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 The Bushranger (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 29 October 2011 (→‎Indefinite block review: Colofac: closing with consensus supporting the block). 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


    User:Joefaust

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

    Resolved
     – Joefaust (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. Swarm X 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    Mr. Faust, this long passage is an example of the problem. You have a theory about aircraft structure, but we have to insist that you are not an acceptable authority on the subject, and that we should not include your analysis in Wikipedia. And as far as "potentially excellent", the numbers of articles you've contributed that have been deleted is really rather high. I'm sorry I forgot to notify you about the deletion discussion, but really, it seems to me that the only difference your participation was likely to have made was to have increased the length of the discussion several-fold; we cannot accept terminology that you have made up yourself, and on that basis, the article was doomed. You seem to be having a great deal of trouble following the rules. Perhaps you should seek out a mentor (there is a program for that) but as it stands your enthusiasm is a liability until it be directed towards proper contribution. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 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]
    Quick check in here: yes, Paragliding, paraglider, and all related articles are in a bit of turmoil right now. As far as I can tell so far, the real problem is that all of the contributors are experts (like, they have admitted real world identities of people with 20, 30, 40 years as pilots, often specifically in the field; they are also very active on websites about paragliding). Thus, on talk pages, they find it very difficult to actually argue about sources rather than argue about what they "know" to be "true". As a result, the articles in question are not in great shape--neither preferred version is particularly well cited. I've been trying to sort things out, but the process is just beginning and I've been sidetracked the last few days. Yesterday, Joefaust raised a possible canvassing concern; I meant to get the input of other admins, but haven't got that far yet. So if someone could kindly look at this edit on my talk page; 88xxxx posted the bulk of the possible canvassing email there. The signatory of that email, Rick Masters, is apparently the leading person on the internet arguing that paragliders are death traps that no sane person would ever fly, not when they could fly a hanglider instead. As far as I know, he is not openly editing WP right now, but his presence floats around the discussions all the time. I'm not sure that there's any direct admin action to be taken at this time, though Joefaust is certainly trying my "saintly patience"...let me add more later. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the email header on that, it seems the signatory of the email = Joefaust. (BUT, isn't that running dangerously close to WP:OUTING?) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it is - I'm redacting herewith. I'm not sure how to RevDel without losing everything, can another admin have a look at fixing that up if need be? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The spam email was from User:Joefaust to an unknown number of recipients, including 88xxxx (me), quoting Rick Masters and appearing to drum up support. Incidentally, the user has openly admitted to being Joe Faust as can be seen here: [[1]]. Over to you guys... 88xxxx (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that Joe is attempting to edit in good faith, but has a difficulty with original research and synethsis of material, as well as a slight conflict of interest from being involved in the industry. If you note the TCF deletion discussion linked to by the OP - the only place "triangle control frame" is mentioned anywhere is in Joe's work, here and elsewhere, and literally nowhere else. I'd suggest mentoring, perhaps? Also, I'll be posting a link to this disussion at the Aircraft WikiProject talk page, since they've been concerned about Joe's edits for a little while. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Joefaust just crossed my personal line from "needs help" to "bad faith contributor". Paraglider was an article created by JoeFaust, it went through an AfD and was speedily redirected to Paragliding by The Bushranger. JoeFaust then decided to make it into a dab page, which I ended up reverting eventually since that was not what the AfD decided (if JoeFaust disagreed with the close, he should have gone to DRV). So then we started discussion on the talk page as to whether or not the Paraglider was better as a dab or a redirect. Joefaust basically believes that the definition of "paraglider" at Paragliding is too narrow, thus the need for all of these extra articles; the discussion is currently ongoing, but last time I checked Joefaust hadn't really presented any good sources to support his wider use of the term. But, again, ongoing, so consensus could change--talking is good. I just checked Joefaust's contributions, and I see that he is now essentially trying to circumvent the discussion by turning Paragliders (note the plural) into the dab page he wants Paraglider to be. In other words, he is intentionally going behind the backs of other editors, avoiding current consensus, so that he can get his way. This is unacceptable behavior. Joefaust can either follow WP rules, and actually discuss topics (with sources, not just from his own opinion), or he can find another website to edit. I'm obviously too close to this, so maybe I'm overreacting, but that dab page comes pretty close to confirming to me that Joefaust is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia but just to push his own POV (which appears to not be one commonly held in the field) about what a paraglider is, their history, and how dangerous they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that, excessive kite material was added to an aircraft structure article some time ago (two years or more) and we had a civil discussion. English does not appear to be Joe's first language (I may be wrong) and he is clearly not appreciating what 'encylopedic' means. His enthusiastic efforts need to be applied somewhere else or added here within the guidelines. Cleaning up after editors is a big problem and it needs to be highlighted in this case, hopefully Joe can understand this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and in this corner, he's forking paragliding again, hoping that WP:AFC will promote Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite). Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And on top of that, I found the following set of pages waiting to be unleashed on the world:
    Many of these duplicate articles which have already been deleted at least once. I also see that he took it upon himself to promote his own article out of AFC: [2] Could we please stop the madness? Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May I also point out Category:Deaths by hang gliding...ugh... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored from archiving for further discussion; datestamped one week in the future to avoid archiving. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again User:Joefaust is moving pages from his "User" area into WP, and once again they are being AfD. World Paragliding Association. 88xxxx (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given his complete inability to "get it" and his continued use of Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotion I would support an immediate block on this user. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we have a clear consensus on action here, including opinions provided by a couple of admins and because this editor has been continuing on his merry way unheedingly, I think we can probably close this discussion and have an uninvolved admin action this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    I agree with the concerns expressed about this editor, he seems to be in a WP:COI in the areas of paragliding with regards to businesses that he owns and is on some sort of crusade to greatly raise the profile of paragliding on Wikipedia through bombarding the encyclopedia with numerous badly written, poorly sourced, opinion pieces to promote his own ideas and POV. A lot of it seems to come under WP:SOAPBOX. The tendentious nature of all this volume of non-encyclopedic content is causing a lot of time to be spend at AfD by a lot of editors getting rid of these incomprehensible POV articles and this is preventing more useful work from getting done. Because there clearly seems to be WP:AXE, WP:POV and WP:COI problems here and because communicating these problems seems to result in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I would suggest that a topic ban on articles related to paragliding and hang gliding would be appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Editor is not independent enough to edit neutrally in this area. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I thought there were signs that he was going to take a break but I see in Talk:Paragliding that he continues to go on and frankly it seems far less than coherent. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Joefaust's attempt to use Paragliders as a disambiguation page stinks of an attempt to use WP:BOLD in bad faith to undermine discussion. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support has a clear conflict of interest in the subject indicated by creating articles on his own organisation World Paragliding Association where he even mentions himself as founder. Cant guarantee with such a clear COI that the editor doesn not have a neutral point of view. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOT support: Hey guys and gals, there are other perspectives on each action and effort. I am listening, learning, studying as fast as possible about WP guides. I have participated politely in discussions and am fully open to consensus. In the effort I look for solutions and drafted in user space things to support discussion. For instance, Jontyla and 88:xxxx asked in discussion directly for missing sections, if seen; and 88:xxxx directed "more the merrier" and so I drafted in User space an outline of sections that I thought would be something for the article on Paragliding; it was not easy to give that work to help the program. Editor Q___ said that outline would never fly; but some would work, perhaps; well, the effort thus was a positive contribution: many sections that editors could survey to see if any works for the article. That effort was an effort to build the encyclopedia; my enthusiasm to answer two editors and the aiming for a robust article that admins say has lots of problems should not count against me, I would think.
    I was on the understanding that one could draft things in User space; so I have been doing that in an effort to help solve what others were seeing as a problem; I explored various things; such is what WP seems to tell me is welcome. User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" is another recent effort to help the program. Editor Q____ and others were seemingly addressing whether a WP user would approach WP with "paraglider" with something other than the activity of sport paragliding; well this new draft article is aimed at helping visiting users to negotiate "paraglider" in WP. I entered the link into the consensus discussion that is ongoing in Paraglider discussion space. That is, I am working collaboratively with others. WP articles know "paraglider" beyond activity in sport; the group of editors have not yet reached consensus on even the nature of the article "paragliding" and we are still struggling with the machine word "paraglider".
    I am learning the ropes, not avoiding the ropes in the editor space. I have been pausing, studying WP guides. Biting a contributor is against WP.
    In the root start of the article World ParaGliding Association I recused myself from AfD on the org matter as COI. COI is not a bad word; COI is something to note, respect, and to flag for caution. I will not enter the article to edit after its start; any editor in the world may edit the article; and any editor may advance it well or injure it; other editors may bring in better references, etc. I recused or in a sense banned myself from that article after its start; WP will decide to keep it or not or send its contents to be a section or note in some other article; I will not do those actions.
    I have no business operation in paragliding; paragliding is part of my hobby. I have interest in thousands of WP articles and edit in many of them.
    If one wants to explore some of the roots of some of the tension in discussions on "paraglider" and "paragliding" then explore the online treatment that Johntla and 88:xxxx gave to a simple topic thread in their forum that I started. Giuseppe is the keyword.
    Editor Q_____ in dab discussion on "paraglider" matured to suggest a "compromise" which was fruit of the good work that we all were doing; I brought in resonance with a link to draft work User talk:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". The work has been a good-faith struggle; I have not seen a remark yet on the merit potential of such a List article. Joefaust (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the draft article link is rather: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider" Joefaust (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Jontyla and 88:xxxx Joefaust (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been patient, and tried to help. I get that Joefaust has a lot of knowledge about aviation. However, given the very message above, I must support a topic ban. Joefaust must know very well that we don't have articles titled List of articles mentioning X. Deliberately ignoring the discussion on Paraglider and creating a duplicate dab article at Paragliders shows that xe will take every opportunity to push his POV he can find. And finally this note above, which if I'm reading it correctly, implies that all of his tendentious editing was actually a good thing for the encyclopedia...I recommend a topic ban, but give Joefaust a clear opportunity that if xe can demonstrate an ability to edit constructively in other topics for 6 months or so, then xe could have that topic ban lifted relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A large proportion of Joe Faust's edits have been reversed or substantially altered by other users. I support a ban JMcC (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want to be clear, too--the ban needs to cover all aviation topics; limiting it to paragliding would not work because one of the fundamental problems is that JoeFaust has an idiosyncratic definition of what paragliding is. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed - that was why I said "broadly construed", although I would not object to "aviation and aviation-related topics" being the wording. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Joe's list page shows intent to go after pretty much any aviation-related page. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what I think paragliding is for recreation and sport paragliding as done by 88:xxxx : The people fly paragliders adapted to their purpose. Not deep, not disruptive. Good RS are available for that.
    Qwyrxian: I did not know that WP does not have lists for articles mentioning or dedicated to a topic. I drafted the item in user space to participate with you in the collaborative project on discerning dab for "paraglider" as you were pressing and pressing for how a visitor to WP might have an interest that would end in some other place than sport/recreation paragliding. I was participating in our discussion with high interest and energy in good faith. I see lists throughout WP and prsented the page to you in our discussion without putting it into main space; indeed, the side-support project is not done. I thought you would look at it and get a hint that visitors could approach WP with paraglider interests that are different than just rec/sport. The machine has place in WP much aside of such rec/sport. Joefaust (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC) The idea of a List of articles came from seeing some list; that simply sparked the idea to make a list; the only space that I now about to create a list is in User space. List of wikis and List of articles about local government in the United Kingdomand List of articles about Three Mile Island. So, why not a List of articles about paraglider ? It felt natural and a plus to WP. Joefaust (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding those; I've nominated both of them for deletion. Regarding you, perhaps that was a good faith thought for an article, my apologies for assuming you knew it wasn't. That doesn't change the fact that everything you seem to do is to find every niche in Wikipedia you can (whether it is new or existing articles) to get your message out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwyrxian, glad I could help. Note the three, not just two articles. In similar vein are are hundreds of more: MORE lists of articles.Joefaust (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. I'm not sure that Joe isn't acting in good faith (according to his lights), but like Ahunt I feel that given that he so spectacularly doesn't "get it", there really isn't much choice. (Edit: note, I'm not an admin) Jontyla (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have to agree that a topic ban across all aviation-related topics is warranted. Even as this debate has been going on the editor in question has been carrying on adding external links to articles, which rather run contrary to his pleas above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you note that the external link was one short sentence to an entity that does not belong to me, that was missing from the section, and that in good faith I was simply doing some contributing; notice the date of the add. The article tags invited improvements. Is not this what WP project wants done? Instead of encouraging advance that article, it feels like you would have me not to have added that sentence; that would be confusing to me. Joefaust (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban on aviation and kiting related topics. I'm not sure if non-admins are supposed to edit here, and if not please delete this edit. I've been heavily involved in trying to correct this users changes to such pages and consequently have spent some of the past weeks trying to decide if Joefaust's editing was malicious, or just misguided thanks to his distorted world-view of what a paraglider is or isn't. Frankly, I feel pretty sure it's both. Firstly, rewriting pages and renaming standard equipment, forcing editors to revert & re-work major sections and then the locking of the paragliding page. Then showing blatant disregard for debate, refusing to be persuaded that he has no consensus and holds a fringe, minority viewpoint (in many cases, a minority of 1) and trying to bypass discussion and force his ideas into pages without discussion or consensus. All of which went AfD, I might add. I'm close to this, for sure, but that's because I am a paraglider pilot of many years and would not wish, for example, to see a paraglider described to the curious public as a 'kite' in an encyclopaedia. The sooner this user is blocked from editing such pages the better. 88xxxx (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any uninvolved admin would be enlightened to research the timing of 88xxxx into the paragliding-paraglider situation following his treatments in the forum where he posts. Topic keyword: Giuseppe. That kind of treatment followed me into this paragliding-paraglider scene. Please look how he followed me in WP in this last month. I trust that an uninvolved admin well weight the conduct. His following and pattern has affected matters. Thanks to someone to take an equitable look. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say you should focus on the message, not the messenger(s). Following people? Patterns? This is not the place for anything other than debate as to your behaviour, as viewed by independent administrators of WP, who most likely know little of, and care little for paragliding. Joe, if a user wishes to see what I have edited on WP, they can view it at Special:Contributions/88xxxx. Likewise with any edits you have made. The only pattern I see emerging from my edits is trying to tidy up after what consensus suggest are the inappropriate edits you have made. This is a noticeboard for the admins, if you wish to question my behaviour on WP, I think your supposed to do it here: User_talk:88xxxx and then maybe ask an admin for an opinion on it. Keyword: Paranoia? 88xxxx (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stuck in limbo

    Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at this, and either do something, or determine that nothing will be done? Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I second that - we have a clear consensus on what the problem is and the action required here and yet this just keeps dragging on. This needs to be closed and actioned now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Joy: Use of admin tools -while involved- in a content dispute

    Resolved
     – Per Jehochman, no admin action required causa sui (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

    I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan (disambiguation) that you've merged elsewhere with no discussion no consensus Tachfin (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't restore (unmerge) it but you can trivially move it over there, with zero loss of functionality. Overall I'm at a loss for words over your blatant WP:OWN violation and inability to reasonably argue a content dispute without resorting to petty procedural complaints. This, coupled with the appeal to "consensus" over the circumstance that nobody noticed this page being redirected wrongly for years, indicates a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONS. Sure, someone can assume bad faith in my "admin actions" and undo them completely without regard for what they actually were, but that won't change the simple fact that all my arguments of the matter have remained unanswered. Talk about WP:DISRUPTIVE, sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It would have been recomendable to avoid doing any actions while discussion was still going on, however we must see that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on. Unfortunate rush and perhaps a lesson to be more patient in future... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    'that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on.' Doing that only seconds after I posted on talk page with no reply and no consensus for the move, I saw it as an attempt to impose a "Fait accompli" since I cannot do/undo what he did and what he did was certainly unwarranted with no consensus and in violation of WP:INVOLVED. User:Joy (as any other user) should not disregard opposition to the breaking of a status quo that has been going since 2004, and unilaterally use his admin powers to impose his preferred version. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the admin actions are undone and the discussion continued, then everything should be fine, yes. But they have to be undone to be fair to the discussion. SilverserenC 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is there any good Samaritan Admin to restore things to the previous status quo? And friendly warn User:Joy to not use admin tools while involved and not edit war (The instant reverts are quite uncollaborative to say the least, I feel as if I am personally targeted since I'm just willing to restore a version that has been living since 2004, even Ips weren't reverted with such quickness and enthusiasm) Tachfin (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think there are many admins who would be willing to (consensus here seems clear that Joy was involved and should not have used the tools), but the problem is that the two articles should never have been histmerged at all. They had parallel histories and the histmerge has left the history of the article in a mess. The correct procedure would be to perform a history split, but I can't see how an admin doing a history split would be able to tell which edits were from which article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. Once again, you can revert all the relevant edits yourself - click the move button on Moroccan and move it to Moroccan (disambiguation), overwriting the reverse redirect, and then re-create Moroccan as a redirect to Moroccan people. The fact that the disambiguation page was moved around will still remain in the history of the "... (disambiguation)" page. How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality. I'm not sure why you are insisting that an administrator do this, other than continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. (And, I should mention, if you proceed with this action, it will mean that I have to proceed with a formal move request, which in turn means that more editor time will be wasted on another redundant explanation of how disambiguation works.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, in the meantime, other people seem to have proceeded with the disambiguation of the term Moroccan, and now only four incoming links remain. Unsurprisingly, nobody else came to complain. So much for "[making] our editing lives miserable". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Joy, this comment: "continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" is unacceptable and borderline personal attack. I've done nothing that breaches WP:POINT or disrupts Wikipedia in any way. You did not respect WP:INVOLVED (whether that was in good faith or intentional). You should respect the previous consensus while discussion is ongoing (and no, discussion is not a waste of editor time as you seem to believe) and not revert-war and move a page after I pointed out that it was already disambiguated elsewhere (that wasn't a request for you to move it). Your persistent belief that you are right and groundless accusations show little respect for WP:AGF and WP:ETIQ. I'm not comfortable with such tone/behavior coming from an admin Tachfin (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, again, no, you have no idea what you are talking about - there was no previous consensus because "Moroccan" has pointed:
    (If any of these diffs are wrong because of histmerge, it's possible that parts of this timeline are wrong, but when we know that there are only two options - that someone would change "Moroccan" or that someone would change "Moroccan (disambiguation)" - turning the latter into a redirect would have made no sense and as I recall nobody ever did that. Instead, all redirect edits were made to the page "Moroccan".)
    So you blithely dragged me through these proceedings for a reason that is a) ultimately frivolous b) with no basis in fact because all your claims of "stability" and "consensus" were void given that you actually changed the redirect yourself at the time away from the longest-standing version.
    You have tried to prove your point not by discussing things like an adult on the relevant talk page, instead by edit-warring and then reporting me for alleged abuse. That's called disruptive behavior and a personal attack on myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we done here? There doesn't appear to be any need for administrative action to undo any of the damage here, and the deleted redirect doesn't seem to have any non-trivial history. Is there anything else? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've lost faith in discussion here after repeated personal attacks from Joy, it's not so hard to be WP:CIVIL. I've laid out the situation in my first post here i.e. I am opposed to it not being a redirect anymore not to what it redirects to (that's why I didn't revert when an IP redirected it to "Moroccan people" in September 2011, so that last edit was the new consensus) you're just trying to falsify what happened by your last post. And now you're really trying to prove a point by requesting a move on a page (Moroccan (disambiguation)) that you've already moved and histmerged in complete violation of WP:Involved. Tachfin (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me see if I understand. Tachfin is complaining about merger of histories of a redirect with a disambiguation page. The redirect page history is trivial because there is no visible content on a redirect page. Merge or don't merge, it doesn't matter at all. The reason we need edit histories is to comply with our copyright license. When there is no visible content, there's nothing to license, so the history isn't needed, other than for convenience and supervision. I believe that what Joy did was an editor-versus-editor page move revert. They are entitled to do that. Merging the histories was apparently intended as a non-controversial housekeeping action, which is allowed, even when involved. Merging might not have been strictly necessary, but if there's a misunderstanding of how WP:HISTMERGE works, somebody can go explain that to Joy. In general, admins should clean up their own messes. There is no need to go find another admin to do something obvious. Since there was no use of protection to "win" the content dispute, I see nothing unethical about Joy's actions. Tachfin, please go discuss proper naming and alignment of the pages with the other editors concerned, and when there is an agreement, organize the pages accordinging. If you get stuck, see WP:3O or WP:RFC. Many thanks for your dedication to improving Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Δ blocked for 48 hours

    It is with regret that I have blocked Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)) for 48 hours, in enforcement of his community sanction (listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as follows:

    Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

    Betacommand has run his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation on over 130 articles between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011 (see Special:Contributions/Δ) without seeking this consensus. I, and other users, have attempted many times to engage him in dialogue about his recent return to automated editing without consensus to no avail. The sad thing is that for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive; but regretfully, the productivity of edits does not excuse failure to seek and adhere to community consensus, nor does it excuse ignoring restrictions placed by the community or the opinion of other community members. I feel sad that this has been necessary. (Corrected) --Tristessa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable - if he has violated his restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success" (block log) — err, where? I assume this refers to a recent speaking-to? NW (Talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [5], [6] from me, but plenty of other people have tried to talk to him in the past; he's definitely been warned and knows the consequences of his actions, I think, as this has gone on for literally years. The history goes back a long way before I first communicated with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2, his block log, AN/I discussion way back in 2008, his talk history. I think we can safely say he's been gently spoken to, counselled, begged, pleaded with, screamed at, and generally informed. --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them. As the last complaint at his talk page was Oct 6, its a little hard to see what the issue is here; if someone thinks his editing is making a mess, that needs to be told to him than sitting on it. The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines. ---MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem a bit severe to block him for this , "for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive" - can we unblock him and talk to him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the productivity, regretful as it is, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad. As for talking to him, this has been tried exhaustively and has routinely failed (he does not generally reply effectively to talk page messages attempting to discuss these issues with him, if at all). Were communication possible, I wouldn't have blocked. --Tristessa (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, please calm down. Your assertion that an admin not use their tools because you don't feel they've made enough contributions lately is ludicrous. Let's please stick to this situation. Dayewalker (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ludicrous at all - if your not contributing you have no authority - simple as - so you should not make unilateral judgments on active contributors and restrict them, you should make a report and defer to request the communities position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then take it up at the village pump, because that has no basis in policy that I can find. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its more reflected in common sense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, not even in the slightest. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its more reflected in common sense and as such doesn't need taking off to the village pump, it more needs promotion of the reality to stop such violations as this, so that users are aware that whatever the labels they have, thay actually only have and only should only use the authority their contributions reflect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last (apparent) communication with him was on Oct 4. He replied. I can't tell (without reviewing all his edits) whether he did take your advise re: Wayback links, but again, spotchecking the 130 contributions you're pointing out, I don't see this. The fact that he replied a few weeks ago means that you should have at least tried to communicate this concern to him before blocking. And evenmore if the edits were all productive and non-distruptive (and truly, as best as I can tell, all seem to be non-controversial), this is a bad block. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. But he only replied tangenitally in the middle of a discussion with another user (User:Hammersoft), in effect offering almost no reply to any of what I said on his talk page. How would you suggest proceeding given his recurrent proclivity towards not communicating, and that so many people have tried to address this with him? I think he's been more than adequately warned. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Between the "tangenital" and "don't be..." comments, you might want to review your own edits just a tad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here on other business, but just as a suggestion, every time one of this seemingly endless series of incidents turns into a heated argument between beta blockers and delta enablers the community loses that much more patience, and it's probably increasing the likelihood that he'll end up banned from the encyclopedia entirely. That's a poor outcome for everyone. Best tone down the emotions and deal with it practically and efficiently. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions. Previous history suggests that, unless he respects the person questioning his edits, he won't reply, and, even if he does, he won't stop before being blocked. In fact, the only times (that I can recall; I haven't been watching him continually, so I may have missed an incident) that he has changed his behavior is after a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block. Indeed, my sense of AGF is stretched a bit here, because it does look as if the blocking admin - who has used the block button precisely eight times in five years - was irritated by an error that Δ made in his edits 19 days ago, and waited for him to make some edits that could possibly be construed as a pattern before pressing the block button without further communication. If this block was not of Δ I think it would be reversed immediately because it contravenes numerous parts of WP:BLOCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this definitely wasn't my motivation, Black Kite. My first attempt at interaction with him over this issue was [7] (09:15, 28 September 2011) which I linked to above, and that was before I made any specific comment on the actual effect of his edits at all. Given the massive history of DR activity related to these behaviours, are you seriously claiming he had too little notice that he'd be liable to be blocked? I suppose there's no way of me proving to you that it's not a case that I was (or am) "irritated" with him, and indeed regret deeply that it came to the point of blocking him. --Tristessa (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm just going by the edit history. If you (or indeed, anyone) had even considered informing him that his editing pattern might be violating his sanctions, then I'd agree with the block. But no-one did. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My problem here is that blocking out of the blue without approaching for discussion and claiming there's a violation when it's on a very subjective edge (eg I don't see this as the "pattern" of edits that the community restrictions call on, but that's my opinion) is an issue. Starting an ANI thread, discussing the problem, and in the end if he still got blocked for 48hrs, I can't argue against that. But out of the blue blocks, and ones that claim communication has been tried when they haven't is a bad block. The edits should be reviewed here, and if still deemed a problem, sure. But this feels like the case of people trying to find any way to get Delta blocked indefinitely from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the time difference is germane. The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And if anyone did that, they'd be accused by the regular crowd of stocking, harassing, or provoking him. I seem to recall last time we had a delta discussion someone mentioned all these clean-up edits to him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    According the to restrictions, Beta is required to propose edits on the village pump if they affect more than 50 articles. Did he do that in this case? If so, we can get a link, and all is well. If not, then it seems to me the block is sound. If he makes 130 edits with the same edit summary, it is unreasonable to expect others to review them to see exactly what was changed. It seems like he simply ran the same script on 130 articles - and that seems like a "pattern" to me even if the script might not make exactly the same edit on each article. The restriction specifically is intended to prevent Beta from unilaterally running scripts on large numbers of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he needs to not violate his sanctions, as he is well aware. It is a pity he puts us through this every so often but there is no reason to shoot the delivery person when Beta is the one who filled out the order, mailed it off, paid for it, and then opened the door. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to tell if a script is being run, but the edits seems to be all doing different things, even if there is the same edit summary. It doesn't appear to be a script. In on edit, he's correcting IMDB to IMDb (or was it the other way?) and in others he's removing links to deleted images and in others he correcting the format of infoboxes. The edits are too diverse to be a script. I think he just used the same edit summary, but it doesn't appear to be a progress of the same edits. SilverserenC 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary. He made 320 edits in August with the exact edit summary "clean". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think we can learn much from the edit summaries then. We just have to check to see if a series of the same edits are being done, which would indicate a script. But the edits all seem to be different, at least from what i'm looking at. SilverserenC 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the main effect of the single summary is to obfuscate which tasks he is actually doing, to make it more difficult to find a pattern. But it would be amazing if there was not a pattern of 25 similar edits among the 2,000 I mentioned. IMO it is up to Beta to use different edit summaries for the different tasks. If all the edits summaries claim to be doing the same thing ("cleanup") then that is a pattern of edits. If Beta wants to show he is doing different things, he needs to use descriptive edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Re automated edits: As has happened before, this user is running scripts or 'bots which make large numbers of minor changes, some of which are useful, some of which are pointless, and some of which make things worse. And, as before, the edit comments are useless. This time, there's a new pattern of pointless changes. See [8], where the script or 'bot is converting HTML 24-bit hex colors such as "#ffcccc" into 12-bit hex colors such as "#fcc". That's a "legacy color" format from the NeXTstation/Amiga era, and is deprecated in the HTML5 spec.[9] (See "Steps for parsing a legacy color value", esp. item 6.)
    This is apparently done whenever this user's script touches an article. This is not only pointless, but a step in the wrong direction. It generates a large number of diffs, obfuscating any substantive edits. It will confuse later editors who aren't really, really familiar with the formal HTML parsing specification. Somebody please make this nonsense stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial...- User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not correct, Rob - most of the user's sanction-violating edits in this last period (> 100) occurred within one day (22 October 2011) in high-speed chunks (4-6 per minute), and I haven't even dealt with the subject of his historical editing using the "Cleanup" script on dates before the period given in the block. Aside from that, again, please stop the ad hominem. It's not helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the data from the comments here - I have seen nothing presented , and you yourself said it wasn't that his contributions were detrimental - It's not an ad homin to point out that an account is not contributing to article content - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its boorish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are considering a rule requiring significant recent content contributions by editors who impose sanctions on others then we should first consider it in light of the sitting Arbitrators.[10]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not considering a rule - just a heightened degree of common sense application of attributed authority - I would suggest that its well understood that arbiters have a heightened degree of authority and workload that can and does restrict them from ordinary contributions to project space - unlike administrators who have a lower degree of authority and if they are not contributing to article space they need to understand to not action any controversial authority edits and simply request community consensus first - what is so wrong with that - nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst having some sympathy for Rob's position (and yes I realise I pointed out the blocking admin's lack of use of the tools), this is probably distracting from the main issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, he should have been blocked for a longer time, he got blocked for a year for a reason. --Hinata talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, if the edits are beneficial, then WP:IAR concerning the sanctions and get off his tail. Are we going to start blocking active contributors now? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Rainbow Dash. IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried. Or can somebody point to me how Beta's edits were disruptive? "It's not the point, he broke the rules"? Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Just for my own edification, are we claiming that he's made a series of distinct, beneficial contributions spread out in reasonable numbers of the course of days, but since he's used "cleanup" as his edit summary, that he is deserving of a block? Is it a part of his sanctions that he must use different edit summaries? If he's violated his sanctions, then a block is justified... but if we're blocking because he used generic edit summaries, resulting only in preventing him from making positive contributions, then it should be reversed. Are any of his edits detrimental? The HTML color code thing isn't convincing to me, even as a professional web developer. That could easily be a mistake from a non-automated process.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my take - its people trying to read into "a pattern of edits" to as much a degree as necessary to "criminalize" Delta. It is vague, unfortunately, but I think one has to look at why these are in place to be understood what the issue is and what that means to "pattern of edits". The community clearly did not want Delta editing mindlessly with changes to articles with no human oversight that was creating avoidable errors and problems in articles. Again, not having reviewed every single edit, the spotchecks show nothing earthshatteringly bad. A few weeks (months?) ago, he had been doing cleanup that stripped hidden HTML comments from articles, but when he was warned on that, he no longer did it. Again, best as I can tell, when he was warned off adding Google Book links or adding Wayback links, he backed off. He's listening. This is what the community wanted, yes?
    If the issue was that this felt like a pattern of edits (arguably either way), then the right course of action shouldn't have been to block but warn Delta "This appears to be a pattern" and request he VPP what he's doing. A block this fast is just assuming a lot of bad faith when Delta is trying to contribute as much within what he can do within the restrictions. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't need to discuss every Betacommand sanction violation exhaustively, on the grounds that he really ought to know better by know, but keeps violating his sanctions anyways. Just how much longer will his ridiculous behaviour be tolerated? Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a wrong question. The correct one would be: are the sanctions helping, or hurting the project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent that the sanctions have averted some of the bad tendencies in Beta's editing, they have helped the project. When I was on the group that developed the sanctions originally [11], I expected Beta would have no trouble following them, because they were written to be easy to follow. The fact that he continues to step outside them underscores their value. Also, without the sanctions Beta would simply have been banned from enwiki. So in a sense the sanctions help the project by allowing Beta to contribute in some way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the "pattern" part of them isn't actually that clear, if this ANI discussion is anything to go by. And unfortunately, that's the important part here. The rest is easy to follow, but they aren't relevant here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal opinion is that it's a stretch to argue that 2,000 edits with exactly the same summary do not constitute a pattern. Also, if you look at his contribs, the articles are editing in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order, which is evidence he has made a list based on some criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would completely agree with you if all the edits were doing the same thing; but they're not. In fact they appear to be doing a quite wide range of cleanup operations. As for how the list is generated, I suppose the best person to ask would be Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the same cleanup script does different things depending on the page it is run on (one example would be AWB), it's still the same script. Experience shows there is little benefit in trying to discuss these things with Beta; that's how we ended up with the edit restrictions. However, it seems like the common thread in the recent edits is removing references to deleted or nonexistent images. Start with the edit to Carleen Anderson and go down the list of contribs from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a look tomorrow (it's 1:15am here). It's fairly clear regardless that this block isn't going to be undone anyway; but I do hope it'll lead to Delta's constraints being tightened up (in the sense that it's patently clear to everyone what is and isn't a violation). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, persistently yelling "ban him" at every ANI discussion when everyone else is trying to have a sensible discussion is not really helpful. We heard you the first time. It's like the random person who walks behind the TV reporter and makes faces. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup. Some aspects of it are beneficial (the removal of redlinked images), some are unnecessary (the addition of spaces after asterisks), but it does look as if the errors and more controversial aspects of this cleanup task have been stopped after the discussion we had on his talk page on 27-28 september[12].

    Basically, it is clear that this is a pattern of scripted edits, but on the other hand I can't find actual problems with the current run. Suggest unblocking on the condition that Δ gets approval at some location (VP or so) for his current cleanup task (which shouldn't be a problem), and that he gets prior approval for any changes/additions to it, to avoid the need for constant scrutiny of his many edits (which did contain errors and problems last month). Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • There were actual problems; that they are minor is arguable. Here, the edit removes an important (IMHO) hidden instruction to editors, and removes "is" from the intro entirely, which is restored by another editor here. Not a big deal, but sorta zealous and hurried, without proper previewing. Yes, it's a giant article, and it's hard to preview everything, but that was the first word in the lead sentence. That's the only example I'm going to cite, because I feel most of the edits performed were beneficial, though a few were neutral, and arguably personal preferences (shortening named ref names). I have no beef with the editor whatsoever, and it is indeed regrettable that the situation has gone this far without the editor responding to requests and suggestions in a meaningful way. Hell, I even learned how not to be uncivil as a result of reasonable requests, and (finally) links to helpful essays. I'm saying that requests shouldn't be ignored, or blown off; they should be considered civilly. If they pile up unanswered, per WP:DISPUTE, escalation is not only desirable, it is necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. If escalation is all that will get an editors attention, it's not so bad. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoever is doing the distributed TCP flood attack on my home connection's static IP (I guess you must have found it via /whois on freenode), can you please stop doing it. If you have a grievance about the block, please raise it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Tristessa (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ""Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation"/"apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time"/"They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup." - If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?

    So can someone show me where exactly there was a pattern of edits? And if not, can we then overturn this block? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have to "dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same", I just have to look at the last 25, or 50, or 100 edits by him with the "cleanup" tag. They all are based around the removal of deleted images from pages, and add some minor AWB-like cleanup stuff. Do other editors have editing patterns as well? Obviously, e.g. my AWB edits are a pattern, even if they include things like space removal, template replacement, and adding of orphan tags. The pattern in my case is tagging as unsourced. Some of my non-AWB edits also follow a pattern, e.g. category additions. Others are completelyt outside any regular pattern. Taking the same approach, it is quite obvious that Δ makes patterned, scripted edits. E.g. these 4 consecutive edits in one minute: [13][14][15][16] all have one image removed, and some layout cleanup, including the automated addition of descriptions to bare links. You can check the dozens of edits before and after these as well. I don't see the point in your denial that the sky is blue here, or that this isn't a pattern. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that is clear then. Doing 25 cleanup edits is a pattern - as probably is doing 25 edits in a row. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually wonder how someone who is not allowed to perform more than, what was it, 25 edits with a conceivable pattern without permission is allowed to do thousands and thousands of edits. Δ should have been blocked way earlier than this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can Delta use more than 25 edits on one page to bring it to FA status? Or is that a pattern of 'bringing a page to FA status'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The restriction is to 25 or more pages, not to 25 edits to one page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WHAT, now you say that he is allowed to do 25 consequtive edits to one page, which all would, e.g. convert 'period-space' to 'period-space-space' and it is not a pattern, but if he does that on 25 different pages it is. No, Carl. Both are patterns - 25 edits to 25 different pages, changing some text in all of them is a pattern of changing text in 25 different pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the contribs from Carleen Anderson down in the current list of 50 contribs, they all involve removing a reference to a deleted image. So there is one pattern just in the recent ones. It is probably true that he should have been blocked earlier, unless he did get a village pump approval for these. But nobody is being paid to watch his edits so closely, so we can only expect people to notice things occasionally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, the edit before that, removes another image than what is removed on Carleen Anderson. So editing 25 pages in a row, in all cases adding or removing a couple of (every time different) words is a pattern of .. adding a couple of .. editing. Can we please define 'pattern' now? What is the pattern that you see and that is different from 'adding every time a different word to a different page'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In all the edits he is removing a reference to a deleted image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CBM; you're effectively saying that if Δ makes any edit that is similar to another one, it's the beginning of a pattern. If he removed a link to a particular image, I could see it. But, you're saying that if he removes links at all he has to seek approval. This is mind bogglingly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, if he makes a series of edits that are similar to each other, that is a "pattern". He clearly has **some** purpose in mind with his edits, he is simply obfuscating it by not giving clear edit summaries. The restriction is not excessively vague, he is simply pushing it to the edge instead of working inside it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Carl, but .. well, adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern, or are you (or Tristessa) singlehandedly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them. I know patience with Δ is low, but what harm would it have done to question him on the matter? If the edits are, as evidence suggests, beneficial to the project, then the goal should be to stop Δ from violating the sanction while continuing to add those beneficial edits to the project. Put another way, if he had actually posted and asked permission, would it have been granted? Would it be granted now, seeing as we have examples of the work? I don't know. But, however valid, I think this block was mishandled - and I'll bet half the discussion here is a direct result. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same. In practically any other case of a ban being flouted in those conditions admins are not normally expected to stop to think twice before enforcing the community consensus with the tools provided for such a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated/Semi-Automated tool usage

    I asked this last time, and never got an answer. Is Delta not still prohibited from making automatic/semi-automatic edits? Last I checked that was on his original list of sanctions and I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about that being listed anywhere. Frankly he just shouldn't be anywhere near that scene at all. It always ends badly for him.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossmr:

    Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

    Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

    Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

    Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

    For as far as I can see, there is no restriction on automated or semi-automated edits there. Strict review, yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't look directly above that?

    Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate

    I knew we'd decided that, and I don't recall a concensus reached discussion anywhere that overturned that and it certainly isn't recorded there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, I missed that. But a script is not an automated program when every edit is manually reviewed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's prohibited from making edits that could appear automated either. And in the past he's admitted to not properly reviewing edits like in the case where he reverted someone over NFCC violation because he didn't properly notice they only linked to an image and didn't re-insert it because he was working on diffs and not actually looking at the page.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification needed

    This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [17], just a month old. The behavior being found at fault here is effectively the same. So one AN/I thread concludes with no apparent violation, and then this thread starts with a block and unsurprisingly the resulting fracas.

    I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed.

    But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ. Sure, some of you are going to scream "but he doesn't deserve fair, he hasn't earned it!". Cart before the horse. If you can't provide an environment in which he can work within his restrictions, you are dooming him to fail no matter what he does. At this point, according to Tristessa, a series of different types of changes constitutes a pattern. How in hell is anyone supposed to abide by the restrictions when it's interpreted so broadly that any edit constitutes a pattern?

