problem, even if (especially if?) that editor is an intern at Wikipedia... Hobit (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't so much WP:Synth as WP:OR. The meatpuppets have been trying to frame all kinds of disparities Disparities in life expectancy, disparities in conviction rates, disparities in parental leave, disparities in college graduation rates etc. as discrimination against men without support from sources. If a source doesn't say that A is caused by B and an editor claims a -> B based on the source then he is engaging in WP:OR and misrepresenting the source. Kevin was justified to delete that section. I admire him for staying so polite and calm when Hermiod has been speculating about his motives. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning here was pretty much the same as Sonic's. Although the sources confirmed that a difference did exist, and did speculate on its origins a little bit, none of them made anything approaching a definitive statement w/r/t what they thought the cause was. Absolutely none of the sources in that article at the time suggested that the disparities were a civil rights issue. Using sources to advance a POV that is not present in those sources is OR/synthesis, even if the sources are reliable. If this article was about 'differences between men and women that have been documented in reliable sources' then it wouldn't have been original research, but including such a thing in an article on "men's rights" implies strongly that the disparity is a rights issue - and none of the sources contained that POV. Kevin (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whereas I am expected to keep quiet when people like you accuse me of all sorts. You've linked me without any hint of proof to those making threats against people I'd never even heard of before yesterday. I've had an account here for years and made a considerable number of small but positive edits. The behaviour of some experienced Wikipedia users here has been nothing short of shameful. At not one point has anything I or several others have tried to contribute been treated with the same assumption of good faith that we are expected to show. Let there be no doubt about this, if there is an edit war here it is one manufactured by a few users who have not acted in good faith in any way.Hermiod (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really on topic for here, but I'd agree with Kevin that original research and synth is a major problem, and one that needs to be nipped in the bud. One way of narrowing the problem is to insist that sources identify this as a men's rights issue to provide some context. Example at hand: this edit whose sources don't mention men's rights but cherry picks one statistic from a long list in the "opposite" direction in order to make an obvious point. Adding random points from different articles, not one of which mentions men's rights, just not the way to create an article and is clearly synthesizing to make a point. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, if you are questioning the validity of a BBC News - possibly the most trusted news agency in the world - article about the exact subject at hand then I cannot see any point in discussing this with you further. I suggest deleting all mention of men's rights from Wikipedia entirely if that is the standard for sources because no source will ever be good enough.Hermiod (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am one of the editors who has edited men's rights a couple of times. I got involved because I noticed that claims were being made that were not supported by the sources [70]. Biggest problem in my opinion: Sources are added in the hopes that editors won't check them and see that they don't support the claims. Despite the fact that I haven't really been involved, I was mentioned on one of those men's rights blogs (they think that I am a wicked Marxist or something). I am at a point where I refuse to edit articles that have anything to do with men's rights because I don't want one of those dudes showing up on my doorstep. Harassing editors until they quit is exactly what they want so unfortunately, in my case, mission accomplished. This is the second big canvassing incident from men's rights activists that I witnessed since I returned in March/April this year. The first incident was a post on antimisandry.com which urged "masculinist soldiers" to "improve" the article feminism. The incident resulted in User:Zimbazumba's ban. He also continued to swear up and down that he had nothing to do with that "disgusting" site. Judging by the comments, those men's rights guys plan to take down Wikipedia by destroying its credibility or something... I am convinced that the problems could be avoided if the community were not so apathetic when it comes to gender related articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to avoiceformen.com, they are going to boycott our advertizers :P Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And that just about says it all, doesn't it? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just skimming that article. I've never seen such whining. What advertisers are they going to boycott? The lingerie department? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevance? 20:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermiod (talk • contribs)
    The article? It has no relevance... as noted by Gabriel, below. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the casual mockery of the subject. It's irrelevant. Hermiod (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is garbage. Is that non-casual enough for ya? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ladies and gentlemen, good faith editing at its finest. Hermiod (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reading through this article for the first time and I'm concerned that the scope and focus of the article is just too vague to be viable on wikipedia. There's stuff here about ancient greece and Pakistan and divorce in the US and its very unclear what the common theme is beyond "Disparities in the treatment of men and women by law and institutions across history and cultures". Are there sources which connect, say, church policies to only ordain men with the percentage of men who file for divorce in the US with the military obligations of men in Ancient Greece under the framework of men's rights? If not, than I think throwing all that stuff into the same "men's rights" article is original research. My recommendation here would be focus on the platform of this men's rights movement (whatever it is) and to provide as much context for each specific issue as possible. If there isn't a source connecting an issue to the topic of "men's rights" than get it out of the article. GabrielF (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a fan of the term "hot mess". SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is a horrible mish-mash of vaguely related and often badly sourced items, which might as well just be called List of perceived inequalities between men and women that favour women. Even just glancing through it, some things stood out - the "Cancer" section points out that funding for breast cancer research is higher than that for prostate cancer, yet doesn't point out one major reason for that which is actually noted in the source used - that breast cancer mortality rates are significantly higher. And the "prison rape" section is ... well, words fail me on that bit. Most of the parts that are relevant - i.e. parental access - have their own articles anyway. This needs a serious pruning and a consensus on what it is trying to be (i.e. scope). At the moment it's a mess of POV and OR, with a dash of synthesis. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to let everyone know ArbCom were already informed of all this on Sunday night (UTC) but I would suggest Kevin to forward this and anything else to ArbCom it's their area of expertise and competence--Cailil talk 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for the length (Kratch)...I would like to start by saying; I do not condone the articles attacking Kevin, and find that kind of activity appalling. I have used the monicers Kratch [71] and mneilgri[72] for quite some time, and I am very confident you will find activity of nether on any of reddit, AVfM or spearhead page, for precisely this reason (I even earned a "f### off" and "get the f### off my website" from Paul Elam himself, for deploring this very kind of behaviour (on his old site)). Additionally, while I have no compunction of calling your behaviour for what I see it as, biased, I do not believe I have made any belligerent attacks, nor engaged in any actual threats (If I have, I apologize).I say all this in hopes that you will understand I had no part to play in any of that. That said, I don't appreciate being called a meatpuppet.