    This restriction either needs to be more tightly defined, or Δ needs to be banned from the project, since the restriction is making it impossible for him to edit. This middle ground is resulting in far too many threads, far too much acrimony, with entirely predictable and avoidable results. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The real problem is that we are dealing with an editor who is unable to communicate effectively. Further up the page here, there is an incident involving Rezabot, which had to be stopped because of a total of 3 bad edits in a run. The bot owner's preferred language is Farsi, but he's been perfectly amenable to efforts to diagnose and resolve the problem, and the bot has been restarted without concern that he'll just go back and do it again. If Beta only communicated, we would not be here. I agree he may not understand the restrictions. Do we want to say "you may not edit with bots, scripts or any other automated tool, unless you have completed all the paperwork and got approval." Is that the intention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the point is that if Beta wants to perform some task on 25 or more articles, he needs to get approval. That is an explicit goal of the editing restriction, to prevent him from doing undiscussed semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. It is unreasonable to allow him to avoid the restriction by obfuscating thousands of edits by giving them the same edit summary. If he were to focus on writing content instead of cleanup, these sorts of complaints would disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But, Carl, writing 25 different articles is a pattern of editing. And 'removing 25 different images from 25 different pages' is not more or less a pattern than 'writing 25 different articles'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets even worse, technically, over, say, 10.000 edits and a period of, say, 2 years (or more) {Δ would not be allowed to remove, e.g., the word 'the' as superfluous in >25 different articles, since that is also a pattern. Just a matter of going closely through his edits, and for sure you will find 25 of that type of edits over the last year. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation is not like that. In the last 50 edits alone we can see a pattern of removing references to deleted images. It is not as if these "cleanup" edits were infrequent and interspersed with other sorts of edits - the recent contribs show over 25 in a row with no other edits at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paint brush you are describing is using TYPES of edits as a "pattern", rather than SPECIFIC edits. Under such an interpretation of the restriction, it's impossible for him to edit unless he gets approval for every 25 edits. We can debate whether it was a pattern elsewhere. The point is, you've construed this paintbrush very, very broadly. Others don't construe it as broadly. This needs to be clarified, or we WILL be back here again because of disagreement as to what this restriction really means. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the restriction applies to types of edits. The same sort of cleanup edit made to 25 articles is a pattern, even if the exact change to the text is not the same each time. We don't expect a semi-automated process to make exactly the same change each time, just the same type of change. In this case we can point out exactly that the type of change appears to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but still, doing 25 edits in a row trying to improve 25 articles is a pattern as well. And are you now suggesting that if he, say, every 20 edits does one dummy edit to break the pattern it is not a pattern anymore? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not a broad enough paintbrush. These two edits separated by two years constitute a pattern: [18] & [19]. See, they both used "cleanup" as an edit summary, and both modified what templates were being addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is the definition of "pattern" isn't defined, and is being construed to apply across a broad swath of editing. Without a clearer definition, we will be back here. So, I suggest either clarifying the restriction or banning Δ entirely, since it is in practice impossible for him to comply with the restriction according to all definitions apparently in play as to what a "pattern" is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dirk Beetstra and Hammersoft are trying (so far unsuccessfully though) to muddy the waters by debating what constitues a "pattern", and using reductio ad absurdum as if it was a valid debating technique. Perhaps they can indicate what, in their opinion, constitutes a "pattern" and what doesn't. The edit restriction gives "any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", but apparently removing references to deleted images on dozens of pages in a row, with minimal automated additional cleanup on the same pages, does not fit that definition. Could either of you please give an example of a task that you feel does fit the "pattern" definition? Or are you trying to say that anything extremely repetitive set of edits is not a pattern as long as Delta makes them? I hope the former, but it looks more and more like the latter, and that you are trying to defend Delta because it is Delta, and are willing to ignore reality when it suits you here. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I already stipulated that if Δ were to remove a particular image 25 times or more that that would be a pattern. Perhaps you missed that? The point is what YOU call a pattern, and what I call a pattern is irrelevant. Every person here might have a different definition of what that is. Without a clearer definition, Δ is set up to fail. No matter what he does, he can't comply. As an abject demonstration of this lunacy, the case here in call was already discussed a month ago, and concluded with it not being a pattern. Now, it suddenly is and his head is being served on a platter. He can't comply. The only possible way to make all of you happy is for him to stop editing entirely. Perhaps that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, Δ could err on the side of caution and request approval as indicated if he wants to make a large series of semi-automated edits that all do something quite similar. –xenotalk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity. I intend to make separate requests to cover such things as adding stub templates, removing references to deleted images, re-pointing calls to templates away from redirects to the proper template name, etc. I'm going to paint using as broad a paintbrush as possible to avoid the sorts of threads this one is so emblematic of. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be extremely helpful I feel. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are people making this so bloody difficult. I simplify some, but Delta is in this situation because Delta wrote number of scripts with some controversy, ran them through a few hundred or few thousand articles, did not answer the resulting criticism well, and kept repeating that loop. Sometimes things were exacerbated by claims that hundreds of edits an hour were "manual" rather than "semi-automated" and so not subject to bot approval. So now, just about any repetitive task Delta does is treated as de facto semi-automated, and limited to 25 articles without prior review. Ordinary, manual article editing is rarely "repetitive" for more than a few articles, and doesn't have long "patterns". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on whether they are modified by WP:VPP consensus further to Hammersoft's excellent work on the subject, enforcement blocks could escalate -- but blocking a productive editor is not something that should be taken lightly and I really couldn't have felt justified blocking for any longer. If of course this situation continues he may then be blocked for longer, but I think we should stay away from any medium or long-term block unless it becomes clear that efforts made in this discussion haven't worked later on. I sincerely hope this will not be the case and positive developments in collaboration between Hammersoft and Delta may well ensure it is not, provided Delta becomes more responsive to communication in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental problem seems to be that Beta desperately wants to make large numbers of edits automatically or semi-automatically, and just isn't good enough at programming to do it without frequently breaking something. What he really needs is outside code review. It might improve his programming skills. Given the communication issues, though... --John Nagle (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had little involvement in this, but my impression is that Δ's main problem is not a lack of programming competency, but rather one of [temporary] obstinacy, and perhaps one of lacking knowledge of editing standards outside Wikipedia. See the archived discussions about dates of book publishing: User talk:Δ/20110901; AN thread. He usually changes his script when enough people complain about a particular aspect of it. That talk archive page has some genuine bug reports, but also at least four design complaints: (1) switching articles to WP:LDR, (2) switching non-temlpated book citation to {{cite book}}, (3) the publishing date issue, and (4) linking to main google book page [not page preview]. However his first reaction seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature". The main communication problem seems to be that his semi-automated clean-up tasks aren't documented anywhere as far as I can tell, and his scripts seem to get enriched with new features that don't seem to be discussed with anyone prior to their implementation. I don't know if that's a violation of some Wikipedia policies or of his restrictions or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:Δ/Proposed tasks was created yesterday by a friend of his. Perhaps there's hope of a more cooperative approach here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've got contributions going back to 2005. Unless you've spent your wiki career under the proverbial rock you should know this isn't the community's first kick at the can with Delta. No one takes blocking Delta lightly and outside of possibly Giano, jimbo and that on wheels guy I doubt anyone else has ever received this much attention and/or community effort to work with him and shape him into an editor that is here to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram - it is not my intention to muddy the water, it is my intention to show that 'pattern' can be turned into anything positive or negative, and then Δ gets the block as soon as someone defines a pattern as being negative - or even when all edits in the pattern are in fact 'positive'.

    @all: OK, there is a restriction that should stop patterns. That is all fine, it has been lengthy discussed etc. I can see the necessity of it. I do however think that the risk with the broadness of the term 'pattern' is that things evolve to being a pattern, and that anything - positive and negative - can be construed as a pattern (which I tried to show with my reductio ad absurdum). One removes an image left, and an image right, and there is no pattern yet, but when it approaches - even over 5000 edits spread over months - 25 times a removed image, it can be, and obviously is, construed as a pattern - especially when it then comes in longer bursts where that is happening. For more, see suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a case of "take the first letters of every article Beta edits, turn them into numbers and divide by three and you get the Fibonacci sequence". It's BetaCommand carrying out a series of small, rapid cleanup tasks with generic summaries which closely approximate the sort of things that bots and scripts are written to do. This is why most bans include the words "broadly construed". We do not want banned editors to test the waters of their bans. We want them to stop doing what they were banned for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, Chris. And I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern, but I do think on the other hand, that if you take out the obvious patterns, there will be less obvious patterns (but which are still not as absurd as I, Hammersoft or now you put them). I am not excusing Delta from not seeing the obvious patterns and not asking permission for it, but I do think that when first there is an AN/I thread saying that there is not really a pattern, Δ editing on with that thought and then a month later after hardly any discussion someone comes, construes something/it as a pattern (which it now apparently is, while first it was ot) and blocks Δ is not the way forward. I've been on Wikipedia a long time - and I do know how effective WP:BEANS really is - even if it is not a suggestion, but just as a practice that works. Δ now asks permission for 30 patterns (and may get all 41 granted), starts editing, and one 'Beta-blocker' (I know, 'Δ-blocker) goes through the edits, and finds obvious pattern 42 and we have another AN/I thread and another (and then probably lengthy) block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way Chris, I hope we want banned editors to become productive editors again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is on BetaCommand to be careful to stay within his editing restrictions as they may be construed by the admin corps; if he is, after all this time, unable to wrap his brain around what is construed as an automated edit and what isn't then that is not the fault of the admin corps, nor anyone except Beta. If he chooses to skirt close to the edge of the defined restrictions, or otherwise to test them, then he has little recourse when a member of the admin corps (who is likely not perfect, but is almost certainly better-trusted by the community than Beta is) opts to interpret said action as flouting his restrictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know .. but as I said, first an AN/I thread states something is not a pattern, and then it is interpreted by another admin as 'flouting his restrictions'. Again, the WP:BEANS have now been planted to find the pattern that Δ is flouting after this block is expired. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe at this point since there is no definition of "pattern" that Δ's edits in general are a pattern (i.e., 25 edits in mainspace = pattern) which there are attempts to suppress. That's the source of this most recent block; no definition of pattern. Indeed, chaos = pattern [22]. It's hopeless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion

    Suggestion: If someone finds that something is a pattern in Δ's edits (however obvious or absurd), then that editor is a) bringing that to an AN or AN/I thread and b) obviously notifies Δ of the thread. Δ is at that point to stop with performing edits that were construed as being part of a 'pattern' (disable it in a script, whatever, just stop it). Either the community answer is 'this looks like a pattern indeed, Δ needs to go through VPP' (note: Δ can do that immediately when notified, even when community is not yet certain if it is a pattern, if it is not really a pattern, if the pattern is absurd, if it is necessary, whatever, going to get it is wise anyway - that can also be done when an editor notifies Δ privately (also wise), but then is not sanctionable if Δ would not), or the community dismisses the pattern as not being a pattern. There will be no blocks applied, even if it is deemed that over the last thousands of edits there were way over 25 of said pattern and the community does notice that Δ did not ask for permission for that pattern (blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern). Note, that if Δ himself thinks certain edits can be construed as a pattern, then he should go to VPP as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I do admire the refuge in audacity that is repeatedly suggesting BetaCommand's editing restrictions should be enforced by not enforcing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss the 'blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern'? All I try to prevent here, is that less obvious patterns are resulting in immediate lengthy (and technically correct) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not miss that you graciously offered to allow for BetaCommand's current editing restrictions to be enforced using the standard method after a new series of hoops are jumped through. I also did not miss your new blanket retroactive immunity for any edits made up until this new "warning" phase, which suggests that Beta could simply work in 10,000-edit bursts so long as he could complete each run in time to halt it when the VPP thread inevitably turned up. What I perhaps missed is whom exactly you think you're likely to persuade here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got me there, did not think about that loophole. Though there is still a restriction on edit-speed (so 10,000 edits is difficult to attain), and I am sure 50 in a row would be impossible due to the monitoring that is applied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We still have the issue with the current restriction above against edits which are automated or appear automated. Delta needs to just stay away from scripts full stop. That's the suggestion. Frankly, I seem to recall more than one person thinking Delta is running automatic scripts or a bot on his main account the way he edits sometimes. There has been a lot of that going on, and it has been causing issues on top of that. Pretending he didn't make those edits or ignoring it won't make the issue go away.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delta is prohibited from making edits which are automatic or appear automatic. This would include using a script if his work appears automatic. It's clearly listed on his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You apply the adjective "manual" to "script" as though an exemption, but surely it's impossible by definition for a script to be manual — that is, unless he's a human Perl interpreter, running the code in his head with a Wikipedia edit box and a pageholder bearing a printout of the source side-by-side. I assume he's painstakingly typing the word "Cleanup" with precisely the same capitalisation in each edit summary box. His achievement of 6 edits/min is testament to his phenomenal, computer-like brain; I could, in which case, make a fortune writing his biography. --Tristessa (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you do realise that it is possible to type the word 'Cleanup', manually, a couple of thousands of times in the same way (sure, tedious), and do 6 edits manually with tabbed browsing within a minute (easy, I can do more), and it is even possible to actually combine those two. No scripts involved there. Point is, it is entirely possible to do 100 edits by hand, which are a pattern, and I hope that you blocked him for editing with a pattern without having consensus for that pattern, not for scripted, and not for automated edits (I do agree that the term 'manual script' is a bit strange - script assisted edits or something like that is more likely). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a point of fact, I frequently conduct group of edits where the edits are completed within a minute or two, have the same edit summary, and conduct the same work. I don't use a script to do this. I am using an electronic device to assist me though. I'm confident Δ uses a similar device as well. Unfortunately for him, that device hasn't been explicitly authorized by consensus for him to use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delta listing edits as vandalism when they are not

    Nothing to see or do here. LadyofShalott 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just came across this revert that Delta has made. He identified an edit on his userpage as vandalism when it was in fact not vandalism. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit that you linked to, way back in June, shows him reverting what was at best a misplaced talkpage notice that ended up on his userpage instead of his user talk; at worst it was also one of those "Welcome to Wikipedia" type messages that arguably shouldn't have been placed for him anyway as per WP:DTR and was intended to annoy, or else was the accidental result of an automatic process. I hardly therefore see why it matters whether he clicked the "vandalism" button in TW or not. And, lest this become a forum for generalised whacking of Delta, this is a discussion specifically about his sanctions and recent enforcement, not dredging up every single potentially questionable edit he has ever made to drag him through the mud with. --Tristessa (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I did not know there was a statute of limitations when it came to reporting objectionable activity. Second, Delta is one of the most controversial figured in Wikipedia, so a "generalized whacking" (as you put it) it not occuring spontaneously but as a result of careful examination of his actions. Third, one generally apologizes when they have done something in error or incorrectly. That does not seem to have occured in this case, indicating that it was an action that was not in error. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that it appears to have been mistaken. But it's not actionable. Even in the midst of an investigation into other behavior we're responding to, this is not something anyone is going to act upon.
    A pattern of calling other people's edits vandalism would be another thing. But one own user page reversion using an automated tool which leaves a borderline "vandalism" edit summary is not a pattern nor an issue.
    We have bigger issues to review, and tiny infractions aren't worth bringing up here. We have to keep things in perspective. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Either the IP is actually user Alucardbarnivous, or he's trying to speak for him, neither of which would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither true, actually. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals by Hammersoft

    I was going to just carry on when I made my comments at VPP earlier, but I've noticed that since I've commented there, he's added a whole pile of extremely trivial requests of no specific direction which don't really seem in-line with the intention of Delta's restriction. It seems like Hammersoft is fishing to add all kinds of blanket "Exceptions" to Delta's editing restrictions rather than propose that delta is about to undertake a specific task as would seem to be indicated by the restriction. These edits come across as pointy, WP:BEAN, WP:GAME, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the community, and basically boil down to being disruptive. Despite the fact that out of the first 12 or so he proposed, only 1 or 2 really had any traction, including the blanket "oppose all"s at the top, he's gone and proposed several more. As someone pointed out, it would seem the intention behind this restriction is in a scenario like this: Delta seems an issue with a series of articles. Perhaps all the articles in a project need pictures, but only 5 out of 200 have them. He wants to add a picture request template to the articles. So he goes to VPP and says "I want to make 195 additions of this template to the articles in this scope, what do you think? much as one might propose a bot task. Instead Hammersoft is attempting to add indefinite exceptions of no scope and no time frame to the list of restrictions we already have. And in fact, despite doing that, all Hammersoft is really asking is that Delta be allowed to perform these tasks. He's already allowed to perform, but if he's going to make similar changes to a large group of articles he should just propose it first to make sure there are no preemptive objections. This entire situation reminds me of the mess we have sometimes when someone decides to AfD 50 articles from a single project (like that transformers thing) this is just entirely unmanageable and disruptive per the above cited policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Every requested task are edits that Δ has previously done and someone might construe as constituting a pattern. It is a good faith effort. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. Am I asking for indefinite exceptions? No, but if I were you need only look as far as the first bullet item in his restrictions, which also has no time frame. 20 edits from 2009 and 20 from 2011 can be construed as a pattern underneath that restriction. Perhaps you might suggest a re-wording of the restriction to clarify the issue? What I am hoping to achieve is to avoid situations where an editor looks through a few months of his editing history and demands linking to a thread at WP:VPR showing where he had approval to do edits of a particular type. That's happened several times already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason it has happened is because Beta has refused to follow his restriction, not because the restriction was too vague for him to understand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand you oppose Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't oppose him editing. I oppose efforts to enable the particular sorts of editing that he has proven unable to perform productively. Ironically, proposals such as yours to allow him to edit more freely will only result in him coming under stronger sanctions later, because he has shown time and time again that he is unable or unwilling to perform certain types of tasks without controversy. The solution is to find things that he is able to do, not to allow him to dig a deeper hole for himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You oppose him doing maintenance tasks because you believe he's unsuited to them. I believe he is. My opinion is worthless, yours is gold. I am not making ANY proposal for him to edit more freely. You (if I recall) and others have demanded he provide evidence he made requests at WP:VPR for various editing he has done. Now the requests are being made and you cry foul? What the hell is he supposed to do? You are not giving him any way out except to quit the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are indeed making proposals on the village pump to allow him to perform various tasks in an automated or semi-automated manner without further review. Ironically, if I did want to see Beta banned (which I do not), the best way to accomplish it would be to convince everyone to allow him to go back to the sorts of edits that led to the restrictions in the first place. That seems to be what you are seeking in your proposals. The only way to prevent Beta from being banned is to break the cycle of chronically disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't seem to work. He is doing semi-automated editing whether you like it or not. That is certainly the bulk of his edits for the past 3 months. The only alternative to a full site ban is to let him do those tasks that he can code correctly and that are uncontroversial. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he continues the way he has been, it is clear he will eventually be banned again. Experience shows that he is not able (or not willing) to limit his maintenance work to correctly coded uncontroversial tasks. So I think we mostly agree. But I think there is a chance he could continue to edit if he were willing to change to a different sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is completely counterproductive for Hammersoft to continue to act as Delta's spokesperson and uncritical apologist. How is Delta going to show that he has learned how to express and explain himself and to respond to community concerns and complaints, if someone else is constantly doing it for him? The implicit statement is that not even Hammersoft trusts him to speak for himself. Is there a way we can put an end to this? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. When the last round of problems with Beta's non-free image work came up, Hammersoft argued vehemently that tere was no problem at all. Beta ended up topic-banned from non-free images. When Tristessa attemtped to discuss concerns with pattern editing, HS took over and argued the case right into the ground. A little later, Tristessa blocks Beta for pattern editing. Now HS is once more tenaciously leading the fight to get all these tasks approved and it looks like at least half are being rejected. And that's better than Beta could do himself? Franamax (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? You want to go with unjust treatment? Delta brought this on himself over the years of poor behaviour. His repeated inability to not get it, and the direct result of the ever dwindling number of those running around enabling that behaviour. Delta probably owns the record for most chances given, and the current restrictions exist only because of that past behaviour. He has utterly failed almost from the time he was unbanned until now to work within these restrictions. Restrictions he agreed to follow. There isn't anything remotely unjust about the way he's being treated.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would suggest Δ receive no help, no input, no assistance...that whatever his faults, nobody can help him? He has to prove he's perfect by all the various insane measures being applied to him, and do so on his own under pain of banishment from the site? Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, Hammersoft, your recent edits say that NFCC#10c content "MUST be removed". The actual quote from the policy is "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Please change your edit summary to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is completely counterproductive is for certain editors to attack the few, like Hammersoft, who try to address greater wrongs, and help editors who are slammed by badly constructed, too broad restrictions. Unfortunately, like in the real world, few get popular by trying to help the downtrodden, while piling in and kicking those who are down - and the few who try to help them - is a much more popular sport. Recommended reading #1 and #2 come to mind, although I recognize well they are just a voice crying in the wild... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm. You're saying that after Δ wrote [23]:

    This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT The only constant 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

    I suppose you find his civility restriction pointless as well, but not because it doesn't get enforced. And perhaps the WP:BOTPOL is useless too. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with the language, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. It is absurd that one month a set of edits is not viewed as a pattern, and a month later without discussion he is blocked for the same type of edits. THAT is a facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not prohibited from performing such edits. The issue isn't using a script. It's the definition of "pattern". There's some efforts under way to more tightly define what "pattern" is to avoid situations like this in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What folks may mean is where use of automated tools looks probable, without the near-impossible burden of proving it. And most likely the issue is those that are not low key maintenance types, i.e. edits where someone would expect a genuine edit summary of substance, (and the related case-by-case deliberation which that indicates) written for the specific edit. Which may be the answer. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I wasn't around when the restriction were drafted, so I use the Webster to interpret "pattern" as:

    a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution <a behavior pattern> <spending patterns>
    a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts <foreign policy patterns>
    frequent or widespread incidence <a pattern of dissent> <a pattern of violence>

    What Δ was doing "standardizing references" seems to fit these definitions for example. And so was removing deleted images. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We could probably take this to ArbCom if there's community disagreement whether what Δ was doing had patterns or not. ArbCom's evidence pages allow more analysis than is normally possible on noticeboards. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the past 24 hours are any indication, taking it to ArbCom would result in 20,000+ words, 60 pages worth of argumentation, and we'd still not have a definition of "pattern" for our purposes. Your dicdef, among other problems, doesn't contain a time frame. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, since we literally have lawyers on the ArbCom (e.g. Template:NYB), maybe they'll come up with a better set of restrictions than the community managed, or perhaps they'll remove them altogether as impractical given Δ's editing focus. Do you think they could handle that? ʔ (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How 'bout any sequence of edits that doesn't have edit summaries specialized to the particular edit? North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we just topic ban Hammersoft from commenting about Betacommand in any way? Jtrainor (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we all chill out? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd buy that for a dollar. As far as pattern goes, I'd suggest that any repetitive task (e.g. deciding to remove all the deleted images from a list of articles is a pattern) or any kind of theme of edits, general cleanup which may be labelled as such but include some variation in each article (ref cleanup, typo fixes, date maintenance, etc) would be a pattern. It would also need to happen over a reasonable time frame. Dirk and Hammersoft have been harping on this whole scenario where they claim someone is going to find 25 like edits that stretch over the last 2 years and have him banned on them. But I've seen no evidence to support that (hence my point about the VPP process being an assumption of bad faith, as it was born out of that mindset), but I'd suggest that if he's going to run his "semi"-automatic script on more than 24 articles in a 48 hour period he should propose it's function and get feedback first.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You imply that two years is an unreasonable time frame, and attack me for posting to WP:VPR in bad faith, and then come up with your own personal definition of "pattern"? So I'm posting in bad faith because I can see people construing two years as a pattern, and you're posting in good faith because your opinion is 48 hours. Do you not see the disconnect? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's an unreasonable time frame, and this fear that you and dirk have worked up over it seems to have no basis in reality. Other then Delta's just generally poor editing behaviour over the last 2 years (civility, stubborness, that kind of stuff) have you ever seen anyone try to put together diffs stretching over 2 years to claim he was making a specific kind of pattern of edits? No, I don't think you have, and trying to make all these pointy proposals based on that fear is a bad faith assumption. My suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, something I'd view as a reasonable time frame, people are free to discuss it and modify it as the community saw fit. You were using your assumption as motivation for what looks like the issues I laid out above. Two entirely different scenarios.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When I saw this thread and watched everyone's own definition of "pattern", this thing comes into my mind. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several proposals on WP:VPR to more accurately define "pattern". Constructive comments are welcome. Solipsism is probably something we could do without, unless you personally volunteer to physically oversee Δ's activities. Uʔ (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ʔ - I think you did misunderstand Hammersofts (and also my) reductio ad absurdum of 'pattern'. Yes, there are edits which can constitute a pattern, I am not disagreeing on that. The point is, that when you either take out the pattern that is now there, or when you allow certain parts of the pattern, a new pattern will emerge (he is then doing a pattern of edits which is created of edits which are following an allowed pattern - but he does not have permission do to a pattern of patterned edits). a) the word pattern is too vague - b) the timeframe of 'pattern' is too vague - if he does 25 edits in a row which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is a pattern (that is what he did now), if he does 25 edits in a set of 100 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is arguably also a pattern, if he, from the moment that he is allowed to edit, until now does 25 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common .. then one could construe that as a pattern. Maybe I am reducing this ad absurdum, but unfortunately the beta-blockers have that handle with this vague description.

    For ARBCOM - I do not expect them to lay out the definition of 'pattern' for us, they will maybe enforce or confirm the restriction, and still leave the definition and specifics of the word 'pattern' to us (they may even add 'broadly construed' to the term pattern, so it becomes even more vague). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Exhaustively defining Beta's editing restrictions to cover every real or imagined permutation is not a productive use of our time. The inevitable outcome is that the restrictions will become broader over time rather than more specific until either Beta stops testing the waters and does something useful with his time or he is blocked from editing entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand that, and there will always be cases slipping through. But using some common sense to define 'pattern' (as opposed to leaving it totally blank) is necessary here - otherwise we can just as well indef Δ now and get over it and avoid all future dramah, as that is simply what is the outcome. I know that is not what the general aim is of all people here, but that is what is the general outcome of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The expected outcome is that Beta refrains from editing like a robot, because time and again he's shown that allowing him to do so causes disruption. In that respect, two dozen exceptions to Beta's restrictions which cover things which we could do (and do do) with a Perl script does not help with that at all. His supporters should be trying to wean him off these edits, not simply prevent him from being blocked when he makes them. As for simply banning him entirely, we edge closer and closer to that outcome every time we end up back here, as it does indeed look like the path of least drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Δ's supporters constantly state that, with respect to Δ's sanctions, no definition of a "pattern" yet exists. They also claim that a usual interpretation of what "pattern" might mean is in fact not a pattern, and it's all a big, tragic misinterpretation on the rest of the community's part. I believe this is simply an attempt to have him exempted from the editing restrictions by forcing as unusual, and as abstract, a definition of a "pattern" as possible; and that their proposed definition is actually "nothing that Δ ever does". In addition, we have heard from CBM (talk · contribs) since this thread opened who helped draft the wording of the community editing restriction, and he clarified that Δ's editing is exactly the sort of thing he was meant to be restricted from doing. The act of applying the same set of "cleanup" general fixes to a range of multiple articles should, I think, more than adequately class as a pattern in most editors' eyes. The existence of "patterns" should be left to individual administrator discretion to determine, a state of affairs that appears to be broken only in the eyes of people trying to help him avoid the sanctions. We have, for once, proper dialogue on the tasks that he is able to undertake with permission at WP:VPP, which means there is now surely no excuse for not bringing automated tasks to community approval. The attempts to include modifications to the sanction to ambiguously permit MoS edits, or redefine the word "pattern" to a sideline meaning not related to the problematic behaviours, are not helping; the correct course of action is already happening. But what I would like to see is more of these users assisting Δ to liase effectively with the community, and less of them trying to find or generate loopholes in the sanctions. --Tristessa (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that each individual discussion is starting with a blanket 4 people opposing each one, I can't see you (generally used) generate enough support for most or any of those to actually go anywhere. About the only one remotely going anywhere is #7, which a bot already does, #18, which a bot already does, and that's basically it. The rest all either have significant opposes in the discussions, or the handful of supports they've gained really don't make an overwhelming consensus in the face of the opposes at the top. Hence why I brought this here, as this was more or less clear before the last 7 or 8 were added.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize him, then they should make a proposal to ban him from article space. Blanket opposes do nothing to help foster a consensus building environment, and are antithetical to the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beta is free to edit mainspace in non-automated fashion. If you're okay with that status quo, then perhaps you'll withdraw your proposals? We shouldn't have to re-vote to affirm the community decision every time Beta tests or violates his restrictions or one of his supporters wants to lift them. At some point the community has made its decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Δ is required to seek permission to perform edits that can be construed as a pattern. These requests are being done in support of that requirement. I will not withdraw them. The problem isn't the requests, it's the definition of pattern. Every one of the proposals so far made can be construed as a pattern, if enough of them are done. Since these edits have been done in the past, moving forward to do any more of them requires approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those proposals are being individually considered by multiple editors. Yet when editors register and explain their considered objections, you claim it is opposing for the sake of opposing and should be dismissed. You are the one who decided to make the individual proposals. You shouldn't complain if some or most of them are rejected on their individual merits. Franamax (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blanket opposes are opposing "because". It's not considering each proposal. I have no objection to proposals being rejected on their individual merits. A blanket oppose is no better than a person coming to WP:AN/I and saying "I hereby disagree with every thread here". It's meaningless and empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are not simply "because". It is perfectly reasonable for the reviewers to take into account both the request and the person making the request. If reviewers do not feel Beta is suitable to perform the tasks, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation for opposing the proposal. Reviewers are allowed to take Beta's history into account when they look at his proposals - that's the point, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that each proposal is not being reviewed on its merits. Instead, it's a blanket oppose to Δ doing anything. There is no such sanction on the table or being discussed. If someone wants to propose that, fine. But, to attempt to use a blanket oppose to stop all proposed tasks is missing the mark by a mile. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion that each proposal should be considered strictly on its merits, in a vacuum, without even the possibility of considering the long and colorful history behind all of this -- to wit, applying the sanctions blindly without considering why they were put in place to begin with -- seems very novel. There was no wording in the sanctions that suggests Δ would be allowed to continue semi-automated edits indefinitely; in fact, it's clear from even a cursory reading of them that he is only going to be allowed to do so where and when he has the community's support, as judged by consensus. If, as you seem to be suggesting, we should discount opposition to each proposal that "is not being reviewed on its merits", how do you feel we should interpret support which apparently does the same? Yours, for example. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm at a loss. If the requests are made to WP:VPR, there's a problem. If they aren't made, there's a problem. If the requests are made, but we don't consider everything about Δ in each and every request, there's a problem. Nevermind that there's no sanction against him forbidding him to edit in mainspace. All of us have created one hell of a Gordian knot with no possible way for Δ to edit that isn't going to piss off somebody. Δ can't even remove a whitespace anymore. He's in a straight jacket, and no matter how angelic he is he'll receive harsh criticism. The community has left him with no possible way to avoid pissing it off. Nicely done. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    People will complain about any outcome, probably. Doesn't mean we can't move forward. I take the current discussion at WP:VPR as a step in that direction, in spite of the issues that have been raised. You do bring up a good point, though: we needn't take every proposal as a fresh RfC on Δ. Hopefully, discussing several proposals at once will help to avoid that problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already explained to you, the problem is in the kind of proposals you're making. Delta is supposed to be making requests for himself, about specific tasks he wants to undertake. One of Delta's problems is communicating with the community, he's not gaining any goodwill by having you running around doing that, especially in the way it has been done here. These things you've proposed are not specific focus tasks, so as far as I'm concerned they're not even remotely valid requests to start with. I've already outlined an example of the kinds of tasks Delta should be proposing and others have confirmed that they should be in that vein. If Delta wants to go around and do certain kinds of clean-up, then he should propose a specific task, e.g. "I'm going to clean-up all the articles that have problem X, it's approximately this many articles (because I'm sure he's got a tool that can generate a list), and while I clean up this problem, I'll also fix problem Y, Z, and A. It'll take approximately B hours/days/etc to do so. Any concerns?" The blanket opposes are more than valid because they are maintaining the status quou and don't see any reason to give Delta any blanket, indefinite exemptions of no real scope to Delta.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend closure of this thread

    The block that started this thread expired more than 24 hours ago. There is nothing in this thread that is actionable by an administrator. I am not seeking to squelch discussion about Δ. I believe all of you are having an excellent opportunity to discuss Δ at WP:VPR right now, so you have plenty of opportunity there. I would like to hope someone would be brave enough to close this thread, but I'm beyond such a false hope at this point. So with that, I'm suggesting a straight up/down vote on closing this thread.

    • Concur with Black Kite. If you want to start a thread about my behavior, by all means feel free to do so. I'd certainly welcome it. However, this thread isn't about my behavior. --Hammersoft (talk)
    I sincerely hope not, or else this discussion will have lasted 20 days until it has closed. --Tristessa (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said above, please by all means feel free to start a thread about me. I would very much welcome it. But, this thread isn't appropriate for it. There's literally dozens of pages worth of debate here, with any comments that might be about me directly intermixed. I'm assuming your purposes are some variety of have me banned from the project, banned from mentioning Δ, banned from NFCC work, etc. Fine, feel free to propose any, all, or more of those. But, your purposes will very much be better served by starting a thread specifically about me. If you don't want to start a thread about me, it's certainly your choice, but your hopes and aspirations with regards to me will not be moved forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, I started a sub-section in a thread directly related to your disruptive behaviour. That's how we typically do it. Normally if we started two separate threads about related incidents there would be complaints to merge them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Some interesting observations

    I'm not sure whether anyone has noticed this or not (or whether it's mentioned elsewhere - perhaps even by Δ himself in some long-forgotten page, I don't know if he'd ever asked for bot approval), but <LINK REMOVED> appears to be the actual script (appears to be Python) hosted on the toolserver that Δ is running to perform his recent "Cleanup" edits. For the sake of demonstration, I made a pair of group of Δ-style "Cleanup" edits with it [24] [25]. Unless Δ takes this down you can try it out for yourself; if you append a page to the end of the URL for the page= parameter while logged in, you can open your very own edit box with a Δ style "Cleanup" edit in it for the page, with the edit summary already filled out. Of interest is that mid-way between the Wikipedia page opening and the HTTP request, a page appears with the legend "Preparing diff, this page will autosubmit with JavaScript" (it didn't autosubmit for me, but I guess something in Δ's monobook.js would trigger this). Further to arguments above that there was no conclusive evidence that Δ was performing his edits via automated/semi-automated means, and that his editing did not constitute a pattern, I believe this conclusively puts this to rest. This is not intended as an attack against Δ, but it does at least show the mechanism he was using, and demonstrates that if he opened the code up to community approval at WP:VPP this would be much easier than debating the terms of the sanction. --Tristessa (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ive gone ahead and removed the link, its not ready for others to use yet, and its not auto-saving, its just auto submitting to wikipedia in order to generate a diff. Once it leaves the test platform Ill make the link public. ΔT The only constant 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...what's the difference between submitting and saving? I've never seen a "submit to generate diff" box in the interface. In any event, this certainly seems to me like a clear violation of the prohibition against automated/semiautomated editing, in my non-admin opinion. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not prohibited from simi-auto work. This uses the toolserver which cannot auto save pages for you. Instead it just generates a diff, lets you review it, adjust as needed and then save. ΔT The only constant 01:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/img_removal.py?title=Singapore_Portrait_Series_currency_notes is an example of a fairly stable script that I wrote before I was banned from NFCC enforcement. all you need to do is check the box next to the file in order to remove it for lacking a rationale, please try it but don't actually save the page. I use that same Preparing diff, this page will auto submit with JavaScript. script in all of my web based tools that save content on wiki. ΔT The only constant 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually hate to say it, but that NFCC script is really quite nifty and nicely done. --Tristessa (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a few other ideas that I could write up but havent due to the fact of the drama boards and those who love to drag me to them. But If you have any request I can look into creating them. Another tool that hasn't gotten much publicity would be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup#Great_news_guys.21 ΔT The only constant 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK. I won't push anything; I didn't know about the toolserver having the capability of creating a diff without saving the page. Like I said, I'm not an admin (and don't want to be one!), and since I do all my edits manually, I'm not really up on what scripting is capable of. Thanks for the clarification; I thought there had to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line, and it turns out it was on my side! rdfox 76 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are prohibited from performing edits that appear automated as well as those which are actually automated. As has been raised before, despite your claim that these are semi-automated, there is concern over how thoroughly you are reviewing some of these as some people believe some of the mistakes you've made should have been caught by a reasonable editor who was properly reviewing their edits and if you're not doing that, your edits are as good as being automatic or appearing automatic.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block review: Colofac

    The consensus of the community seems to be to support the indef block. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I have blocked Colofac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for being an unproductive and disruptive account. He had previously been blocked for disruptive editing (here is the previous block discussion). Since the block expired on Sept 25, he has made about 40 edits. In this time, he has added next to nothing productive including [26], openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, andadded aggressive/disruptive user boxesto his user page. Looking at his overall history, he has added nothing but disruption to Wikipedia. Since the block expired, he has had one edit to the main space, and 5 welcomings of new users. That's the extent of his productivity.

    I welcome review of this. It might seem to be too long/aggressive, but I have seen very little that is productive out of this account in its 2 months here. The account is just her to stir up and participate in drama. only (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, with this edit he is bluntly stating "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" so at first glance this seems like a sound block but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then again, aside from his userpage he hasn't had any edits since the 5th. I'm curious as to how this user was brought to your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a conversation with this user at another ANI discussion a month or two ago, and when I saw him blocked, happened to watch his talk pgae. Then these edits to his user page popped up today (for which he had previously been warned) and that triggered in my head. only (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Colofac has responded and requested unblock at his talk page. only (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd urge caution about putting material in quotes when that material wasn't stated by the user. Some may think the statement " I've been slighted on this site far too many times for me to want to build it" expresses exactly the same as "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" but I see a difference. The actual statement made sounds like an expression of frustration, an underlying desire to build an encyclopedia that has been beaten down, and a hope that someone will address the issues so the user can return to the real purpose. The second sounds more definitive, and an explicit statement that one's goals are in opposition to the WP goals. I don't want to debate whether some see the two as close enough, but the user didn't say what was in quotes. We would not allow a paraphrased statement in an article in quotes, why should we allow it here?--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • unblock I agree that it seems unlikely that this editor will be staying here long, but I do think that a fair trial with input from the community is required to impose an indefinite block like this. Productivity is not an argument - editors are volunteers and do not have to fill any quota of "production". Disruption is an argument but the previous block was supposed to be a wake up call, and it doesn't seem that he has caused any disruption after coming out of the block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the gravedancing, the diving back into drama-discussions, the self-SPI to "clear his name" and the user page statements (for which he was previously warned) that have all occurred since the block show a continuance of the pattern already set before the previous block. Those examples all come from about 40 edits so it's clear to see a non-intent to reform. only (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did mention above that he had a productive edit plus several welcomings, but it does not seem like much compared to the rest of the sample since the previous block. only (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak unblock per TParis. I don't see how that diff can be construed as gravedancing, but agree the userboxes need to go. Kcowolf (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - I have to go with only on this one. First of all, they clearly have some sort of agrudge against Wikipedia and have openly stated that they have no desire to help build it (Pillar #1). Secondly, considering the vicious history between this user and user:ChristianandJericho, I certainly do agree that their edits to that page were "gravedancing", which they were appropriately warned for and provided a totally inadequate excuse. They've added to ANI drama, they've added borderline hate speech to their userpage, and what's the tradeoff? One edit to the mainspace? In my opinion, this user isn't here to contribute constructively to the project and is a net negative. I'm all for second third fourth chances, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were unblocked. It just seems that an unblock now would only be postponing an inevitable reblocking of this 'problem user' in the near future. Swarm X 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak unblock, mostly due to WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block If users are here to build an encyclopedia they can demonstrate that with their actions and he clearly hasn't. We really don't need to be wasting endless time with disruptive users as we are sometimes want to do, so it's nice to see an admin putting their foot down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Even the users advocating unblock above admit he will not be a net positive to the project. Why should we let him drive a few good faith contributors from the project before getting rid off him? We have few enough editors as it is.Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Looking at the evidence relied on by the blocking admin to block this editor, which confirms the correctness of that decision beyond any doubt, I cannot comprehend how we are even considering an unblock without a credible indication from the user concerned of behavioural change. Making constructive edits here and there is not a licence to do whatever else you like.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMO the gravedancing bit links to the wrong diff. While modifying the comment may violate TPO, and I don't really see why Colofac cared since it wasn't negative, I can understand how it might a bit frustrating if you are named and feel you can't respond (and if Colofac had left a response, it probably would have been seen as worse). However[27] does seem like grave dancing.Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - If an editor admits to not being here to improve the encyclopedia, there is clearly no place for them here-- we are not a debating society, and should not encourage drama for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Unblock- per WP:ROPE.OIFA (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock. Yes, he does appear burned out, but some his actions were in good faith. He requested SPI against himself to prove his innocence. Although the English Wikipedia doesn't allow that, it's not an unreasonable request, and is even allowed in other Wikipedias. See reply from admin [28] We need to see more serious evidence than this kind of mild disruption. Not everyone takes the time to read the huge and often poorly written policy pages. What happened to "blocks are not punitive"? Do you truly think for instance that he is going to file another SPI on himself after he was told "no"?! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And people should stop edit warring over his fringe politics user boxes [29]. That is disruptive and a waste of time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if unproductive editors are your concern, head over tothis RfC, where there's evidence of umpteen times more unproductive chatter (and that's a polite understatement) + IDHT, yet no blocks have been issued.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support unblock. My word, I thought this was a no-brainer. There is no policy that says that a user has to make a certain number of edits to mainspace to be allowed to stay. I don't think I've made more than half a dozen in the past month! I gave him the talking to regarding gravedancing and he backed off. I agree he should not be showing disruptive userboxen and he should be blocked (for a time period) if he keeps replacing them as that is disruptive. But blocking him indefinitely because he hasn't done enough good - especially when he hasn't done that much at all - that seems like a dangerous ball game. WormTT · (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC) - Update: If he isn't interested then nor am I[30] - I won't go so far as to support the block, but I no longer oppose it. WormTT · (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock for insufficient grounds. Simply being an "unproductive user" is not grounds for permablock - or any block. There are a truckload of FAR more "unproductive" users that should be getting the axe long before this guy. On top of that - while his userboxen might not be acceptable to a user or three, they absolutely, 100% do NOT wiolate WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA as claimed in the reversions to his page, as there is/are no specific editors that are targeted by those. While I appreciate the spirit of the reverts and the grounds - it does not fall within the letter of WP policy, despite what some admins might think. If you want to block this cat, you are going to have to come up with far better reasons than being offended by his position and claiming he is "un-productive". If we were to whack all the unproductive accounts there would be less than 1/3rd the current active accounts. If you start with this one - don't stop until they are ALL done. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very first bullet point of the policy you linked, WP:UP#POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).This falls squarely into that criteria. It doesn't require that a specific editor be named to fall under that criteria. - SudoGhost08:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock so long as the editor agrees to keep this off of his userpage, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Other than the userbox issue I'm not seeing any gross disruption (the gravedancing was out of line, but it was discussed with the editor). While these behaviors might warrant a shorter block, I'm personally (from a non-admin standpoint) not seeing anything overly warranting an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (See below for why I no longer support unblocking) - SudoGhost 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, one thing is clear to me: he lacks the emotional intelligence to take part in editing Wikipedia without hoisting himself on his own petard every so often by starting pointless fights. Because of that, I think he will ultimately be indef blocked or banned, if not now, then later. I no longer support unblocking him because he fails to recognize that his actions were a big part of this drama, and because so far he has not given any indication that he will not restore those boxes or engage in similar behavior. But I cannot support this block either because it was doled out too easily relative to the proximate offense. A RfC/U would have been more appropriate given how similar behavior of other editors is commonly dealt with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shorten the block to two weeks. His previous block was for one week, so this seems an appropriate intermediate measure. I support immediate unblock iff he promises to stop provoking fights with polemical statements, including in user boxes.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The following snippet from his talk page is indicative of the problem we face here, and also a reply to my comment right above, so I'm copying it here:

    I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Wikipedia, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 [31] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [32]. That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once.Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    "has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    For the record: I have copied here all his replies addressed to me as of the timestamp of this message, so I'm unsure what he means by "selective presentation", but I won't engage him anymore per his clear request. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh, I actually missed one:

    I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    My apologies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. The fact that the blocking admin chose to phrase it in terms of "lack of productivity" makes me squirmy, but the fact is that Colofac appears to be here to fight, and pretty much only to fight. He has repeatedly failed to engage in a constructive manner, as evidenced by the history of his talk page for the past month or so - calling other editors namesoh bugger, that wasn't him in that diff. I'm off to find the right one, sorry about that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC), making discriminatory nationalistic and sexist comments, and generally refusing to get the point when other editors ask him to stop doing these things. Block for not being productive enough? No, we don't really do that. Block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and in fact appearing to be here to help tear one down? Yep. Amend the block reason to reflect that and let's turn our energy to editors who show some sign of wanting to work collaboratively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous block & warning

    Blocking admin noted in [33]:

    As a consequence of your inappropriate conduct, I am blocking you from editing for a period of one week, and strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interacting with other contributors in the future; otherwise, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

    I've asked Kirill Lokshin to comment here because he seems more aware of the background here than most other commentators.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    * date tag here +1 week to prevent premature archiving - The Bushranger One ping only 05:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Personally, I don't think that simply unblocking Colofac merely because the particular userbox in question has been removed is a particularly good idea. The fundamental problem with Colofac's behavior—which Colofac has yet to acknowledge—is that deliberately trying to make one's fellow editors (whether they happen to be gay or Chinese, or some other group) feel unwelcome is simply not in keeping with the standards of collegial behavior that Wikipedians are expected to follow. The fact that Colofac has chosen, in this particular instance, to do this via userboxes is not particularly important; so long as Colofac refuses to recognize and correct the underlying problem, we are going to continue having incidents of this sort.