    I have serious concerns about the degree of application of policy expressed on the article, using it as a bludgeon, as hobit, above, pointed out, but also on the selectiveness. That particular example is of particular concern for a number of reasons. In particular, I posted content to the discussion page prior to posting it to the article, and the content that was "specifically" given feedback on was removed from what I posted to the article. Several editors (including myself) then proceeded to edit it, discussing and compromising to try to improve the content (thank you SarahStierach, by the way, for your help with grammar). But that content was then deleted, entirely, out of hand, without any prior discussion on why there was a belief it should be deleted, other than the incredibly vague notion that everything was a violation of some sort. Worst was his deleting of all the content, and then, in the discussion, stating he "accidentally" deleted one of the paragraphs but will "find" a reason it should stay deleted. This unwillingness to work collaboratively, and outright deletion on content based solely on a single persons interpretation of policy, leads one to concerns of ownership of articles [73]. This over application of policy is further concerning when given the utter lack of application of the same policy to alternative views (such as Pakastan [74], where it must be asked, if the content I added failed to meet criteria because it didn't specifically refer to men's rights, how can "Prior to the passage of the Women's Protection Bill in 2006, men could not be accused of the rape of a woman unless she had four male witnesses." then pass that same criteria?). This has resulted in the article putting undue weight on men as beneficiaries of rights, particularly over women (as was brought up in the article, and is thereby, an issue of NPOV), so the repeated deletion of content showing an opposing viewpoint (IE, men not benefiting or losing rights), can be considered information suppression [75].

    As to the page move, I have to disagree with Hermiod, I think a page move is the correct response, or more appropriately, “was” the correct response to the article a couple months ago. It is my belief that the page as it was, was based on an interpretation of Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), but was held to NPOV standards based on the definition Men’s rights (Civil Liberties). A reading of the article as it was a couple months ago, would see the intention was an article of the Men’s Rights (Civil Movement), and a simple renaming would likely have resulted in many of the NPOV complaints becoming minor or non-existence, and not delete-worthy. So deletion of that article based on an unflinching dedication to an alternate definition, without significant or open-minded discussion, to me, raises concerns of an attempt to skirt Article for Deletion policy [76]