      Having said that, if the community feels that he must be given yet another chance, then so be it. My only hope is that the cost of doing so does not become too high; we should not forget, after all, that the editors whom Colofac so blithely attacks may choose to find a more welcoming project rather than continuing to contribute to ours. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Perhaps admins with experience in mentoring like User:Worm That Turned, who support(ed) this unblock, should mentor or monitor Colofac? (I'm still not sure how that stuff works.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think my style of mentoring wouldn't really help here, as someone needs to encourage Colofac to start participating in the encyclopedia in general, whilst I generally work on increasing understanding and helping the "young hotheads" understand the dispute resolution process. I'd happily help out, but I think that Colofac wouldn't be amenable to that. As I mentioned, I was the one who told him of for gravedancing, and I've already helped out ChristianAndJericho quite a bit, two factors which would mean he'd find me difficult to work with. WormTT · (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Given Colofac's behavior on his talk page after supporting an unblock, I'm hesitant to continue to support unblocking the user. He seems to have a battleground mentality concerning Wikipedia, and without any evidence that his behavior will change (which he has not given in the slightest), I think unblocking the user at this point would be a mistake, as his behavior towards other editors is extremely likely to driver other editors away. Given that he has already demonstrated this behavior multiple times and shown no intention of changing this behavior, I think that the very likely cost of unblocking the user by far outweighs what would be gained by unblocking the user at this time. - SudoGhost 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what changed my mind too. I tried to be frank with him and told him what behaviors he needs to avoid regardless of whether he thinks he is right (e.g. provocative user boxes), but alas the message didn't get through. Someone else should point him to WP:Free speech, as I'm apparently not welcome on his talk page anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block. Colofac's attitude toward other editors and the project is directly (and possibly intentionally) damaging, with almost no positive contributions to weigh against. Any attempts to help him have been abruptly turned away, often with an equally harsh tone. He's made no indication he understands there's a problem, and as such there's no reason to believe he'll begin acting differently if given the chance. Even if he's acting in good faith, he's only serving to harm the project as a whole, by intentionally discouraging other editors based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors he personally finds actionable. His presence here serves only to dampen our collegial atmosphere, and drive away positive contributions, and as such I strongly disagree with unblocking, unless he directly and clearly represents that he understands his behavior is problematic, promises not to continue, and seeks help to achieve that goal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block per Mann jess. --John (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. When an editor states that they have no intention of contributing productively here, why are we even having this discussion? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block Throughout this ordeal, Coloflac had ample opportunity to simply accept that his behavior was inappropriate and to make a statement assuring the community that his attitude would change and that he would work harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. Being that he hasn't done this, the block is appropriate. What matters here is not the extent of his offense, but that his attitude in general is not appropriate, and this block is preventing his contribution unless and until he shapes up a bit. I'm more than happy to AGF and change my block to an unblock if he makes an effort, but something that he has to accept (regarding his user boxes) is that this isn't a social networking site on which to share your extreme views. We accept anyone here regardless of their views, but if their views are deemed to be offensive by the larger community, we can and do curtail their advertisement. If someone is here to edit - as oppose to proselytize - they should not have a problem with this. Noformation Talk 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block – Colofac does not appear to wish to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia; therefore, he/she should remain blocked. —mc10 (t/c) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. Whilst we have WP:AGF as one of our solid tenets here on Wikipedia, we are not obliged to extend editing privileges to the ranks of the unproductively belligerant. This editor appears to be a net negative to the project and is likely to continue dramatising his various personal issues here rather than get on with articles. I really see no other course of action given discussion has been attempted to no success, as was escalated enforcement, and his response at every juncture is to continue being combative. Unless he has a very profound change of heart, there is nothing to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefblock. I was actually going to close this, but esp. early in the thread there is a somewhat surprising number of editors supporting an unblock in various flavors of strength. I think my support for the block puts it at 8 unblock and 14 block or thereabouts. Not yet a crazy overwhelming consensus, but it's getting there. To get to the point: this editor is no benefit to the project, and I fully support the indefblock. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Both the user and the project would benefit from a separation. If, after a suitable period, Colofac would like to help build the encyclopedia, they are welcome to put a suitable message on their talk page (preferably with an explanation of how future issues will be avoided). Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    View from afar

    Why would the original poster block somebody if they weren't sure it was the right thing to do? If a block is questionable, better to review of the situation beforehand. If a block is clearly needed, we should avoid a long, needless discussion about the action. Our goal is to do what is necessary with minimal fuss so that people can concentrate on writing great articles. I recommend this discussion be shut down and we let the matter be worked out on the blocked user's talk page via the normal unblock request and review by an uninvolved administrator. If that process deadlocks, then come back here. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request formal closure

    Would an admin assess the consensus in the discussion? A close as "keep blocked" or "unblock" is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 is met. Cunard (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

    timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Penyulap and disruption at Talk:Tooth fairy

    Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is appearing to be purposefully disruptive at Talk:Tooth fairy. This pattern of edits/discussion has been on-going for the last month or so. He previously reported himself for disruption there. At that discussion, it was suggested he just walk away from the article with a self-imposed topic ban. He did not, however, disengage. He posted this earlier today, for example, to ANI. Further disruptive edits today include [34] [35]. He's mocking others who are "against" him on the article's talk page and mocking the discussion process in general. Further disruptive edits today include [36] [37]

    He posted just a short while ago that he wanted a topic ban on himself previously but none of us fulfilled his wishes. Is there any chance we can now? His attitude and actions there are doing more harm than good. Similar issues were raised with regard to his comments at Talk:International Space Station a few months back at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive708#Penyulap_and_the_International_Space_Station. only (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a topic ban Penyulap needs. It's a firm warning that either he starts interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project. There is no obvious reason that he cannot alter his behaviour to suit community norms. Mentorship would be very warmly appreciated given his enthusiasm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems User:Danger agreed to mentor/adopt him after the ISS discussion in late June. Don't know how much "work" was done there. I'll drop Danger a note to see if any insight can be given. only (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (inserting comment) This is how much work I've done there Penyulap talk 00:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that either I'm not very good at mentoring (highly likely) or that Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I'm skeptical that mentorshop can be effective when the misbehaving party is blaming their actions on everyone but themselves. But, as I said, I'm not very good at this. Danger (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that for mentoring to be helpful, the person being mentored has to understand there is a problem with his or her behavior and be willing to accept help to change that. I'm not fmailiar with the ISS situation, but I am not seeing any evidence in the tooth fairy one that Penyulap has any desire to change. A polite request from me to stop the sarcasm was soundly rebuffed. LadyofShalott 22:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it that I am being accused of exactly, the complaint is not clear. What does a dismissed ANI complaint from a month ago have to do with anything ? I brought it up in GF, was told I could do as I wanted, I was not topic banned thank you very much, no recommendations were made. I can't see what you are saying here, would you please be specific. Are you suggesting it was frivolous, if that is the case, why is exactly the same proposal being considered now ? are you making a frivolous proposal on a subject that has already been rejected by ANI ? I think so.
    You've diffed another GF request from earlier today where I suggested there was a problem with Sexual content on the Tooth Fairy (TF) talkpage. It was found not to be a concern, I considered the matter resolved, and it was closed. No recommendations were issued, nothing imposed, but now you are diffing this and saying there is some kind of problem, would you be specific, as it was found by ANI earlier today, and everyone involved that there was no problem with sexual content on the page, and the topic, brought up by SummerPhd was Ejaculation, which is precisely related.
    What else ? am I not allowed to have second thoughts about a picture proposal ? I have uploaded it three times today and I'm still not satisfied, but 'pesky wiki process', if more people like the image than dislike it, my embarrassing attempts at visual arts are on wikipedia for all to see.
    this edit is a simple response to this how else could I possibly deal with SummerPhd's suggestions whilst assuming good faith ?
    this is the same, this is the pumpkin referred to, how can I possibly respond to these remarks from other editors in any other way except good faith ? I think you are wasting ANI's time, just as you seem to accuse me of. This is just pushing your POV into ANI, when it should be handled on the talkpage. So you don't like the proposed picture, you've had your say, and I am working with others who thinks the idea is good and are making constructive comments to improve the poor current situation. As far as I can see you are complaining about the wiki discussion process because your not getting your own way. Whilst I also have second thoughts about my embarrassing artistic attempts, I think it best to leave the proposal to other editors. This belongs on the talkpage not ANI. Penyulap talk 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread is because you basically said "Hey, I should be topic banned" so everyone just said "Great, no need to great a formal ban, just go ban yourself." So rather than waste our own times in debating a topic ban, we figured we'd actually take you at your word. Topic banning you was never rejected, it was just never discussed because you said you'd ban yourself. THAT is why the topic is relevant now. It is especially relevant because even a few hours ago you said you thought a topic ban would be a good idea. only (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot understand why the topics and comments you posted today are disruptive and with poor judgment, then you need to reevaulate how to contribute collaboratively within this environment. only (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I just realize, I did not respond to the comment about the ISS, that was a similar case to the Tooth Fairy article, except that it was a FA status article, with more than one admin owning the article, sitting on it so I couldn't address it's multitude of problems, the editor who brought that complaint, I haven't heard from for a long time, since just after he accused me of taking away the FA status of the article single-handed. I did start off the FARC process, and it went down unanimously. I've been completely overhauling the article ever since, working with new editors who have real suggestions. I haven't had any trouble in the 17 other languages I contribute in (which is at least dozen more languages than I can speak). I have only encountered Tag-teams on the english wiki. Anyhow, if someone can at least point to a bright line I've crossed, or point out something less vague, I'd be HAPPY to modify my behavior. I've done it before. It is only fair, that if people want me to act differently they should at least have the decency to try to explain in clear terms what the problem is. Is there abusive language ? personal attacks ? foul language, please be specific. Penyulap talk 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't understand your point here "The reason you weren't topic banned formally at the previous ANI thread" are you saying I broke a ban that was not imposed ? Would you please be so kind as to diff any commitment I gave in relation to that request. I'd like to formally ask ANI if I have ever had any restriction of any kind imposed upon me to clarify what you are saying. Penyulap talk 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thumperward, when you say "interacting with other editors in the manner expected of an adult or he leaves the project." I would like to ask, just how old do you think I am in real life ? secondly, can you please point to any clear concern you have such as personal attack or any 'bright line' ? Penyulap talk 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with my mentor that ' Penyulap sees nothing wrong with his behavior ' as I am having trouble understanding what it is I am being accused of, I think a very long time ago, I used the word troll, which is used elsewhere on the internet, but not on wiki, after someone mentioned that, I didn't use the word anymore. (except just then). As far as I can see, I have made some proposals about a better picture for the article, and am working with people to improve a proposed image. Some people do not like the idea of improving the image, they think it can't be done and are outraged that I continue to work with other editors, rather than accepting what I consider to be a ridiculous assertion, that is, that no improvement is possible. Plus I think thumperward has objections to my being humorous, but I think that's a good thing for collaboration like this. Anyhow, I think this whole complaint is tedious, and suggest that closing it should be considered. Unless someone can make any sense of the complaint, I would love to hear any ideas on what it is meant to be about. Penyulap talk 01:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try this: please explain, in your own words, why other editors are objecting to your image proposal at Talk:Tooth fairy. I certainly hope you can do better than "Some people do not like the idea of improving the image". – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Penyulap seems unable to discuss a subject on the talk page without constantly and sarcastically discussing other editors. Incredibly WP:TE. I would say that if we allow them to continue editing they should be admonished for speaking of other editors and essentially should agree not to as a condition of continued editing privileges. A trout for Penyulap and a barnstar to the editors who have very politely put up with it. Noformation Talk 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The continued commentary about users being "clones," that the only way to deal with us is through sarcasm, and that we all need to "get over" ourselves doesn't help either. Clearly shows tendentious editing. only (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Santin, I think that people make too many inappropriate and cryptic remarks, like SummerPhd, refers to 'Please stop beating the straw man.' and invited me to view graphic sexual material, which I did not, I was very offended by that inappropriate behavior and requested that SummerPhd remove such a remark on her talkpage, which she wouldn't. Is Beating the straw man masturbation ? And wanting other editors not to collaborate on her article saying "So, as I understand it, those who want to go forward with this art project wish to ignore WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on. " I have no idea what she is trying to say there. Thumperward says 'Penyulap, if you're attempting to inject humour into the discussion with your repeated flippant replies then Id advise you to stop.' am I supposed to be breaking a rule by being a naturally humorous person, can I change that any more than the color of my skin ? Being funny is better than being a pervert. Am I supposed to stop the proposal because thumperward says 'In any case, there is absolutely nothing in the new proposal which addresses the concerns presented: namely, that this is an independently-created image which has no obvious ties to reliable sources on the supposed appearance of the tooth fairy. Quite frankly I very much doubt that such a thing exists anyway.' So thumperward is objecting because he feels excluded from the creative process ? but this image is improving according to suggestions by editors who have researched the appearance of the Tooth fairy. He suggests that no reliable sources exist, but google has 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, so how can that be.
    I warned SummerPhd that the word 'fantasy' would attract vandals, and it did, it's not a necessary word, as 'Folklore' will do, but she teases the vandals in her writing style, and displays a scorecard on her userpage in a contentious manner and claims there is no connection between the state of the article and vandalism, despite so many editors saying otherwise and vandalising it too. She just keeps pushing her Pro-Vandalism stance.
    She also claims or implies anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged. Penyulap talk 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the user is now blocked, I've responded to their comment on their user talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, NOW USER:ONLY IS COMPLAINING THAT I AM TALKING TO MY MENTOR ON A SUBSECTION OF MY TALKPAGE, A SECTION I CREATED MONTHS AGO SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE MYSELF AS AN EDITOR. HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE MYSELF WITH STUPIDITY ON SUCH A MONUMENTAL SCALE INFLICTED UPON ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)

    Yup...quite the hole being dug here. Any uninvolved admin like to step in here? only (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding "beating the straw man", please read straw man argument. She's saying you are arguing against things she never said. LadyofShalott 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict x2)"Beating the straw man" is not a reference to masturbation (though your reference immediately before that, to "Mrs Palmer and her five daughters" probably was). It was a reference to your debate style: Rather than addressing what I actually said, you attacked a mocking representation of me (claiming, repeatedly, that I believed the hand with teeth photo is a representation of the tooth fairy). I don't think thumperward feels excluded. Rather, it seems ze feels there is no consensus on what the tooth fairy looks like. Reliable sources are a specific type of sources that Wikipedia accepts as trustworthy, most of the 461,000 hits returned by a google search are not reliable sources. The list ("WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content and so on") refers to various of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I believe your attempt to create an image for the article runs against. I did not claim or imply that "anyone who doesn't agree with her is retarded or brain damaged". You inferred it. Had you asked about any of this, I would have explained it. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) After spending a good bit of time digging through the relevant posts, all I can do is shake my head - and, for disruptive editing and incivility, block Penyulap for 24 hours. Following that, I strongly recommend a topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Propose that User:Penyulap be topic-banned from editing articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Just clicked "edit" to create a new subsection called "topic ban proposal" and here it was waiting for me! Penyulap essentially asked for this, though I'm not sure of the motivation. User:Only offered a topic ban but apparently Penyulap wants it to be official, so here it is. Noformation Talk 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support--I had the same experience as Noformation. I also fully support Bushranger's block and was tempted to do the same thing. This editor is an utter waste of time, and I foresee a proposed broadening of the topic ban in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Agree with the assessment of all three above me. Thanks, The Bushranger, for starting the topic ban discussion and implementing a block. only (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with some regret - this does seem a reasonable move at this point, and is essentially what Penyulap originally came to ANI to request. I'll note that Penulap has started a subpage at User talk:Penyulap/edit to request feedback on his/her editing style. Perhaps some good can come of that. I suggest the editor use the block time to become familiar with the policies linked above. LadyofShalott 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't have a (not)vote here. That said, in the hopes that Drmies is wrong, I hoping someone uninvolved will offer some very direct suggestions here. While some of the issue here seems to be about the editor's headlong, gunslinger editing style, I think there's a largish helping of not understanding our policies here. I seem to have been defensive at times and my comments, as a result, were not read. Wikipedia is sometimes perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as a lawless Western town. Some firm direction to our pillars might be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm concerned, you have an opinion worth listening to, and it's not really a vote anyway. And I also hope (against hope) that I'm wrong this time--it happens often enough. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if only for temporary relief—while it might be ok to suggest putting a made-up image to illustrate tooth fairy, the lack of understanding and unhelpful responses at Talk:Tooth fairy show that a topic ban is the minimum required. Given the fuss surrounding this archived ANI discussion, a good case for an indefinite block could be made, with the block to be lifted after the user explains how they will avoid mistakes from the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm being candid, I think an indefinite block until the user agrees to a list of requirements is in order, but I didn't want to suggest it since the topic ban discussion was already going. If it was proposed I would support it. Just to iterate the point though, I think that even a superficial promise would be acceptable as it would give grounds to further block the user if the behavior continues. Another alternative would be to find a mentor who would not mind going over some of the user's comments with them so they can understand exactly what the problem is. What ever the case is, if Penyulap does not stop this type of behavior then it's unfair to the editors of the pages they edit for them to have to engage in these long winded, pointless discussions. Hopefully the topic ban will give the desired results, but I cannot say that I am optimistic since I don't think that the Tooth Fairy is really something to get upset over, rather I think it's more just part of their personality to act this way. Noformation Talk 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - ask and ye shall receive. Danger (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is addressing the wrong problem. There's been no evidence presented that there is a need for all "articles about mythical figures, and the talk pages thereof, broadly construed" to be covered: just tooth fairy. However, Penyulap previously exhibited a very similar set of problems with collaboration on Internationa Space Station, a topic rather far removed from the tooth fairy. A more appropriate response would be to wait to see Penyulap's response to Luna Santin's comment on his talk page, see how he acts after that, and if necessary re-block him with lengthening durations until either he adopts a more regular interation style or he fully exhausts the community's patience. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I thought I recognised Penyulap, linking to the ISS case brought back unfortunate memories (not involved, just saw the case on ANI). While I'm somewhat symphathetic to Chris Cunningham's POV, having seen the problem in Tooth fairy myself when I helped out with archiving (and from Penyulaps first complain a few weeks ago) I think something needs to be done. The editors at tooth fairy have been incredily patient but need to be given a break. Considering the comments, I don't think the sanctions are too wide although I'm not sure whether they'd really have the necessary effect. In other words I wouldn't oppose wider sanctions myself and as with CC and Noformation, I'm not sure whether this will work but it seems clear something needs to be done. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This editor's behaviour is reminiscent of Jack Sebastian's in discussions about Santa Claus and alleged time travel connected to The Circus. I am not claiming the account is Jack Sebastian's sock. Edit times are all over the place, so the user might even be from a different time zone. But it looks like we are being trolled by the time-honoured technique of taking policies literally to the point of absurdity. The images currently on discussion at Talk:Tooth fairy also suggest sophisticated trolling to me. This behaviour needs to stop, and it will be no help if it just moves over to Easter Bunny. Hans Adler 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      After some googling I am now convinced that we are being trolled by a regular of 4chan. The image "Wikipe-tan as the tooth fairy" created by Penyulap gave it away. See Urban Dictionary on Wikipe-tan on why. IMO we have way too much tolerance for such idiots, to the point that we have become a troll asylum. Hans Adler 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If that is indeed the case, I support an indefinite block, starting immediately. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I briefly interacted with Penyulap back in June when they were brought to ANI with regards to their editing on the International Space Station. I'd left a suggestion on their talk page on their approach to interacting with other editorsm, but it looks like their hot headedness has got them into hot water again.. A topic ban at this point may seem the course to pursue, but I fear that Penyulap will simply move to another area outside their topic ban and begin anew. I saw that Penyulap has a pending unblock request on their talk page. I suggest that an unblock be granted only with the strictest condition of continuing with their mentor for a minimum 6 months. --Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Penyulap has said that he/she has some replies to make here, and has asked for me to review them before they are posted here. I have agreed to this. Presumably the replies will be forthcoming. LadyofShalott 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dohezarsersdah problematic editing

    User:Dohezarsersdah has gotten into an extremely lame war on Theocracy removing content on the basis that websites cannot be used as sources. Despite numerous warnings and pointers, he is continuing to war over this. I have an RPP request in but it has not been acknowledged as of yet, and enough is enough. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An indef block for disruptive editing should be considered, but it is reasonable to wait for a response. (He has been notified of this discussion). He has made five nearly identical reverts at Theocracy over several days and appears to be ignoring all feedback. His account was created three weeks ago. He has been editing aggressively on other articles as well. His recent contribution history is full of reverts. This edit is plain vandalism. Might this possibly be a sock? The edit summaries do not suggest a new user. His talk page would contain 20K bytes of warnings by now if he had not been constantly removing the warnings. That's pretty fast work for a three-week-old account. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I must second your thoughts. I'm taking a look at his contributions, but haven't found any other accounts sticking out as of yet. Note that this account was created on 10/2, but didn't edit until 10/8. Calabe1992 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The editor has been as flexible as a bot in his/her edits. Dohezarsersdah violates 3RR, edit wars, then blanks the warnings from his/her talk page. I feel this editor will not understand the fruitlessness of editing this way and the usefulness of editing via talk page discussions from anything short of a block. The time off also may help the user in the form of a wikibreak.--Louiedog (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't see forcing a wikibreak as a good objective for a block as that is not what a block is intended for, but I don't think this user will stop the destructive habits unless a block is enforced. It comes back to simply protecting the articles from him. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I blocked the account for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule before seeing this thread; if someone could kindly copy any comments he makes on his talk page to here, that would be appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think this account may be a sock. His edit summaries are a bit perverse, eg [38] where he wrote "source needed (it's false anyway)" (note that it was sourced), [39] where he deletes references and says "no references", [40] where he deletes a source and writes "DON'T DELETE SOURCES", etc (eg one where he removes a source from this century saying it's antiquated while elsewhere he uses a 1909 source. That he has a nationalist agenda is clear, eg his edit summary "undoing a turk's changes" and his edit-warring to remove a well-sourced comment that someone born in Iran came from a Turkish family. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is his response:

    This is ridiculous. From basically my first edit, I have been harassed by "trigger happy" admin who have reverted my edits on site, and left "warning" messages on my Talk page saying "your edit on x page doesn't seem to be constructive". They usually then, without exception, realize they've made a mistake, and then moved on, without apologizing. Apparently though I upset the user "Dougweller" to such an extent that he and a set of aggrieved admins decided to dedicate themselves to my undoing, with no regard for the Wikipedia encyclopedia project, but continuing to edit war my contributions which are all only to IMPROVE the accuracy of the articles (topics on which I have a great deal of expertise) in order to pursue their petty vendettas. Is it too much to ask for a "Oops, sorry I was wrong there, I didn't mean to assume you were being disruptive"? Obviously it was. So I returned their acidity, and continued to click the "undo" button as often as they did.
    You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), Yopie's edits (3 reverts) actually degrade the article. I have no problem with the section, but it must be accurately referenced. A random website called "jewishvirtuallibrary" is not a proper source - neither is an opinion piece in a newspaper.
    You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken.
    You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) Dougweller (an admin) and Kafka Liz (a senior member who has been on Wikipedia for "4 years, 2 months and 17 days") have been edit warring to remove ESTABLISHED FACT that Bektashi was Persian (he was born in Persia, spoke Persian, and wrote in Persian... the Betkashi's elders are called "Pirs" for christ's sakes, a Persian word) and REMOVING the source I worked to find and that they were apparently too lazy to find themselves (The Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, No. 3, Jul., 1909, (p. 343).
    You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haji_Bektash_Veli) Dougweller (the admin) apparently followed me and carried on the same behavior.
    You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world), The Mark of the Beast (an admin?) and Metricopolus (another admin? - i don't know, they all posted "warnings" to my page) did the same thing. I had to fight "tooth and nail" to restore the correct information.
    So yeah, I apologize if some of my comments haven't been particularly "civil". But when all these admins and established users edit war and "warn" me of "vandalism" when I'm only trying to improve articles on topics they clearly know nothing about, it gets a little old. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it pretty disturbing that an admin, Dougweller is allowed to behave this way. He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689) Way to "pratice what you preach"! Dohezarsersdah (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded as follows on this talk page: In any case, saying "He says: "we have a reliable source that says his family was Turkish, no reason not to use it, if we have a source saying something else, use that also)", so I do exactly that, and then HIS VERY NEXT EDIT DELETES the source I just added! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alevi&action=historysubmit&diff=457551448&oldid=457544689)" is not accurate. What actually happened was that the edit I reverted was [41] which removed the sourced statement that his family was Turkish rather than add something else also, as I suggested. What I was trying to get across was that the sourced statement that his family was Turkish should be left in, but if we had a conflicting statement that his family was Persian that could be added as well to indicate that this was uncertain. As for following anyone, yes, like many other editors when we find an editor vandalising (as was clearly done earlier at Peaches Geldof and Off2riorob (talk · contribs) who is on my watch list, we look at the editor's other edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at other complaints of his, the result of Yopie's edits at [[Theocracy was to leave the article in the state it was before Dohezarsersdah edited it, so I can't see how that degraded it. Dohezarsersdah objects to using The World Factbook, saying "websites can't be used as sources," and to [42] which he calls a random website although the author (and director of the Jewish Virtual Library is Mitchell Bard, who certainly looks like a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Dohezarsersdah is truly paying a lot of attention to any of what is being said. He writes "You'll notice on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi#Sufi_doctrine) Calabe1992 (an admin) reverted my edit and then pasted yet another ugly "warning" on my talk page - obviosuly, before realizing that he was mistaken." - first of all I am not an admin, and second of all, what is "realizing that he was mistaken"? I didn't revert myself; just didn't happen to want to war with him over something meaningless to me. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • - As per his edit history - he has so far been a disruptive user, lets hope he takes this community warning to heart and takes on board the advice. As User:Dougweller said, he attacked me and he deliberately vandalized the article of a living person - He's unblocked now after his 3RR block - if his previous disruptive behavior starts back up, block again for longer. Off2riorob (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back - his talk page comments aren't exactly friendly, but the main problem is that he is insisting that a reliable source is wrong but in particular that we shouldn't use the source to say that Haji Bektash Veli is from a Turkish family, which is exactly what the source says, but that he is from a Turkic family - see his latest reply at Talk:Haji Bektash Veli. I can see another edit war brewing as I see no reason to interpret a source in this way. (I'll also note that I don't care if this historical figure is Turkish or whatever, but it's clear that there is a problem here with him and things Turkish). Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We've given Dohezarsersdah lots of time to respond to this ANI thread, and he has not done so. Nothing he has said on his talk page indicates a positive intent. (He is very good at removing warnings). Since he burst onto the scene as a nationalist edit warrior just three weeks ago, and he only appears to be on Wikipedia for disruption, it would be logical to proceed with the indef block that was suggested at the top of this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    AdminHelp - Is this thing on?

    Over 12 hours ago I requested that admins look over an escalating dispute on a project's Talk page using the {{adminhelp}} template. As far as I can tell this yielded no response; the conflict consequently escalated. I tried to moderate it, but frankly I think the window of opportunity is probably past now, and I ended up backing out of the situation entirely after User:Jclemens chastised one editor for their incivility while letting others' incivility (notably one editor saying "fuck civility") pass. I'm not asking that anyone necessarily be chastised (certainly not without an admin looking over the discussion), and consequently am not notifying the involved editors. My primary concern is that I did ask for adminhelp using the appropriate template, with apparently no results. If the template is no longer considered useful, I believe it should be indicated as such. If it is considered useful, I have to ask why I received no response for over 12 hours. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doniago (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As another editor who has tried to weigh in and mitigate this dispute a bit (I tried to focus it back on the content) I'd request that anyone who weighs in on this look at the talk pages of the editors involved. There is some pretty disgusting behavior going on ("incivility" is to polite a term) that is being allowed to ride. Like Doniago, I'm pretty much walking away from it. Millahnna (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the time zone you're requesting help from. 12 hours ago would put it at 3am GMT so UK based admins would not be able to respond, not to mention it's a working day so it may be some time bfore admins in the UK might respond. Generally, you'll find that you can get a faster response either by posting here, the admin's noticeboard or at the dispute resolution noticeboard --Blackmane (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was well over 12 hours ago, at some point in the afternoon (before 5 pm) Eastern time...actually, 20:00 universal, I think. In any case, I'm not sure what the point of the template is if the bottom line is that, if someone wants a prompt response, they should just post here in any case. The text of the template implies that a response will be "swiftly forthcoming", but that doesn't seem to be the case. As-is, and I acknowledge I'm being a bit picky now, no admins actually have acknowledged the note on my Talk page. Not meaning to be whiny, I just have a concern that I think is genuine about editors using a template that they are led to believe will yield a fast response if that isn't in fact likely to be the case. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone needs to be "warned" about civility, but some walking away on all sides would probably help. Everything will still be there in a couple of days. I note that "fuck civility" (Moni) is not the same thing as "fuck you" (RAP), but no one is an angel here, and things kind of spiralled out of control. It seems like it might be dying down now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted I'm hardly impartial at this point, but given that the "dying down" involves two editors who tried to moderate the conversation basically running away from it and an editor who I'm assuming is good-intentioned but received little but flak for their efforts similarly backing away (granted they ultimately gave as good as they got), the end result strikes me as a net failure. The message would seem to be, "it's fine to bully people as long as you can get them to incriminate themselves as well and you have more people backing you up than they do." I have to question whether that's the message we really want to send. I acknowledge, though, that I'm not necessarily fully aware of the repercussions of the situation, only commenting on what I've observed on the project's Talk page and the Talk page of one of the involved editors. Doniago (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This project lists civility as one of its lofty core principles, but doesn't uphold that. Would many intelligent people continue to volunteer with, say, Habitat for Humanity if they found that organization did nothing to exclude those who routinely belittle and swear at anyone who disgrees with them? I wonder why the Foundation imagines the project it controls would be different in that way?
    It's not like this kind of immaturity has to be tolerated to get a very high-quality result from a volunteer group. On any of Mark Shuttleworth's crowdsourced projects, for example, anyone who acts like an aggressive nine-year old will be politely asked just once to grow up, and then be permanently bounced if he repeats the behavior.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. For an admin to say "fuck civility" (or any of the 5P for that matter) is nothing short of unacceptable. But the response to the admin who called them on it, both from Moni and the gang of lackeys who swiftly rushed to her defense (surprise, surprise), was disgusting. Swarm X 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The message that appears to be being conveyed, however unintentionally, is indeed that once you've become a "valued contributor" to Wikipedia, Civility becomes an option rather than a requirement, especially if one can argue that they were somehow provoked into being incivil. I truly hope this isn't how the admins actually feel. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The inevitable analogy (would non-profit, volunteer organization X allow this-- this time, Habitat for Humanity) is old: Habitat for Humanity would not give adult duties to under-age volunteers and then expect adults to stick around and clean up the ensuing messes. Habitat for Humanity would give reasonable tasks and duties to children, commensurate with their age and ability, and then expect adults to supervise them. These analogies never work, and the problem continues. Wikipedia is not "the real world", and this inevitable comparisons always miss the mark. And yes, there is a big difference between an exasperated "fuck civility" and "fuck you" specifically aimed at one individual. And no, the "civility becomes an option" argument is no more valid, either-- no one has said that. At the point you made the original request, the "fuck you" came from one party, not the other, and he got a warning (from me)-- it's not right to present this as if the original "fuck you" was not one-sided. What we have here is one party understanding Wikipedia's notability policies, and the other not-- at what point will we stop expecting knowledgeable and experienced editors to spend all of their time defending articles according to Wikipedia policies against poor edits? Some understanding of the severity of the underlying problem-- and how it is affecting Wikipedia content contributor and content in ever-increasing magnitude-- is all that is asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And, believe it or not, there's also a big difference between calling someone on inappropriate behavior and disruption. Swarm X 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unhelpful. Swarm, I'm most curious to know if you consider those who advocated that the message had been recorded and further poking wouldn't help improve the situation as a "gang of lackeys", or if that "gang" includes those who defend content and Wikipedia policies, or just what you mean by "gang of lackeys". It's a rather unhelpful characterization, and I'm wondering if perhaps you aren't as alarmed as some of us are that there at any given time half a dozen or so of these situations going on, where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content have to take inordinate amounts of time to deal with those who don't. The rate at which knowledgeable editors are giving up is worse than I've ever seen it, and the rate at which those leaving are being replaced by those who should be on the playground is a concern. If any of us pretend that the demise of Wikipedia's content as result can be stopped, it would be helpful if we started listening to each other rather than characterizing those who are concerned about this growing problem as a "gang of lackeys". It's a real problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I lost a long response above in edit conflict, will re-type, but yes ... Moni3 has not been notified of this discussion as far as I know, and since I am apparently now part of a "gang of lackeys", neither have I -- I chanced upon this because I was beginning to gather statistics about just how bad this problem has gotten. I will now re-type my response to Swarm above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you seem to have latched onto the "gang of lackies" bit, you might as well take a look at my response to Floquenbeam on my talk page. Swarm X 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, have you considered that your "unhelpful" comment is in itself unhelpful? "if we started listening to each other" - Please let me know when you start, and I will too. You're one of the last people I'd want to make an enemy of, I have great respect for the work and research you put into this. But I'm not impressed with your behavior when you talk about how adults act versus children and then you defend Moni's behavior.--v/r - TP 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Sandy, starting a blood feud with you is the last thing I want to do here.--v/r - TP 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I don't know how to respond this 'cuz I don't think in terms of "blood feuds"-- your comment above is decidedly unconstructive, so I guess there's nothing I can add to it. Been to Swarm's page, but I'm not sure it's helpful to spread this discussion all over creation. In fact, I suggested hours ago that we are in need of an essay page for a place to begin to discuss this serious problem-- and I'm sorry you don't agree with me that the issue of experienced editors increasingly being replaced by immature ones is serious, but ignoring that problem or being muzzled on the topic will not make it go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I disagreed with you that it wasn't a very serious problem. I just disagree that it excuses certain behaviors. If you think my comments on Moni's page reflect that I devalue her contributions, you'd be wrong. Perhaps an essay targeting long-standing editor retention would be great.It may address how to deal with editors stressed out at having to defend their hard work, and include advice for those editors feeling like their work is "butchered", but that essay could not fit within Wikipedia policy or guidelines if it included verbiage excusing incivility. --v/r - TP 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandy regarding this: "where experienced and knowledgeable editors who know policy and defend content"

    Part of the problem in this specific situation is that several (in fact most) of the related articles did not, in fact, comply with policy or guidelines that pertain to writing about fiction in general, and the TV and Buffy projects specifically. A few of them really only needed some tweaks to be brought up to snuff (a general refocusing towards real world information and away from in-universe plot summary problems) and Rusted seems to understand now that he went too far with his bold edits, especially in regards to those articles specifically. But when we were able to bring the conversation at the project page back to the content problem on the articles that are problematic, the responses indicated to me a general lack of awareness of the guidelines and policies about fiction related articles. So while I understand editors who have worked on that project much harder than I have, being defensive about decent articles getting redirected, I don't see much of the "defense of content" that was going on as being about particularly valid content in terms of quality. And then to see the editor that started everything realize his mistake and try to refocus his efforts only to be repeatedly attacked, mocked, and bullied? Yeah the whole situation is whacked. Millahnna (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That is just incorrect, but I don't think this is the place to get into the mistakes. Who has looked at the sources, and who hasn't? Expecting Moni to do all the work (which involves knowing the sources) when others hadn't even looked at sources is what the problem was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll be happy to close this in a while once I've read over the discussion. FWIW, Jclemens appears to have contributed to the discussion as an editor rather than an admin (or indeed an Arb): he's certainly not got the trust of the community to act in an elevated role as regards discussions concerning the notability of fiction. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Why are you planning to close a topic that Moni wasn't even advised of (until I did so a bit ago)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I meant passing an uninvolved comment on the dispute in an admin capacity, not this ANI thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I have a question. I have been involved with this dispute and as a result have been labeled Moni's "guard dog" and "lackey" (and notice that the latter word has been used here, too). I have never defended her behaviour and actually asked her to get a grip (though I did start to lose it eventually, myself), and never even got to the point where I had an opinion on the actual need for the re-directs because he wouldn't provide a list of articles he wanted dealt with. I got dismissed out of hand as a "lackey", while trying to communicate to RAP that the guidelines for making such sweeping changes were there for a reason, and that's what my question to all of you is about: Since this whole thing started because someone with insufficient experience to understand the ramifications of his actions made an executive decision and then re-directed 10 or so articles on his own, without beginning a discussion or researching the history of these articles, or having the first clue of the amount of follow-up work that would be required after the re-directs, is there not some way to make such an action off-limits to just anyone? I would never have attempted such a move myself without asking for lots of help, advice, feedback, etc., well in advance, and would have started by saying "I was thinking this might be a good idea." I think the Habitat for Humanity analogy is apt in that someone pointed out that inexperienced volunteers would not be entrusted with advanced tasks, and that's what we had here. Now clearly the roof really won't fall in this case, but my own attempts to inform RAP about what his actions were going to lead to were ignored, as were my notes re the protocol for such a move, and that's where my own frustration level rose--if newbies won't learn, or at least won't say they've taken note of the rules and now get that what they did was a problem (usually because they're entrenched behind defensiveness), how do we deal with them? I consider myself a newbie in some ways and am completely inexperienced in many of what I would call structural issues of WP, but am old and wise enough not to attempt anything outside of what I know how to do. We don't seem to have any built-in defenses or warning systems or anything to give pause to someone who, as he said himself, did what he did because he "saw others doing it and thought he should do it, too". Is there a way to limit such actions? I realize that there are all sorts of guidelines available to those who go looking for them, but those who are inclined to ignore such guildelines never go looking for them, so I'm wondering if there is an alternative. --TEHodson 20:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The kind of essay I'm looking for is not how experienced editors and admins can deal with stress-- it's how we can get the admin corp to deal more effectively with disruptive editors. RAP's actions here were good-faith, well-meaning, but misguided disruption, and we see that increasingly as the norm, it's everywhere now, and it's causing experienced editors to leave in numbers higher than I've ever seen. To pretend that it isn't related (although not entirely caused by) the increasing numbers of child editors would be naive-- it takes a certain amount of scholarship, and hours of research, to recognize the error in the redirects that led to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Having just read through the entire history of this mess that unfortunately sprawls across ANI, article talk pages and user talk pages, I'm going to have to agree with the sentiment echoed repeated above that there is a tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else. Civility isn't a guideline that you can ignore when you just can't be bothered with being nice, it's policy. I certainly empathize with Moni3 quite a bit about having to repeatedly defend articles from new editors that take it upon themselves to remove contested, sourced content without consensus, but that isn't a license to say things like "fuck civility" or "Would it be untoward for me to tell someone to eat a bag of dicks?" and other general snarkiness. Everyone who has been around this project for a little while gets frustrated as hell at some point, and damned near everyone lapses into incivility. The line comes when someone refuses to acknowledge their poor behavior. (which is even more difficult to do when there is no shortage of enablers that constantly defend incivility among their colleagues.) I've learned to deal with frustration on Wikipedia by standing up, stretching, and taking a walk before posting something nasty. It's a difficult thing to do, but not that difficult. And seriously, if someone can't learn how to be civil, it's time to knock that "semi" off their "retired" banner and go away for good. It's in the best interests of both themselves and the project. Trusilver 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeating that meme over and over won't make it true. Most recently, there was an asymmetrical block of Malleus Fatuorum, where the other party got off with nothing. We see it all the time. Civility isn't a guideline we can ignore, but admins "policing civility" apply the policy unequally all the time. And why do we never hear that disruptive editing, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, failure to respect numerous Wikipedia content policies, etc, are not policies we can ignore? I'm not sure what the relevance is of how you, in particular, deal with frustration and how that applies to anyone else-- I know what content contributors face and are growing increasingly frustrated at, since civility is policed but editors who ignore policy to disrupt and destroy content is not, allowing people to politely destroy the reason we're supposed to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been explained over and over, that that was an "asymetrical block", because Malleus has a history of incivility as long as his arm, while the other editor involved did not. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The oft-repeated meme was: "... there is a tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else." No quick block of the other party, only the established member. The usual. Your interpretation of Malleus's block log doesn't make the meme factual or logical.