    All this is exasperated by the fact Kevin has prominently displayed his internship on his talk page. Whether he intends it or not, this grants him some degree of authority, as it is unlikely that another Wiki Employee will openly condemn his behaviour (even if reprimanding him behind the scenes), and granting weight to those who support his actions (if he can do it without consequences (that we see), then others think the behaviour is acceptable, including those he’s violating against). Furthermore, as an employee (paid or unpaid, an intern is still an employee), his actions reflect poorly on, if not representative of, the Wikimedia Foundation. This reflection tends to carry through attitudes towards and expectations of other employees (deserved or otherwise), and often results in unhelpful escalation of hostilities as people feel more and more wiki employees are working against them. --Kratch (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not think that engaging with you further in this thread is potentially constructive, so this will be my last post responding to you on ANI. (I will be happy to engage with you on content issues on the talk page for men's rights, assuming you are willing to do so in a more productive fashion than you have so far been.)
    Although you accuse me of using policy as a hammer, it is informative that you have never attempted to explain why anything you have posted has not violated the policies that I have pointed towards. You suggest that a simple renaming of the page would have eliminated NPOV concerns, but even though the concerns with the original version were extensively discussed on the talk page of the article, you did not join those discussions even after you arrived, and have never attempted to explain why a move would alleviate all of the concerns that were explicitly discussed by me and a handful of other editors on the talk page. Instead you have continually resorted to questioning the motives of editors even after being asked to cease by me as well as uninvolved administrators. In one recent section where I explained to you why I thought your edits were not appropriate for Wikipedia, your reply included this set of sentences: "And you honestly expect to be taken seriously as an editor, particularly a "neutral" one? You are an intern. I would be interested in knowing who you report to, in order to get their opinion on your conduct with regards to this article" and absolutely no explanation of why I was wrong. (And although you talk about a 'single person's interpretation of policy,' multiple other editors on the talk page agreed with me, and no one who disagreed was able to frame an argument as to why I was wrong that actually dealt with policy.)
    I did not call you a meatpuppet - my initial post did not in fact mention you. Take a look at WP:Meatpuppet: "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage." A large number of new users have started to edit this set of articles in order to advocate for a specific POV in response to offsite canvassing: saying that this article has attracted an influx of meatpuppets is descriptive and accurate. Kevin (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't responded because I have been reading policy, trying to understand it as best I can. It's difficult to debate policy with someone who uses it adeptly as both shield and weapon when you are unfamiliar with it. I find it a little disturbing that you would try an hide behind "you're not using policy well enough to defend against my clear understand of it's intricacies" against someone, you refer to by a name that clearly defines them as new, sounds like bullying to me. As to meatpuppet, I apologize, I did not realize it was a wiki term. That said, I might suggest wiki change that name, as referring to someone who is, by definition, new (and thus, not familiar with the term) a "puppet", you are not helping resolve the situation any better.--Kratch (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Kratch (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account just over a week old, is making statements about Kgorman-ucb being a WMF intern. Why would a newly arrived editor mention that or think it has any significance? From what I understand from the comments above, similar statements have been made on external activist websites. On wikipedia statements of that kind are unusual and uncommon, especially from newly arrived editors. Perhaps Kratch could give some kind of explanation why he decided this point has any relevance; in his last paragraph above ("All this is exasperated by the fact ..."), he has constructed a conspiracy theory around it that is not very different to what has been posted on external activist websites. Mathsci (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the last paragraph of my larger comment, I've already largely answered your question. My stressing his intern status, rather than full employment, was an attempt to point out his authority as a wiki employee was limited at best. It should also be noted, the users talk page has the fact he works for Wikimedia as an intern prominently displayed as the entirety of his third paragraph. It's not exactly a difficult attribute to miss. As to my "conspiracy theory", I just described human nature. After all, aren't you doing the same by attempting to link me to one of the external articles? --Kratch (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The template {{edit conflict}} and the quote make it clear that I was commenting on the extraordinary bad faith last paragraph in your first post. You do seem to be repeating opinions expressed on external activist websites. What is on Kgorman-ucb's user page is not unusual and it is not in any way prominent. Here, just to avoid further confusion, is the bizarre conspiracy theory of your third paragraph:
    All this is exasperated by the fact Kevin has prominently displayed his internship on his talk page. Whether he intends it or not, this grants him some degree of authority, as it is unlikely that another Wiki Employee will openly condemn his behaviour (even if reprimanding him behind the scenes), and granting weight to those who support his actions (if he can do it without consequences (that we see), then others think the behaviour is acceptable, including those he’s violating against). Furthermore, as an employee (paid or unpaid, an intern is still an employee), his actions reflect poorly on, if not representative of, the Wikimedia Foundation. This reflection tends to carry through attitudes towards and expectations of other employees (deserved or otherwise), and often results in unhelpful escalation of hostilities as people feel more and more wiki employees are working against them.
    An arbitrator (Elen of the Roads) has already commented on current editing. I would not be surprised if this ends up as an ArbCom case. You haven't yet given a plausible explanation for your third paragraph within wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should read WP:DUCK, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I would also, unfortunately, not be surprised if this ends up at arbcom, I do hope that can be avoided still. I think/hope that the additional eyes this thread has brought to the situation will be helpful in creating a better situation moving forward. If nothing else, the eyes of more uninvolved administrators on behavioral issues means that certain issues may be able to be minimized using normal disciplinary action. (Although Cailil attracted some incredible offsite vitriol for suggesting the possibility of administrative action, so I would advise people to stay clear if they are in a situation where that kind of thing would be a significant problem.) Kevin (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a comment: I'm familiar with the general area of this material, and I'll see if I can do anything productive with what's there, but as a point of fact most of this article (as given) is pure OR. The only valid material I know of on Men's Rights are (a) some feminist authors who tried to craft gender-balanced theories, (2) some writers from the 'fire-in-the-belly' men's movements of the late 80's and 90's and (3) few legal tangles in various locales, mostly with respect to men's reproductive rights (vs. abortion, alimony, child custody, and etc.) The bulk of the material on that page looks to be random social/cultural happenings that have been labeled after-the-fact as men's rights issues, and in fact many of the points are clearly women's rights issues that have been presented in an oddly inverted manner (e.g. the rape law and military service sections). once that chaff is sifted out, I don't think there's going to be enough grain there to make a loaf of bread, if you follow me. It might just be easiest to mark it for deletion and dole out the few useful points to other articles where they make more sense. --Ludwigs2 03:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludwigs's comment is an example of exactly why this dispute has come about. Anyone who feels that the only men's rights issues such as conscription and unjust rape laws are in fact "clearly women's rights issues" is not fit to be editing a page on men's rights. Perhaps the people here don't understand - the reason there is such a backlash is because people believe, with good reason, that the article is under attack by those who are opposed to it. My god man, you sit there and say with a straight face that men's rights material is limited to "a few feminist authors" while ignoring the fact that whole BOOKS have been written about men's rights issues? Just to name two: Myth of Male Power (Warren Farrell), "War Against Boys" (Christina Hoff Sommers). Celdaz (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Celdaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    You last edited in April, yet magically turned up here today. Did you enjoy your summer away from editing? As regards "men's rights", you could maybe take some solace in the fact that men still hold a near-monopoly on declaring wars against other nations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak from a general academic perspective, and in the academy 'men's rights' is currently a non-issue. The only time it comes up is in discussions about backlashes against minority entitlements (in that peculiar antidisestablimentarian sense) and that's more commonly a race issue than a gender issue. There are vocal groups in the population who are advocating for this, and undoubtably they write books, but there's nothing that I can think of - as of yet - in the way of scholarly secondary sources. Of course, primary sources have their place, and social movements do need to be covered…
    However, that's neither here nor there. Even if there were scholarly texts on this subject, they would only cover modern social movements and activities. The hodgepodge of material on that page is clearly elements of identity-ideology. I mean seriously: paternalism in ancient societies is utterly unrelated to men's rights (with a few exceptions, men were the only people who had rights up until the Enlightenment), and cultural differences in sex roles are a wide, wide tangent to the topic. If you can source them they could be presented as part of the belief structure of the men's rights movement - that would be fine - but presenting them as they are as examples of men's rights is neither sensible nor sourceable. How could the ancient Greeks have had a concept of men's rights when anyone who wasn't a man had no public rights whatsoever? Men must have a sense of being a disempowered group before it becomes meaningful to talk about them demanding their rights.
    But this is not the place to discuss content; I'll bring this up on the talk page if it seems useful and pertinent. I just wanted it said that there's not a lot of meat to the topic that I can see, but I'm willing to keep an open mind until I've looked more closely. --Ludwigs2 07:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've worked with/against editors concerned with men's rights before (parental alienation, parental alienation syndrome, fathers' rights movement, Canadian Children's Rights Council) and they tend to be among the more maddening and aggressive ones to work with. None of the responses from the "pro-MRM" side in this thread suprise me. A common sense solution to the meatpuppeting, aggressive attacks and sourcing/OR issues is necessary. Experienced editors who need to trim out the syntheses need support. The fact that there is minimal scholarly research and support means that judicious use of a small number of less respectable sources could be attributed and used, but there's no excuse for the mash of original research that currently exists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Community topic probation

    Given the seriousness of the behavioural problems in this area on-site, the long standing calls for meat-puppetry (as illustarted above by SLP1), the offsite campaign (with its rash of new single purpose accounts being used to push content as well as to harass editors), and the possibility of spill over into other related articles, would the community consider imposing a 'community topic probation' on the Men's rights area? I would suggest imposing this especially in regard to WP:NOR, WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EDITWAR (& WP:TAGTEAM).
    The Arbcom will have to deal with the offsite stuff but if the community imposes this kind of measure uninvolved sysops could handle the problematic behaviour on-site--Cailil talk 14:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support It does appear necessary. The off-site and on-site harassment in this topic area is just appalling. Putting sanctions on the topic should, hopefully, stop the rash of editors from adding random nonsense to it (or, at least, make it easier to identify sockpuppets that are re-adding material in). SilverserenC 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    Resolved
     – blocked by Tiptoey. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CU confirmed sock of banned user:Iaaasi editing currently as user:Dotonj [77]. Confirmed by CheckUser here [78]. Thanks in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance needed in off-and-ongoing revert/edit war

    Hello all, I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with an on-and-off-and-on again edit war taking place here.[79] The participants are:


    I have been trying to mediate some form of collaborative editing once Penom requested my assistance on my talk page.[80] What I found was an edit/revert war, which I managed to temporarily stop.

    One of the first things I did on entering the fray was ask both editors to stop and come discuss things before continuing the edit war. I made the request more than once[81][82][83][84] and indicated it should be considered a polite warning. When the edit/revert war did not stop[85], I templated both editors for both infractions.[86][87][88][89]

    Last night till a few minutes ago, I've been busy with work and not been able to try to mediate and moderate things there. During that short time, another edit/revert war has taken place.[90] - I've got two more pretty busy days ahead...

    At this time, I suspect I (the three of us) definitely need some outside assistance. In an effort to try to get and keep things on track, I've let slide (without a 3rr noticeboard posting) two edit wars/3rr violations. Thus, I'm hoping either someone more convincing on how important it is not to engage in constant edit and revert wars can step in, or perhaps (as I suggested on the article's talk page[91]), the two of them need a 2-3 day break? Looking forward to whatever assistance any of you can provide or deem necessary.

    (Notification diffs on next edit)

    Thanks for any assistance, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Penom notified here[92]
    • Wiqi55 notified here[93]
    Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Note 01: Wiqi55 was reported for edit warring here[94] on the 16th, but it does not seem the report was reviewed or acted upon. Additionally, by the time I got involved both Wiqi55 and Penom had exceeded 3RR.
    • Additional Note 02: WP:SYNTH complaints, POV complaints, OWN complaints and similar have been flying around on the article's talkpage discussion (part of what I have been trying to mediate, with, in my opinion, some legitimacy to the complaints on both sides, more largely Wiqi55, as [User:Wayiran] (notified[95]) noted in his 3RR report.
    Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Penom's statement

    ِ Dear admins, I am really embarrassed for my yesterday edit warring But I want to have some explanations for incident--Penom (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I have tried all ways that I knew to stop the editor from edit warring. Trying to discuss the issue[96],[97],[98]

    , reporting 2 times for 3rr, asking a third person to comment. I really apologize for yesterday. I have been editing wikipedia in other projects and languages for 2 years. Yesterday was my worst day and the most frustrating nigh of editingPenom (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me explain the incident:
    • On October 11th he reverted 5 times on the article. (1) I reported him for 3rr but no serious action from admins
    • Again he broke 3rr and reported by user:Wauiran ([99]) But again no answer by admins
    • These incident make me really disappointed. I asked Robert to mediate and help me to resolve the issue. Both agreed not to start edit warring and making major changes on article without discussion and before asking Robert's opinion.
    • Yesterday, again he started edit warring. Without any discussion, without asking Robert's opinion. He reverts in a very disruptive way. To mislead admins he put amessage and in a second he reverts.
    If my edits were inappropriate is because of my frustration. When 2times he broke 3rr and noboday cared, I did not find anyother way to stop the user from making the article Islamic POV.
    I really feels lonely and frustrated on that article. Two times report of 3rr for that user, without any serious reactions of admins. Several cases that I tried to open discussion without any participation from the user[100],[101],[102] really frustrated me. He insisted to push his Islamic POV on article. He did not let me and others to edit on that article. Penom (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of action or lack thereof by an administrator, this,[103] which I posted on 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC) should have been heeded. By both of you. That wasn't an opinion on my part. It was an explanation of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Also, as I noted multiple times (starting with my very first post on this matter) other alternatives to resolving things were available -including both of you simply waiting a half day or day for me to have the time to jump back in to things, or getting someone else to help out while I was busy. If I hadn't explained all of this multiple times... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I have had this page on my watch-list for a while. In my humble opinion, the main source of friction is User:Wiqi55's sense of entitlement and ownership when it comes to this topic and other similar topics dealing with Islamic history. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    • I believe there were other such instances on other articles as well. Sadly, it doesn't absolve either of them of violating 3RR and WAR. What made it worse was that it was explained multiple times, and I'd decided not to request preventative action to stop it - and it began again anyway. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert. As I said, I am embarrassed about what happen, I really felt helpless. Regardless of my case, Islamic articles in English Wikipedia need serious attention of admins. They are systematically biased. Majority of editors are apologist Muslims. There is no problem in that. But, these majority systematically make Islamic articles biased. They try to push traditional Islamic view, They are cherry picking from sources to push their POV, undermine secular views, several cases of pushing anti-Judaism views are the result of this majority apologist editors. No admin intervene in Islamic articles and users like me who tries to add academic and historical views to articles. People like me get frustrated and feel helpless when every day has to deal with these majority editors who usually feel ownership to Islamic articles. --Penom (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias and POV in an article get dealt with by editors (admin or otherwise). Repeated bias insertions by an editor gets dealt with by administrators - usually through raising the issue at AN/I. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiqi55 statement