    Nor will the focus on civility change the situation being discussed below-- that admins won't pay attention to requests for help in content issues, but will police civility, and that ultimately drives content editors to the brink of frustration. In this conversation, we've got an utterly clear talk page discussion where one editor knows and applies policy, and the other apparently has no clue; this isn't even difficult, but as expressed below, admins won't engage. The other party honestly said this:

    • Joyce Summers could be saved, considering she was a vital part of Buffy's life. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:50 26 October 2011 [44]

    Now there's a hefty understanding of our sourcing and notability policies-- keep a character article because of her role, not because of what reliable sources and scholarship have to say about the role and the character. The real concern is why admins are so quick to enforce (unequally) their notions of civility, but only one (JClemens [45]) weighed in on such an obvious content matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further logical fallacy in Trusilver's meme, Rusted Auto Parts said "fuck you" and more directly to Moni3, yet Trusilver doesn't even mention that in summary (nor does the original poster here), so where's this "tendency to ignore blatant incivility when it comes from established members to an extreme that would quickly result in a block for someone else" summary of the situation wrt Moni3 coming from? Tbhotch got away with incivility towards Malleus; Rusted Auto Parts towards Moni3. Meme is wrong. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the other editor (you know, the one destroying content on notable articles created by others?) goes on to astound with his knowledge of Wikipedia's sourcing policies, but let's not let content trouble us, please-- policing politeness most assuredly should trump policing competence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All through college and my professional life (we are talking more than 20 years now), I have witnessed untold numbers of people with differing opinions that have amazingly been able to deal with that fact without ever tossing a single "fuck you" around. How does such an amazing feat take place? Because all of these people don't have the anonymity of the internet to hide behind. People suddenly gain a hell of a lot of courage when they don't have to actually face the person they are in a confrontation with. I might be completely wrong, but I would be willing to bet all the money in my wallet right now that Encyclopedia Britannica was compiled without a single person suggesting someone else "eat a bag of dicks". My personal views on civility? I think that every. single. person. who shows a consistent inability to be civil should get a kick out the door, I don't care if it's an IP editor, a long-term content contributor, Randy from Boise, or a member of ArbCom. Does this mean that some very good content contributors will be gone? Yep... I guess it does. But that's the beauty of collaboration! Nobody here is irreplaceable. Without that individual, there WILL be articles that aren't written or improved as quickly, but they eventually will be... by someone able to keep their mental issues in check. I have nothing more to say on the matter. Good day. Trusilver 06:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear. {{applause}} - The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As well said as can be. Swarm X 06:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Well said! And. I. mustadmit. I enjoyed... your. Shatner. moment. above. as-well. It can be tough at times, but it's something to strive for. I intentionally went for a lack of anonymity here, though it's not a good idea for many people sadly. Which creates, through necessity (for privacy/anonymity), our current situation. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, very well said. I despair for our civility policy. Some people claim that certain editors are so valuable that their lapses can be forgiven, but I think it is as likely that we lose or don't even attract editors because we don't enforce our civility policy evenly - we want to attract new editors but we don't provide the environment we promise them. Maybe it's time to have an RfC on our civility policy if we can't enforce it. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I can't join the chorus of praise until equal time is given to our equally important core content policies. I understand that policing behavior is easier, but does anyone notice something missing in Trusilver's screed? Like ... My personal views on reliable sources, verifiability, and NPOV? I think that every. single. person. who shows a consistent inability to understand these core policies should get a kick out the door, I don't care if it's an IP editor, a long-term content contributor, Randy from Boise, or a member of ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't entirely disagree with the idea that there's a major problem with understanding core content policies around wikipedia. And since I work primarily on fiction related articles, that's part of why I'm having such a hard time with this dispute. We have very sound policies on writing about fiction and how such articles need notable, reliably sourced, real-world information. Many of the articles in question have little (if any) real world information. Where is the information on casting, character portrayal, themes, reception, etc.? Some of them it will be possible to find; even a quick google search shows this (and as Moni has said, she has access to some of the material that is not available online). Some of them, as is being discussed at the project page, turn out to have very little real world information that we can use to expand the articles beyond plot summary. Wiki's general fiction guidelines, the TV project and the Buffy project all have fairly specific policies about articles that are mainly plot summary. Millahnna (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Enforcing policies

    We actually have far less of a problem with flagrant abuse of the civility policy than we used to. Things are improving. Editors who cannot or will not be civil eventually either leave or get banned, and we tolerate it far less from editors who come in to replace them. As with many ANI tropes, "CIVIL isn't working" largely isn't the case outside of the dramaboards and the usual suspects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    I don't have much to say about this that hasn't already been said, and probably by people with more experience in this sort of matter than I possess, but I will say the recent opinions make me feel a bit better about this situation than I was feeling previously, so thank you for that. The situation that actually prompted my ANI filing (as opposed to the massive left turn it ended up taking) still seems to be a bit of a mess, but it seems to be getting the attention I think it needs now. Doniago (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain if we have far less of a problem enforcing civility as Chris C says, but I know we have an enormous problem enforcing content policies, and it is not abating, and users who flaunt those policies do not eventually either leave or get banned. And this is the problem that admins typically either won't or can't enforce. Of course, blocking editors for allegedly uncivil comments (usually asymmetrically depending on the admin's own preferences) is much easier than consulting sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All policies need to be enforced - yes, those who refuse to follow content policies should be given just as hard a kick in the backside as those who are uncivil, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce civility until we can ratchet the content policy enforcement up to snuff. As for asymetric blocking, that equine has expired. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Bushranger. Two assumptions are implicit in the arguments we've seen here against enforcing our "fourth pillar":
    (1) We must choose between a collegial working environment and having lots of high-quality articles, and
    (2) Caring a lot about content policies makes it okay to behave contemptuously.
    These propositions couldn't be more wrong: Doug Weller was spot on above in saying that the hostile environment our resident drama kings/queens create here loses us far more quality content than they can possibly make up for.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We need better ways to enforce the content policies. Except in the most egregious cases, those are being ignored, and it's wearing down the content editors. Civility blocks may "fix" the issue with rude content editors, but how do we fix the other side - the disruption caused by those who don't understand or won't follow policy? Proposals welcome here. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Original question

    The original question wasn't really addressed: should the template be retired, yes or no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, a 12-hour window isn't alarming.--v/r - TP 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be perfectly frank. I ignore admin help templates. Every time I have responded to one in the past, I've been met with hostility. I don't know why, maybe it's just a coincidence, because normally people are happy to accept my help with things, but for some reason if the request for assistance comes about through one of those templates, my help is not wanted. I ignore it on the admin dashboard too. I've never been able to figure out why that is. But if my intervention is only going to make the requestor more upset, for a valid reason or not, it's better for me to turn a blind eye. -- Atama頭 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have others admins had the same experience? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the reason that one part of the original query got little feedback has something to do with it not even being linked here: {{adminhelp}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to be honest as well, like Atama (unlike him, I don't know who Frank is, but I don't know if he would like me impersonating him. I am terrible at impersonations really... well, I digress). Admins are paid only twice what the average editor is paid at Wikipedia, and that's still not enough money for us to jump up and dive into something merely because someone wants us too. Perhaps several admins looked into the adminhelp request, and didn't feel like dealing with it. I feel less like dealing with now that I have read this thread. It doesn't mean the adminhelp template isn't useful, just that your problem didn't attract anyone who wanted to help. There's lots of articles that haven't yet made FA status. We're working on it. Same with things like this. --Jayron32 04:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If an adminhelp request isn't going to yield a "swiftly forthcoming" response, as stated in the message that results from invoking the template, then perhaps the template message should be rephrased to more clearly indicate that if an editor desires a faster response they may wish to go immediately to ANI with their concerns. Doniago (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might better take this up now at the talk page of that template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am open to doing so if other admins feel that that is the best approach at this time. Doniago (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had to venture a guess, maybe the template is too generic. The entire admin dashboard is covered with requests for administrator assistance, from copyright violations, to deletion requests, to unblock requests, etc. I somewhat know what my strengths and weaknesses are. I know that I've got a decent grasp on whether or not an article is spam, but I'm not so good at telling if an image has a proper fair use claim. I take on tasks that I have experience with and have some clue about. The adminhelp tag though just says that an admin's help is requested for something, for anything. So maybe this ambiguity makes it less attractive. I do realize I'm pointing out a potential problem and offering no solution at all but I really can't think of one. -- Atama頭 17:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate the feedback nonetheless, and I am sorry that your prior attempts to help users who requested it were met with hostility; I find that a bit mind-boggling myself. If the problem is that the template is too generic, perhaps more specific templates could be created? Something like {{adminhelpcivil}}, {{adminhelpdel}}, {{adminhelpcopyvio}}? I'd be willing to assist in the creation of such, though my knowledge of templates is mediocre (I'm working on a wiki far removed from here, so I've been learning, but not a lot). Theoretically there could be variants that for situations where admin help isn't (or shouldn't be) the right approach will direct users accordingly when invoked. I don't know whether this is a viable solution, but it's an idea at least. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

    A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

    In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that are subject to closely border AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

    At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

    Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

    Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser was advised more than once to leave Chesdovi alone, and an interaction ban should have been implemented the last time this was at ANI. Debresser knew he would be blocked if further conflict between the 2 of them occurred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 343 articles (not including talkpages, categories, etc) that both have edited - someone is clearly following someone - indeed, probably both are following each other, which they were both told to stop (hence the blocks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Copying across from Debresser's talk page)Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Debresser, if you're trying to paint yourself as the "defender" in your point 3 above, contrary to even a cursory look at your edits and your interaction with other editors, good luck getting anyone to swallow it. pablo 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been involved here before as well. Whilst both editors are productive and a block is unfortunate, we do need to sort the issue out. The problem is that you can't have an interaction ban without a topic ban, as mentioned above that would just give the first person to edit an IP (or any other) article the immediate advantage; also it's too messy and vague - what would be the delay between both editors editing an article that would be acceptable? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't this be resolved by them agreeing to refer disagreements to WikiProject Judaism? Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • (copied from usertalk) I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
      • I think Debresser has made a very good suggestion here. As far as I can tell, the entire dispute stems from a single issue. Chesdovi's previous attempt to solve the problem was an RfC at Talk:Palestine, which I believe was undertaken in good faith. I agree with Debresser that this issue needs a centralized discussion. (I offer no opinion about lifting the block.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted Outing over article that needs needs some help!

    There is many problems with the article Azeztulite it was totally rewritten by BLACKcrow7 it was much better a great improvement over the Scam, Scam, Scam ( the article was very short and had the word scam 3 times!) prev. article The editors started working well together, but now it's is now back to a war zone being rewritten again with limited references, only one main external reference (besides mindat,org) being allowed by some editors. Please check out the main source of this Wiki article: "^ a b Azeztulite, the story of Common Quartz sold for Astronomical Prices!" [[46]]. It is not NPOV it is an original work published on the authors own website it is not a reliable source and it is very opinionated/one sided. It is a commercial site and contains advertising for mineral dealers. The entire article is based almost only on this external website. It's just ridiculous!

    I am having a problem with one of the editors in particular over this Atlan. He is doing an attempted outing. He is using Wiki policy of WP:Corpname threatening to kick me off if I keep being troublesome, see below. This article should be allowed to be edited without such a problem, at least letting it be discussed without this kind of thing going on these were posted in the discussion for the article: [[47]]

    I already noted the obvious conflict of interest Zoomedia9 has and if this troublesome behavior persists, I will see to a block of that account per WP:CORPNAME.--Atlan (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

    Was it necessary to fork this discussion over to my talk page? You are this. You sell stuff on Ebay that is also subject of this article. Yes, that gives you a conflict of interest and WP:CORPNAME applies, even you are not a corporation. Saying I will uphold this policy is not a "threat".--Template:Atlan (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

    Atlan talk page: [[48]]

    Just for the record, I am one person who is a photographer zoom-edia9, not a group or corporation! I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of something that's not true.

    Anyway about the article Azeztulite why not merge it with crystal healing since it is just used in that field? How would you suggest it be written to include the metaphysical side along with the history of the name? Other articles on Wiki talk about the religious origins of things without this many problems. Even if you do not believe it is a religious belief ( metaphysical properties of crystals and healing) what else is it, what would you call it? It's a spiritual belief I don't expect you to understand it or agree with it but it is real and practiced by millions of people. The name is only used by those individuals that believe in this, so it should be included in the article just logically, or just merge it with the article crystal healing where it belongs. Let me know what you think. Thanks Zoomedia9 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

    I am unsure about a connection to www.zoomedia.com, a website about healthcare. But I'm quite sure that you are this without a doubt, so the conflict of interest is apparent. Why would you even try to deny it? You can believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that. That doesn't get you or the article any special treatment. Whatever religious properties you attribute to azeztulite must still be reliably sourced just like any non-religious fact. I already said you need to read up on WP:RS and WP:V.--Atlan (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

    Am I missing something? Why is Atlan trying to connect me to all of these companies? Is it because I am disagreeing with or pointing out that the main source for the article is not a good reference? I thought it was policy to talk about conflicts on the editors talk page before posting here? Was I wrong? What does this have to do with the article? I would just like to see a well written and referenced article, and have editors be able to make changes without this kind of thing going on. It is not right! Please help! Zoomedia9 (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find the Wiki help page to notify people mentioned here Zoomedia9 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this concerns article Azeztulite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and users Atlan (talk · contribs) and BLACKcrow7 (talk · contribs). I do not see an outing attempt, although there is a suggestion that an editor with a non-personally-identifying username here may have the same username at another website (raising a COI concern). I may have to disappear soon, but if not I will notify the above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I am a newbie I am Zoomedia9 the outing attempt was by Atlan used a link in discussion in the article Azesztulite to an ebay page with a photo saying it was me. How is that not an outing attempt? Do I have to change my user name? Zoomedia9 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read WP:OUTING? It talks about posting specific personal identifying information (name, DOB, address, e-mail address, etc.). I don't think a post about you possibly having an account on eBay would qualify. The link he posted was this. That has nothing on it except the same userid. If you click on the name, you get to the photo you're talking about, but I still don't see any personal identifying information (there are other links I can't access because you need to log in to eBay). All that said, I'm not sure it was a good idea for Atlan to do what he did. I believe he says it's because you were trying to sell something on eBay made out of Azeztulite.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Guess I'm a bit involved in the article dispute, received a note on my talk page from an anon about the azeztulite article here and although I assumed it was one user, I wasn't sure so I asked. Looks to me like some socking or meatpupping going on there. Anyway, the ebay link simply shows that someone with the same user id is selling such stuff on ebay and off (I logged in to ebay and the "picture" there is identical to that on another website selling the stuff). Outing? Don't think so, but it does imply a WP:COI for that username. I'd suggest a block on that username which allows the creation of a neutral sounding username. As there have been several "new" single purpose accounts involved (see my talk page question linked above for starters) perhaps we should check for sockpuppetry. Vsmith (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got the help this article really needs.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not outing. I have not revealed any personal information regarding Zoomedia9, nor do I know any. If she didn't want it to be known she sells azeztulite on Ebay under the same username, then she should have picked a different one here on Wikipedia. I find it quite dishonest that she tries to deny the obvious conflict of interest, but I don't really care. Someone please slap a resolved tag on this.--Atlan (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I don't see a WP:OUTING concern here. The editor in question used the same username on two different but high-visibility Internet sites; I do exactly the same thing, and likely for the same reasons. WP:OUTING is concerned specifically with information that would be considered private or personal, such as a user's physical home address, phone number, or place of employment. If the editor's sole business is through eBay, one might be able to stretch the outing policy sufficiently to cover the situation, but it would be a significant stretch, and would have to involve a great deal more being revealed than a coincidental username. With all this in mind, I don't see any need for administrator action on this matter, and unless someone can provide a good argument to the contrary, I propose closing the discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm an admin, and I deal with a lot of COI and outing issues, and I agree there's no outing here. Zoomedia9, you chose to voluntarily make the connection when you chose a username that you've used on other sites. If you don't want people to connect you to any other online activity through your username, your best bet is to retire your current account and create a new one. You can otherwise request a username change here, but your old contributions will still be visible under your new account so it wouldn't be difficult for someone to make the connection if they put forth any effort. It all depends on how important it is for you to keep knowledge of your Wikipedia activity separate from other activity you have made under that username. -- Atama頭 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Atama, I am taking the suggestion of changing my user name to avoid problems in the future. Atlan I am a man not a woman FYI and have no Ebay acount continue to believe what you want. Maxnxs 00:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs)
    That's an interesting interpretation of wp:outing. A user name and everything someone posts is self-disclosed information; unless someone hacks the wikipedia servers, others have no information that the user did not willingly reveal, so whatever one can find out based upon that is fair game? DS Belgium (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Need some feedback on this situation

    Hi,

    I've just had a user come back regarding some edits I made almost 9 months ago(!) making accusations like I "made their life a HELL", that I had accused them of lying (when I'd just added some cn, disputed tags) etc. I'd rather someone else came in and added their input to this matter (if only for the record) as I don't think it would be constructive me adding any more to this on my own(!)

    The discussions are at

    Ubcule (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What administrative action is required here? The user appears to have popped out of nowhere, flamed, and then left again. I suppose the editor could be warned, but that's not likely to accomplish anything if he's already left. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There were two reasons.
    To be honest, when someone starts making unjustified (but serious) accusations of harrassment, trolling and making someone's life "a HELL"(!) against me- whether the other person believes it or not, I'd prefer someone from outside to take a *brief* look at the situation, put their view on record.
    This person came back after almost 9 months and starts making hysterical baseless accusations- I don't want (or intend) to let this escalate into some silly drama, but given this person's apparent animosity towards me, I suspect trying to explain myself further to them- they've already got the wrong end of the stick in several areas- would make it worse. I'd rather someone from outside posted a very brief note (still assuming good faith, even if their conduct was bad!) to this person. Ubcule (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lobocursor has made a request which will probably be met with instructions on how to scramble his password. Should that not happen, if he makes any other personal attacks I'll block the account myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP mess

    Cazedessus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

    Bruce Cockburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I first noticed this issue today on WP:BLPN here. User Cazedessus, who is apparently also Camille Cazedessus, Jr., has some sort of vendetta against Bruce Cockburn. The BLP violation was properly removed from the Cockburn article here. However, I decided to add a warning about the insertion of the material to Cazedessus's Talk page (which is an unholy mess). After doing so, I realized there is a huge diatribe against Cockburn on the Talk page interspersed with other editors' comments and warnings, making it difficult to remove. Also, there are personal attacks as well on editors (calling them Nazis, among other things). This isn't just an article issue, it's an editor issue. What's the best way to handle this?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it's an editor issue. I tried to engage the editor in discussion when it first transpired at the beginning of the month but didn't get anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whack the motherf***** already. This sounds like a competence issue compounded by a seething hatred for this guy; Cazedessus has no business being here. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. After reading through all that, I've concluded he's WP:NOTHERE and, accordingly, I've blocked him indefinitely. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bushranger, that's an interesting little bouillabaisse of self-promotion and paranoia. It's best we just seal the vault on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we need to remove the BLP violations from the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just removed almost all of the page; only the last two sections of it remain. (The rest of it was BLP vios and personal screeds.) —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is a competence issue. Caz is not a net benefit to WP. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeremy, I noticed your removal, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, happy to see a "competence" block, we should see them more often, for example, in cases that aren't quite as easy as this one, and may take more time and research to understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct closure of an AfD discussion

    This AfD discussion [52] was closed as a "Snowball Keep" by someone who is not an administrator. However, there were Delete and Merge votes in the discussion, so I am not certain if it was proper for someone who is not an administrator to close the discussion. Can someone tell me if the closure was in accordance with this website's rules? Thank you.And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rcsprinter123 again? A month ago I asked him to consider NACs on AfDs which weren't wholly uncontroversial after he's made a string of poor closes. Time for a stronger request to step back until he has more experience? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    I am sorry that I did not inform the editor in question about this discussion. And thank you for addressing my question. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While WP:SNOW was quoted here, the discussion had run the full 168 hours and some change. This was one I probably would have punched back in my NAC days as the consensus was clear that this was more then a routine event. I really don't think it was necessary to admin reclose this but what's done is done. I do question why we need two articles on this subject as it seems that the farm itself is only notable for this event but that's a discussion for the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious editing from User: Mimibeo