    I have only watched this article recently while cleaning another article (ghulat). I have decided to clean and improve the content of this article (mostly introducing a less POVish lead, a "Further reading" section, verifying sources, etc). I've been doing this for many articles on Islamic history figures. I noticed that penom (talk · contribs), who appears to be a single purpose account, has been making edits to the article. I noticed also that he was deleting whole paragraphs using misleading edit summaries, for example.[104] I consider blanking complete paragraphs using misleading edit summaries to be one form of vandalism. Thus I reverted user Penom until the page was protected. I later asked him to slow down a bit, not delete well-cited paragraphs, and use descriptive edit summaries. He accused me of WP:OWN and threatened that "one more edit I bring the attention of admins to article". RobertMfromLI then showed up. I had honestly thought user RobertMfromLI was an admin (only now I have checked and he doesn't seem to be one). Thus I have explained the situation to him as soon as he showed up.[105] I would have definitely reported user Penom to admins had I known that RobertMfromLI wasn't one. User Penom continued to remove and to make significant number of changes to the article using misleading edit summaries (mostly claiming that nothing has changed, "I did not remove any claims etc"). He does not participate in a discussion unless he was reverted. Penom also introduced a set of headers that misrepresented the content of sections of the article. My understanding is that a single-purpose account using misleading edit summaries, blanking whole paragraphs, refusing to come to talk, etc, should have been sanctioned and reverted immediately. I wish that RobertMfromLI would have explained that he was not an admin. I have reverted user Penom edits (the ones that used misleading edit summaries or misrepresented the content of sources). I did not revert any of his other changes. Wiqi(55) 01:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quick tip 1: Mouse over a name. You'll see that person's user rights.
    • Quick tip 2: Any editor can mediate in almost any dispute - especially content disputes.
    • Quick tip 3: Admins do not contribute and mediate content disputes as administrators - they mediate as contributors/editors. And once doing so, they are forbidden from acting as an admin except in the case of the most egregious rule and policy violations (and even then, most will seek an uninvolved admin to assist instead of them acting). Or, unless such mediation is a part of an AN/I "verdict" or ArbCom sanction. Otherwise an admin is forbidden from acting as an admin once involved in an issue. So, even if I was an admin, as I have edited the article to help you two along, and I have helped with content contribution on the article's talk page, I still could not do anything administrative.
    To summarize, one does not seek an admin to help with content issues. One seeks an editor (regardless of whether they are an admin or not). Perhaps I am wrong in this part, but I think you both lucked out that Penom chose me to be that person. I suspect many an admin would have stopped the ongoing edit war I walked into by giving both of you a vacation.
    Now, to the point at hand. You have not explained why edit warring and revert wars is ok - and I already have explained (admin or not) why none of your previous justifications is valid. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick Tip 1 didn't work for me (Firefox 7 on Gnu/Linux). Didn't know about 2 and 3. Thanks. As I have explained to you, my knowledge in dispute resolution is very limited since I have hardly been in one. However, I did not consider most of my reverts to be part of a content dispute for two reasons. First, deleting/changing well-cited paragraphs using misleading edit summaries is inline with Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. Second, I had thought you were an admin (this is indeed my fault and I'm terribly sorry for that), and during my reverts I was in a discussion with you and you did not object to my reverts. I thought that there was nothing wrong with what I did (policy-wise). I even wondered in the talk page many times why you didn't interfere while Penom was blanking/changing content using misleading edit summaries. Wiqi(55) 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On Tip #1, it might be a setting, but it's a long time since I set up my profile.
    As for me not interfering when either of you did such, you might remember, I actually made quite a few comments about such. I could have requested admin action then, but wanted to give you two a chance to work it out. As for the times I didn't jump in, it's probably because I was offline. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tip #1 is provided by navigation popups, which can be enabled via the gadgets page in user preferences. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be honest about the blanking. Both of you have removed each other's content (ie: "blanking"). BOTH of you have discussed and argued the reasons on the talk page, even if BOTH of you weren't using the bst of edit summaries in your edits. Thus, BOTH of your actions fit the criteria for content disputes - but NOT vandalism. Read the whole page on vandalism to understand it better. Because of that, the nine revert (ooops, THREE revert) rule cannot be broken. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly a fair comparison. I didn't blank whole paragraphs using misleading edit summaries. I didn't sneakily re-word sentences while claiming that nothing has changed, just moving stuff etc. I merely reverted such edits. The issue here is the use of misleading edit summaries. My only fault is that I didn't bring this to the attention of admins earlier because I thought you were the admin. I also refrained from edit warring on his non-suspicious edits, despite that I find their content objectionable (like the Lewis quote, for instance). In any case, I happen to not have any strong views about the subject, so if using misleading edit summaries is now becoming OK on Wikipedia, I'd be willing to un-watch this article, and get back to my largely gnomic activities. Wiqi(55) 04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have as well, but that does not matter. His actions were not vandalism. 3RR applies. Also, silly threats of "fine, I'll stop working on articles" doesn't work here either. If he uses incorrect edit summaries, deal with it properly, which does not include violating 3RR. You've been blocked for edit warring before. None of this is new to you. Do not play the injured party here. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely true. I was blocked once before by a heavily involved admin. You were also involved in that incident so your assessment here is not objective. Now considering that you seem eager to bring past incidents into this, I'd suggest that your assessment of this situation should be disregarded. And I'm not threatening to not edit articles. I have no strong views on the subject of this specific article, and if my presence was deemed disruptive, I'd be willing to un-watch. However, I can't help but think that users who constantly use misleading edit summaries are not here to build an encyclopedia. I will also find better ways to identify admins instead of reading, or rather misreading, their user boxes. Wiqi(55) 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By "involved in that incident", do you mean, as a previously uninvolved editor, I offered my opinion? That aside, you still have not addressed a single issue with your actions. Nor have you addressed your failings in understanding policies and guidelines and how you violated them. Additionally, you have, above, disparaged Penom and his actions with no basis. I would strongly suggest that you stick to addressing your mistakes.
    Blocks are preventative and not punitive. You are repeatedly indicating (IMO) an unwillingness to follow or learn the policies and guidelines you've been ignoring. In my opinion, until you do so, that is creating a situation requiring preventative actions. You have been repeatedly told you had other options to deal with what you falsely (IMO) perceived as vandalism by Penom - including reporting him here at AN/I. You did not - you chose to start TWO more edit/revert wars since. There is no excuse. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Robert from Li, removing entire paragraphs of sourced content with misleading edit summaries is normally vandalism, and if the editor doing it does not start communicating, then the usual course is for them to be blocked. In this case, the other editor has now started talking and appears to understand the problem he was causing, and did intend his edits to be productive, so I do not believe there is any need for administrator action. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen, except, as I indicated above, that was not the case. The edit summaries were not misleading and were followed with and preceded by lengthy discussion on the talk page, as well as Penom involving me to try to mediate such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, as you know, when the content is sourced, when those sources are used incorrectly (does not say what the content does, and instead pushes a POV), removal of such is also not vandalism. If anything, that supports Penom's actions. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @robert: I have already accepted and understood that next time I will bring the issue of using misleading edit summaries to an admin. Even in this case, I did bring the issue to you when you first showed up thinking you were an admin. I have already admitted this mistake 3 times or so, and I will definitely try to identify admins more carefully in the future. So I'm definitely hearing your concerns. I have also asked user Penom to not remove any cited information unless he actually examined the sources. He ignored my direct questions about this and gave no indication that he actually did check the sources. Wiqi(55) 16:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To Both Penom and Wiqi55

    • Can both of you truly decide to stop the revert wars then?
    • Can you (Wiqi55) come to the conclusion that Penom's edit summaries, in conjunction with the lengthy talk page discussions and explanation is not simply content removal, but instead, a dipsute over the content which should be resolved on the article's talk page before continually (both of you) inserting and reverting the content?
    • Can you both (a) be a bit more accurate in your edit summaries and (b) accept the fact that an immediate follow up comment on the talk page to more thoroughly explain edits absolves issues with short edit summaries that may not be as detailed as either of you would like?
    • Can you both agree to utilize WP:DR and/or accept my opinion on each and/or involve other editors to help review, without once again reverting to edit/revert wars?


    If so, then I think we can close this AN/I without further actions and get back to what we should be doing - editing Wikipedia. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My Assessment (ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

    Penom

    • Penom has indicated both remorse and understanding above about why edit warring and violating 3RR is not appropriate.
    • Penom is a less experienced editor
    • Penom did seek outside assistance in this matter
    • While Penom55 is the one who seeked outside assistance, and agreed to follow such steps, Penom55 still jumped into another edit war even after it was made clear that if the article wasn't perfect for a day or two, the world wouldn't blow up


    ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiqi55

    • Wiqi55 has previously been blocked for edit warring - and thus should know better.
    • Wigi55 is demonstrating (still) an attitude of IDHT
    • Wiqi55 is (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the reasons for his reverts. This is indicated by the massive talk page discussions where it has been indicated that Penom has perceived biases and POV in Wiqi55's postings/changes. Wiqi55 has been involved in those discussions, and is thus aware that there were legitimate reasons for Penom's reverts, regardless of how Wiqi55 wishes to perceive Penom's edit summaries.
    • Wiqi55 has shown, currently and in the past, some level of assuming WP:OWN on such articles. This seems to coincide with actions indicated on the point directly above this.


    ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My Suggestions and Opinions on this

    Penom

    • Penom seems to have indicated during this AN/I (a) an understanding of policies against edit warring and 3RR
    • Penom seems to have indicated remorse and an understanding his reasons did not justify his actions
    • Penom seems to have reached a point where he understands alternate methods of dealing with such issues is required.


    ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiqi55

    • Wiqi55 seems to be using IDHT as continued justification for his actions, even though reviewing the situation further indicates that his rationale doesnt even apply
    • Wiqi55 already has experience with edit warring and the consequences involved in stopping such
    • Wiqi55 has in no way indicated any willingness to stop reverting and edit warring over what essentially are content disputes


    ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestions

    • I'd suggest Penom be advised on the next instance of engaging in or participating in an edit/revert war, that Penom will be given 2-3 days to further acquiant himself with the appropriate policies and guidelines - especially in light of Penom, above, indicating an understanding of why his 0actions were not correct.
    • I'd suggest that Wiqi55 be given 2-3 days, either on this article or on all of Wikipedia, to re-acquiant himself with policies and guidelines concerning such that he should have properly learned the first time he was blocked for edit warring.


    ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved Editor/Admin comments

    Support Proposals

    1. Support - As proposer. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Retracting support pending possible alternative resolution as proposed here[107]. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Proposals

    Alternate Proposals

    Occupy?

    This may not be the right forum, but, as you know, it gets lots of visitors, including you, and I value your opinion. If it's totally wrong, someone please move it to the right place (with a redirect, haha).

    I made a couple of edits to Occupy Philadelphia, and noticed later on that the article had been redirected to the general Occupy Wall Street article. Mind you, I agree with the redirect--that's not why I'm here. My question is rather what to do with the rest of the articles: there's at least a dozen more for US cities. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As the one who redirected it: keep the ones with more media coverage/participators/arrests and injuries, redirect the rest. HurricaneFan25 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My thoughts:

    • Occupy Ashland: Redirect, no arrests and not that many participants, little media coverage
    • Occupy Atlanta: Redirect, other than that speech by Congressman John Lewis, not much
    • Occupy Austin: Redirect, 4 arrests, really nothing to see here
    • Occupy Boston: Redirect, over 100 arrests, 10,000+ participants
    • Occupy Buffalo: Redirect, no source for "hundreds" of arrests
    • Occupy Canada: Keep, widespread media coverage, thousands of participants
    • Occupy Chicago: Keep and expand, over 175 arrests but few sources/article content
    • Occupy Dallas: Redirect, many unsourced statements, no arrests
    • Occupy Eugene: Redirect, no establishment of notability as a major protests: no numbers on arrests/participants NOTE: Another Believer plans to expand this article; in the meantime, please do not redirect it
    • Occupy London: Keep: read the article
    • Occupy Portland: Keep, article is sizable and acceptably sourced
    • Occupy Salem: Redirect, no establishment of notability NOTE: Another Believer plans to expand this article; in the meantime, please do not redirect it
    • Occupy San Jose: Redirect, establishment of notability but no arrests, currently at AfD
    • Occupy Seattle: Redirect, only a handful of arrests
    • Occupy Toronto: Keep and expand, a few sources and a bit of good info

    HurricaneFan25 00:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strongly recommend against redirecting. Many of each city's "Occupy" movements cover issues that are unique to the areas, yet notable in their own right, and as per WP:NTEMP, historically significant. Not indiscriminate publicity as per WP:SPIP, as many individual movements have been mentioned in national media such as newspapers and television stations. Comparison to historically significant battles are in order here. Also comparison to local govermental bodies. Number of arrests is not dispositive as lack of arrests could convey historical significance. Do recommend removal of many of the links at the bottom of pages. Each page appears to be becoming a mini-version of the 'List of "Occupy" Protests, which is redundant. Redirection of each page listed below would be deleterious to the historical record, and the attempt to bring these redirections to this page appears to be a means to go around overwhelming consensus on pages where comments have been made about the subject matter of each of these pages. Strongly recommend dropping these attempts. This is not a matter of zealousness of editors, it is a matter of retaining a historical record; if nothing significant comes out of this, edits can be made at that point. Sngourd (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hurricanefan25's analysis above. The article to which Occupy Rome redirects should also be fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not create an article called Occupy Protests and include all of these articles in it (except for New York)?--v/r - TP 02:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that would make sense to you and me and a bunch of others--but there are some very zealous editors creating all these articles and beefing them up with paraphernalia (extensive see also sections, further reading, etc) to make them look good and substantial. In my opinion, none of these articles do any more than report the local news, even if a bunch of people get arrested. They properly belong in a big fat article, and much of the verified detail is encyclopedically redundant. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does appear to be the case, as I discovered when I tried to keep Zuccotti Park from becoming an annex of the Occupy Wall Street article. In the end, I gave up against the zealousness of the editor who grabbed control of that article, and figure I will fix its imbalances and remove its irrelevancies when the protest is over and the editor moves on to other passions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with cleaning up the see also sections and further reading. However, irreparable harm to historical record will be done by removing these individual entries. Discussion here is an attempt to use knowledge of technicalities in Wikipedia to go around consensus, violating WP:NOTCENSOR, WP:NOTBATTLE, possibly even WP:DE. Many people trust Wikipedia to present historically significant events. I implore preservation of that trust. Sngourd (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although each "occupation" is theoretically independent, they spawn from each other. Giving them separate articles gives WP:UNDUE weight to the supposed cause. I would hazard a guess that a number of editors to the articles are related to the protest/cause and propping them up. Wikipedia is not a place for that kind of activity, as it theoretically becomes Occupy Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No undue weight as per WP:UNDUE. Each incident stands on its own and may have different demands, requests and repercussions. I would counter-guess that some editors are opposed to the protest/cause and censoring the historical record, as occurs with many controversial topics. Urge letting the discussion on each page stand on its own. Sngourd (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty depressing that some editors above are happy to make strident comments on this without even knowing/bothering to check that there already is an "Occupy" protests article. Each of these articles should be taken on its own merits and if editors wish to try and delete/redirect them the articles should each go through the proper process. This is clearly not the right or proper place for such process and I am puzzled as to why a discussion on this is taking place here.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that discussion should be moved elsewhere and no action should be taken based on comments here. Sngourd (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment wasn't removed, it's still right there. Please don't go to the level of Shakespeare, and I'm dropping the stick now, so I'm not posting here after this. HurricaneFan25 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sngourd, you might not be familiar, but Drmies, Fetchcomms and BWilkins are admins. Rangoon11, this discussion is here because it was raised by an admin for discussion amongst other admins as well as editors whoe frequent this page.
    As for the articles, redirect the ones with the least notability and keep the major ones. These protests are more comparable to the Arab Spring than they are to historically significant battles. The Arab spring spawned several major changes in government, a civil war and unrest in other nations. It inspired other protests not all of which have separate articles. It makes things easier to work with when the smaller protests are kept under one article until such time, they become notable in their own right. --Blackmane (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Will say no more here. Absolute respect for and deference to decision of community and appropriate authorities. Sngourd (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally some voices of reason. I fully support Drmies and HurricanFan. There are also articles popping up about non-US cities, many as trivial as those. WP is not a newspaper and is not the place for protesters to advocate their cause/coordinate their protests. --Crusio (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to add: When creating redirects, make sure not to delete any content; copy-paste what's relevant to whatever article seems appropriate. We can't have an article for each protest, since there are over 800 of them, but we can certainly briefly talk about each one. Cheers, MattieRenard (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe it can be done that way. That will lose the contribution history. Either (a) a move needs to occur, or (b) a merge needs to occur - those methods will preserve contribution history, while a copy/paste will not. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) copy/paste "moves"/"merges" are thusly against policy. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not re-direct the Eugene or Salem (Oregon) articles. I intend to expand both articles in the near future and have started collecting references for both (see talk page). --Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I created the Boston article with the expectation that it would be expanded. This is not the case, although I can prod at least one other editor who I know has attended and I'm sure that they would be willing to work on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies

    Drmies is attempting to impose the redirect of a number of articles based on a supposed consensus for such action above ([108], [109], [110]). The discussion above is not, so far as I am aware, valid for the puposes of establishing consensus for the redirect or deletion of a particular page. I also see no clear consensus here or anywhere else for these specific actions. This is very concerning behaviour and appears to be a circumvention of appropriate process which will result in the effective deletion of large amounts of cited content which has not been through an AfD.

    Were a redirect to take place, in any case it shoud in my view be to the "Occupy" protests article, although that in itself needs proper discussion (which, of course, has not happened either).Rangoon11 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed with Crusio about most of it. ANI isn't the best place to discuss it, but it's not altogether improper.--v/r - TP 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that an AfD is essential, I said that proper process appears to be being circumvented, but these attempted edits are effective deletions of articles, since content is not being copied elsewhere. I for one might be willing to support the redirection of some of these occupy articles if content was being kept and the redirects were to a more logical place. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If they arn't deleted, which would require a deletion discussion, then the content is kept in the revision history. You are welcome to merge content you feel fits elsewhere and is important.--v/r - TP 18:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Factors for notability

    I made a user subpage on the matter, which is displayed below:

    Note: This page was created as a result of several AfD's and an ANI thread involving the notability of individual Occupy protests, and is only retained for historical reference for the user.

    My views on the notability of individual Occupy Wall Street protests

    • Arrests — I consider Boston notable as it had 141 arrests, and I also consider Phoenix, with 46 arrests (which has yet to get an article), notable. A good number arrests, more than 30, in my opinion makes an "Occupy" protest require an article.
    • Violence — If there is any moderate (shooting, rock-throwing, etc.) violence in the protest, and has a considerable number of arrests or a police reaction, the protest deserves an article.
    • Participants — If the protest has enough combined media coverage and participants, the protest is worthy of an article. However, if there are no arrests, little media coverage, while there are many participants, the protest does not deserve an article.
    • Media coverage — Ample media coverage should be required for an article for any of the protests; however, I wouldn't see this as a requirement, rather as a preferred option. A lot of media coverage most likely means a major protest.
    • Article content — if the article has a considerable amount of individual content, as in an attempted speech by a Congressman — not just the usual "...protest against corporate greed and ____ in ___".
    • Verifiability — All "Occupy" articles should contain verifiable information. All. No exceptions.
    • Social networking sites do not count — At the AfD for Occupy San Jose, a "keep" vote was posted, on several basis, including the number of participants and the number of Facebook group members and likes/fans on a Facebook community page. Facebook doesn't necessarily indicate the participation or support — during the 2010 Congressional elections, several candidates had tons of "likes" but compared to their opponent, with only a few "likes," was far behind in the election.

    Feel free to express your opinion. HurricaneFan25 17:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Weecurrymincer

    I suspect this may well be an attack name and quite possibly a sock puppet of a banned editor. Mincer being a Scottish pejorative for homosexual, I rather suspect I'm the target. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible, but WP:UAA seems like the place to report this. HurricaneFan25 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ta, tis done. Thanks for the hint. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A technical investigation into this account was  Inconclusive and showed no results, but another administrator has {{Usernamehardblocked}}. AGK [•] 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Philip Zlotorynski

    I have reverted several apparent vandal edits by user:Maladoope to Philip Zlotorynski after noticing this complaint on a critic site. We need a block for the account and a long-term semi-protection on the article. Thank you, --cc 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) First, I don't see any indication that you notified Maladoope of this discussion, as is required. Once I complete my comments, I'll take that liberty myself. Second, reviewing that user's Contribution history and the article's edit history, the changes to Philip Zlotorynski are what I'd call "plausible but unsourced", and since Zlotorynski is undoubtedly a living person, WP:BLP applies, so IMO reverting those edits is the correct action, although I also don't see any indication that the user was warned regarding their actions. Third, what I'm seeing from the editor in question, especially on their User and User Talk pages, isn't what I'd expect to see from an editor who intends to be constructive...but that's a very subjective opinion. Finally, and as a sidenote, I'd suggest such reports in future be made at WP:AIV, which is specifically geared to responding to vandalism. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why it is necessary to notify an obvious sockpuppet (see User:Lloydkaufmantroma, User:Moehoeheehaw, User:Indiefilmrules, and counting), who has not edited in over two months is beyond me. This is a BLP issue, and the subject has already threatened legal action over this. This is no time for process wonkery. --cc 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joefaust

    There have been a spate of article creations and problem edits by User:Joefaust, many of which I can't document here because they have been deleted, speedily or not. He has also responded to deletion of some pages by recreating the discussion through creation of the AFD talk page. Now I see that he has responded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination) by recreating/expanding the material in his user space here: User:Joefaust/Hang glider (control-frame parts). There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that this would survive an AFD were it let loose in article space. His talk page testifies to the extent of the problem with its long list of notices of now-deleted material; there has been little attempt to engage him there, but one can see a lot of frustration on article pages, as for example on Talk:Paragliding, the main article of which has been protected since 12 October in response to his attempts to change it. I also see that as I have been typing this he has been making more dubious articles in his userspace. I'm not sure exactly what ought to be done but his editing has become disruptive and too many people are having to chase around cleaning up after him. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am simply participating in WP editing in good faith efforts. I am participating politely in Paragliding consensus effort. I respect all deletions and study the comments by editors for improving content. Admin is welcome to delete any content they wish; no problem here. I am not an admin, but just a reviewer contributing editor. The discussion for deletion on the Triangle control frame never invited me into the discussion; I stumbled over the matter after the matter was closed; several of the editors apparently could not see that control frames in hang gliders have the iconic triangle of three parts as THE iconic control frame without which modern hang gliding would be a totally different matter; that triangle is grasped at every launch, during the whole of flight, and during landing; huge sales occur to replace the three parts for hordes of reasons. The wing and its control frame give an aircraft that works well. The deletion of that article might be the spur to develop a larger article on control frames of hang gliders where the triangle iconic control frame is one among many noteworthy control frames; I am working on that draft project in good faith in my user space; is there some WP guide that I am missing here? Thanks. What is this "dubious articles" comment; that is the purpose of draft and contributing...to bring forward potentially excellent articles for the WP project; not every draft will be in article space; perhaps the draft will be merge for section in another article that exists. If such effort is unwanted by the WP project, please tell me and I will stop contributing. People who decide to chase me might have issues that break WP guides; interested admin might look into the chasers, as they may have non-WP motives. Also, I go around and clean up articles on many topics; you are welcome to see my contributions to WP; spelling, better links, improving phrasings for readers, illustrating, etc. Is not that which contributors do...chase chances for improving WP ? Joefaust (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as one of the editors that has been running around after this user trying to clean up and replace opinion and historical quotes with modern cited facts (and as a paraglider pilot of many years) I would concur that something needs to be done. Quite what, is clearly up to those who understand WP policy and procedure of which I know little, if anything. I would also like the WP admins to be aware of the comments at the end of User_talk:Qwyrxian#Paragliding where I received a copy of a direct email from User:Joefaust that, unless I am mistaken, is a blatant WP:CANVASS, although I believe this may be being handled by admin User:Qwyrxian (who, in my opinion, has the patience of a saint). I will not post again here as this is hardly the place for debate by contributing editors. 88xxxx (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Notesenses

    Disrupting Albanian [111], possible owner of: [112], and [113]. Majuru (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as a sock. TNXMan 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=456388258"