    User: Mimibeo has been constantly making pages on writing processes. I find the numerous pages to be both quite suspicious and annoying. If a reason can extracted, then please inform me. Also, if someone can also inform Mimibeo on article policies that would would be great as well. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 03:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) What sysop action is needed here? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I'm not a Francophone, and I don't have a copy of the book, but what I'm seeing in the article appears to be a potential copyvio, lifted straight from the GoogleBooks reference. Someone else will need to examine the material and verify it. Since I don't have that book, and the link to the referenced section appears to deny me access to the material, someone else will need to review the reference and determine if there's enough concern to warrant tagging the article with a {{copyvio}} flag. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the prod and G12'd it. Here's the link to the DDR[53]. Clearly Copyvio. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruining Game's plot

    99.174.161.230 has kept on ruining Gun's plot. Putting synopsis with no known sense and doesn't even put a summary of his edits. I tried to talk to this person but he/she just kept on going, vandalising a good wiki page. I don't know if he/she even has a reason of this nonsense Godzilladude123 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Godzilladude123[reply]

    You must notify any user you mention here. I've notified 99. for you. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute. He's just trying to shorten the plot, which he feels is too long. I've semi-protected the page for a few hours due to the edit warring, but beyond that there's nothing to see here. Swarm X 06:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AbsoluteGleek92 and copyvios

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644 § User:AbsoluteGleek92 and lack of communication

    Can someone be blocked just for being a serial copyvio offender? AbsoluteGleek92 (talk · contribs) does not understand the harmfulness of cut-and-paste plot summaries. It is very easy to find them, because he maintains his own list on his user page, and with that on my watchlist, I just check the new entries and find fresh copyvios every couple of weeks. He has been repeatedly notified and warned, and recently a CCI was opened in his name: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/AbsoluteGleek92, but he's got a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and his constructive edits are of negligible value, so I recommend he be blocked for refusal to cooperate and to prevent further legal damage to the project. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    -Has anyone noticed that not ALL of what I do on these pages are stolen? Like the Youth in Revolt film page, when I made the summary for that, it all came directly out of my head; and for the record, I'm aware that I copy/pasted the Lucker summary, and yes, I edited it a bit to escape being noticed, but NOTHING ever gets past you, doesn't it Elizium23? - AbsoluteGleek92 (and people say I'm a "silent editor") — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsoluteGleek92 (talk • contribs)

    Yes, we can indef in such scenarios, and based on the response above, we probably should in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the easy question here for you, AbsoluteGleek92, is do you "steal" material and print it on Wikipedia pages? And if so, why would you do that? Dayewalker (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of a question is that? Is it not obvious? Despite numerous warnings over a very long period, and a CCI, they've copy/pasted text into Wikipedia as recently as just now, and they admittedly tried to edit it to avoid detection. In other words, they know they shouldn't be doing this, yet they're doing it anyway. The only thing that baffles me is how the hell this user hasn't been blocked yet— and if there's any reason we should not do so right now. Swarm X 05:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's obvious, Swarm, it's admitted above. I was just interested in hearing how they were going to justify what they did. AG's comment above certainly seemed to have a "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy" tone to it. Just curious as to what his rationale was. And now that he's made his comment/threat below, nothing left to do but end all of this with a well-deserved block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do block me, fine. I'll be back eventually. I have my ways. Always remember AshTFrankFurter and his many sockpuppets ;) BUT I should get a LITTLE credit, I did start using edit summaries. - AbsoluteGleek92
    (edit conflict)This user never engages in discussion, unless it's in ANI. Please see his talk page of the many times, I and others have tried to guide him to editing within guidelines and policy. His copyright violations have been going on for almost a year now. —Mike Allen 05:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you know what? I don't need this, if it'll shut you all up, I'll keep my edits to a minimum and I'll think up my own summaries. Happy, you vultures? - AbsoluteGleek92 (by thew way, Mike Allen, you have been helpful, so I give you props, the rest of you can suck it)
    • (edit conflict)I would suspect it is time for an indef. I would also ask if above is an admission to already socking or having done so in the past (plus the promise to do so in the future) to continue such behavior? If so, it almost seems like AbsoluteGleek92 is asking for a permanent ban as opposed to an indef block - though I could be wrong in that interpretation. Thoughts? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside (while I'm pondering whether or not I can "suck it" as above), should AG92 have some kind of link in his signature to his user or talk page, as per WP:SIG? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As per the second one, I suspect so. I'm still pondering the first one too... though while pondering both, I came up with the idea that besides some indication of an understanding of WP:COPYVIO (yet forthcoming), that perhaps AG92 could provide a list of the other articles he's violated copyvio on. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow I'm ashamed for wasting a whole year trying to help you. It's now obvious you may be a sock and want to disrupt Wikipedia with your childish behavior. If you are blocked and come back I can guarantee from your editing partern I will catch and tag you each time. —Mike Allen 06:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the long history of the issue, the repeated unsuccessful warnings and attempts to deal with this to no avail, the refusal to communicate and the blatantly malicious comments in this ANI thread, I'm blocking this user indefinitely. Copyvios cannot be tolerated and this has gone on for too long. Swarm X 06:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @AG, I didn't know I was helpful, since you never talk back. That's another main problem, other than the copyright issues. I don't understand anyone on Wikipedia, a collaborative project, that does not communicate. —Mike Allen 06:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Time to warm up the mallets for a game of Whac-A-Sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CCI updated. MER-C 06:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban

    Given his persistent copyvios, serious lack of collegial communication, generous helpings of WP:IDHT, disruption and threats of socking I think we should take RoberfromLI's suggestion and formally consider banning him. Blackmane (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Swarm X 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a sockpuppet invesitgation should be launched as well. Fanatical editors such as this usually create socks. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban as proposer. Support a checkuser determining the validity of the need for a sock investigation. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not Yet The editor appears on the road to a ban, but I don't think the conduct justifies one yet. Until they follow through with a string of socks, or get unblocked and return to misbehaving, an indef block seems like enough. Monty845 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not Yet He certainly deserves this block, but he seems to be a young user and he's only been blocked twice before. An indef seems premature, although if he starts socking and being disruptive, we can certainly revisit this. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Monty845 and Dayewalker. I would be fine with a sockpuppet investigation, considering the comments made about creating them. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • CheckUser comment: I don't see any need for an SPI at the moment, but if accounts pop up that look like socks, by all means file one. The behaviour is pretty distinct and should be easy to notice and easy to whack. WilliamH (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Will do. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed on Ratnam concept school

    Several editors (User:202.83.18.229, User:Geetha devi and now User:60.166.5.157) have been adding the same promotional text to this article. Discussions started on user talkpages, the article talkpage and at dispute resolution have all been disregarded. As recommended by User:ItsZippy, I'm bringing this to ANI to get some input from the pros; this looks like disruptive COI editing and may involve using multiple accounts to avoid 3RR (although I'm loathe to call "Sock!" with so few edits from the potential puppets, hence no SPI yet).

    I'm also aware that the article needs moving to Ratnam Concept School, but have left it until this issue is resolved Yunshui 雲水 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I became involved after responding to a submission at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As Yunshui said, the same promotional content has been repeatedly inserted by numerous editors (they could be the same person, but I feel it might be premature to make the judgement). We have both reached our 3RR limit in removing the content. The issue seems to be the conduct of the users involved, who are not responding to attempts at discussion (on the talk page, their own talk pages and the DRN), so the involvement of an admin would be helpful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFPP would have been helpful ... I've full-protected for a week. Work it out :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ... now, if someone whose Twinkle is working would be so kind as to add a welcome template to the IP's and User that discusses how promotion is bad, I'd appreciate it. Assume ignorance of the rules (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, much appreciated. I've welcomed the three users with the NPOV welcome template. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonic Generations

    I've raised this at WP:RPP, but it needs resolving more urgently than that - I suspect this is an raid, as it's not possible to edit the article at all due to edit conflicts from constantly hopping IPs. I'm not going to notify all the IPs involved, because, frankly, I'd like to do something else with my life at some point in the future... Yunshui 雲水 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind; Closedmouth got in there and fixed it whilst I was typing the above. Yunshui 雲水 14:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Resolved
     – No violation of his restrictions by WMC. Some have reminded him to avoid the edges of his restrictions, but most people don't feel that the report by the OP represents any substantive violation of his restrictions. --Jayron32 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thought I saw a notice to this effect. William M. Connolley, the focus of this, has been editing Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - how is he allowed to do this when it's a collection of BLPs? 86.** IP (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like an extremely obvious violation to me. To clarify, the exact wording is "William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably." I have no experience with Climate Change issues, or with William Connelly (though as an ANI watcher, I've certainly seen the name before). Is this deserving of a final warning, or just an immediate block for immediately and clearly violating the amended restrictions? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I were in his shoes, I'd be taking a much more conservative view of the topic ban, but taking a very conservative interpretation of the motion, I don't think WMC has actually made any edits related to a living person, but has simply made comments on a list whose entries are predominantly BLPs. Unless someone can provide evidence that suggests he's deliberately pushing the boundaries of his newly relaxed topic ban, I would caution him that he's skating on thin ice (and would do well to move to firmer ground), but I don't think any formal action is necessary. YMMV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wondered about this but he has been a fairly moderate voice in those discussions rather being antagonistic or tendentious. It seems reasonable to suppose that this was not considered to be a BLP proper - more of a high-level omnibus. He might be asked to withdraw but that's all that seems appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The article contains a list of people, not a list of BLPs. Let's not use more alphabet soup than absolutely necessary, here. The specific restriction on WMC says that he "...is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably." It seems from the tortured wording ("broadly but reasonably"?) that even the ArbCom intended some judgement and restraint to be used in enforcement.
    As far as I can tell, there are three edits at issue. All were to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
    1. [55] Adds a signature to an unsigned comment. Definitely not a BLP issue.
    2. [56] A 19-word comment on a matter of style, suggesting that the length of quotations used in the article is excessive. This comment does not single out any individual or group for comment, living or dead, explicitly or implicitly.
    3. [57] A comment on whether an IPCC report does or does not represent the so-called "mainstream viewpoint" with respect to climate change. This is definitely not a biography-related issue by any reasonable stretch.
    I would also argue that additional latitude should be given in interpreting this restriction where it is applied to the non-public-facing, non-article pages of Wikipedia. The article in question here does talk about specific, named individuals, but WMC has conscientiously stayed away from the article itself, and has entirely avoided naming names (in any way, shape, or form) on the talk page. His remarks were addressed to questions of style and to the interpretation of a scientific publication, not to biographical matters or personal details. The "broadly but reasonably" wording (has that construction ever appeared in another ArbCom remedy?) was explicitly chosen to permit WMC to contribute within his area of expertise without facing unduly harsh or vindictive 'gotcha' enforcement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ten here. It looks like this is another attempt to drag him through the mud over what is clearly not a violation of the arbcom's ruling. Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (e/c, what a surprise :-) My view was that the words but reasonably were important. The page itself is not directly a BLP, and as pointed out I haven't even edited the page, only the talk. Moreover, I haven't even made any comments that directly reflect on any person. However, if the cnosensus is that I should withdraw from that page, I'm happy to comply William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note from an arbitrator: The key words here are "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". This means no editing about people, not no editing biographical articles. I am rather stunned that experienced editors have a hard time understanding the difference between people and biographies. Risker (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Non-administrator comment) I have to respectfully disagree. The qualifier interpreted broadly but reasonably has to be considered as well. The three edits given as examples by TenOfAllTrades are all to an article Talk page, with clear critiques and suggestions for improving the article...which is the intended use of an article Talk page. With those critiques and suggestions, and with the qualifier on the ArbCom decision in place, it would violate both the letter AND the spirit of that decision to not assume good faith regarding this matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". The point I've tried to make above, and so have several other people, is that I'm not editing relating to any living person; that is where the "reasonably" kicks in William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edits are all on a talk page of an article that isn't a BLP, and whilst the article is a list of living people, none of the edits actually refer to them. I don't see that that is a violation of that sanction in any shape or form, given the "...but reasonably" caveat. Black Kite (t) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I've already suggested to WMC on his Talk page that he be careful of the spirit of the ruling. However I don't personally think making edits to a List of people article Talk page breaks the spirit of the ruling. --Merlinme (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the above responses, it doesn't seem like this discussion needs to carry on further. Marking resolved and closing. --Jayron32 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Re-opening

    • - Closed awful rapidly without need. The article is a list of content about living people. This is imo a clear redline of the users restriction - Risker's comment here is reflective of the position WMC needs to abide by, he is - "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". - he should stay away from content about living people and talkpage discussion about living people related to climate change.The relaxation of his editing restrictions is pretty clear and if he violates those conditions he will likely find himself more restricted than previously. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually particularly concerned about Risker's comment, since, unless I'm misunderstanding it, he she is supporting sanctions here, not opposing them. Apologies to Risker though if my pre-coffee brain is misreading your comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is my interpretation of Risker's comment also. WMC should avoid such testing of the waters regarding the loosening of his editing restrictions, that is unless he wants to get wet. They are quite clear, and that includes the, "but reasonably" caveat. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Risker (who is still a she as far as I know) is clearly stating that it is the subject of the edit which matters, not the title or main focus of the article. Franamax (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No editing about people involved in Climate change, was Risker's comment, that's quite clear, as are WMC's editing restrictions. He needs to avoid the discussions and articles related to living people. It up to him but skirting around the redline of his editing restrictions is not something I would recommend for him. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WMC says it himself in his first edit there, The title is clear enough: it is people opposing the mainstream view. - people, yes WMC, living people of the type that are the focus of your editing restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussion about the motion see here, bottom of the page, ArbCom didn't make much of the problem I raised. That suggests they don't see the need of restricting William well away from the BLP area. It is enough that William doesn't make any BLP edits. The definition fo a BLP edit is then intepreted broadly, but it isn't like that William can't edit pages that are only indirectly about living people, like the list of scientists opposed to the consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob: Please read more carefully. Risker's comment differentiated between people and biographies.
    Note from an arbitrator: The key words here are "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic". This means no editing about people, not no editing biographical articles. I am rather stunned that experienced editors have a hard time understanding the difference between people and biographies. Risker (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy with my interpretation. WMC is restricted from both, content about living people not in biographies, and content about living people in biographies, and similar on talkpages The issue is WMC's editing in relation to his arbitration restrictions in regard to living people and this is an inauspicious start and does not bode well for the future. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    All things considered, I am reminded of the fellow who was told not to swim in the Everglades because of the alligators - but who thought just sticking his foot in would not be a problem. It may not be a problem, but those alligators are still there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My interpretation of WMC's editing restriction relaxation is that he is now free to do such beneficial work on a multitude of articles about climate change that are about his specialist subject but not about living people, I won't post them all here unless requested but there are many of them that are almost not about living people at all, these two for example, WMC is now allowed to edit - they both need a little work to raise them up to GA status - Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol - Climate change mitigation - this is the sort of beneficial non biographical editing that WMC's editing restriction relaxation is clearly applicable to, perhaps even designed for. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was concerned earlier today when editors seemed to have a hard time differentiating between BLPs (a classification of articles where the subject is a living person) and edits that relate to living people (which could potentially occur on any page regardless of its subject). WMC should not be editing about living people in any way associated with the Climate change topic anywhere on the project. This motion effectively proscribes him from editing any BLP related to the Climate change topic area, but goes far beyond just that article classification. I would urge WMC to proceed with caution; commenting on the nature or quality of quotes attributed to living persons relative to this topic area is pushing things. While I think Off2riorob has been somewhat strident in his commentary, his suggestion of re-entering the topic area through the scientifically-oriented articles is fairly good advice. So is Collect's. Risker (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mamalujo slow editwarring on Adolf Hitler's religious views

    User Mamalujo has repeatedly an unilaterally reinserted his favourite version of the article over the last couple of days. His only participation in the discussion on the talkpage has been to state his disagreement with those editors who are against his insertion. He has been repeatedly told that a strong belief that you are right and everybody else is wrong does not justify editwarring. I do not consider myself to be involved, but since I have offered my own arguments in the discussion section I think it is reasonable to let other admins take action - otherwise I would have blocked him for editwarring myself. I am not taking this to the 3rr notice board because more than the editwarring it is the behavioral problem of not respecting consensus or engage in meaningful discussion that is the problem here, the editwarring seems to be a symptom of that. I hope that when informed about the correct interpretation of policy by multiple administrators he may change his conduct. I also note that his userpage, talkpage and edit history suggests a possible pattern of tendentious editing that may also underlie the unwillingness to dialogue with other users. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully protected the page to put a stop to further edit warring until user conduct issues can be sorted out. causa sui (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick review of the talk page and edit history appears to confirm Maunus' version of events. Specifically, it seems that (1) Mamalujo (talk · contribs) has the minority view that the eradication of Christianity was a goal of the German National Socialist movement or of Hitler himself, and (2) has edit warred on the article to pursue including that view in the article instead of following dispute resolution, and (3) has argued explicitly that other users' disagreement with the interpretation of his sources is not relevant because he's right and they're wrong.
    The protection policy suggests that it is better to block disruptive users rather than protect a page, because protection prevents constructive edits from non-disruptive editors. If others agree with that assessment, I'd suggest blocking Mamalujo (talk · contribs) and removing my protection. I also give leave to any administrator to lengthen, shorten, or remove the protection I set according to their own best judgment. causa sui (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've recently observed an edit war a couple months ago involving an ip. Perhaps sockpuppetry is afoot here. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 23:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You would have to provide a little more context for that part of the issue to become actionable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CodyJoeBibby

    Resolved
     – User indef'd by Black Kite causa sui (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll keep this short and to the point. In the last couple of hours, CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made a series of highly disruptive and uncivil edits at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher and its associated article. Having turned up at User:ErrantX's talk page yesterday to leave gratuitous abuse, the user has since edit-warred over the article's bibliography and made several personal attacks against other editors at the talk page, stating "it's really of no concern to me if I'm banned from Wikipedia". The user is an SPA dedicated to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic and related articles. I feel that some sort of administrative action is becoming increasingly necessary. SuperMarioMan 22:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked him for 48 hours. This isn't the first time he's been rung up for personal attacks. Personally I smell an indef brewing, but I'll leave that determination to somebody else. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See also related thread here.TMCk (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#Sock trolling Knox articles, where his behavior seems fairly close to that of recently-indefed 32alpha4tango, a possible sock of PhanuelB (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given the number of Phanuel socks that remain unblocked, it is unsurprising that another one should return immediately after the previous one was blocked. Not sure why the block was only 48h given the volume of quacking. Black Kite (t) 22:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, there has been so much vitriol and animosity surrounding the Murder of Meredith Kercher, perhaps a long-term full-protection and/or article probation (as recently done with Men's rights by community consensus) may be necessary. –MuZemike 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesus Christ, what will it fucking take to make these Knox warriors happy? They got the outcome they wanted in court (entirely justified, in my view), the article reads in a way of which they approve (as stated here by Phanuel or one of his meatpuppets), and yet the tantrums do not end. I thought this shit would end when the girl went home, but I guess some people's vindictiveness knows no bounds. I think we need some kind of a ban and revert-and-block-on-sight policy for further disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The community is allowed to place the article(s) under discretionary sanctions; a simple consensus can do that. This would then allow any admin to warn once and block on the second instance of gross incivility, tendentiousness, or other problems. Given the drama these articles have created, and the apparent inability for some people of a certain POV to interact appropriately, I would support such a decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Verifiability

    An RfC was opened here on October 5 to ask whether "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" should be removed. As this is contentious, it was understood that the RfC would be wiki-wide, would remain open for the full 30 days, and would be carefully closed by more than one uninvolved admin (who would read the comments) before being implemented.

    Sarek has just attempted to close it prematurely, and implemented the change himself. I have reverted this, in part because it was an early closure, and in part because I spoke to him not long ago about acting as an admin in situations in which he was involved. As I've been centrally involved in the discussion leading to the RfC, I would prefer that another admin, and preferably more than one, close this when the 30 days is up.

    Is anyone willing to supervise this situation from now until November 5, read all the comments, then interpret consensus? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Black Kite. If a couple of admins could volunteer, that would be great. Also, I just noticed that no one had added the RfC tags for the bot (I have just added them), so it's not clear this was advertised properly. If it could be given some extra time to account for that, that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The tags were removed by Sarek when he made the close, but they were there all along before that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was added only to the RfC policy page. A key change to a core policy affects all kinds of articles. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I could take a look at it if there's any need for a second opinion. However, I'm not completely neutral on the issue as I tended to support the WP:ATT proposal and at some points suggested that I approved of the status quo, but I don't recall taking part in the RFC and don't have strong feelings about it either way. Aside from that, I wonder why it's necessary for more than one admin to do this? causa sui (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thinking is it would be easier for more than one admin to read the comments, and then discuss what they mean, rather than relying on numbers.
    We had agreed (I thought) to have an RfC with two sections: (a) do you want this change? and (b) is the first sentence fine as it is? (See this exchange, for instance). The reason we agreed to this is that, during the long discussions that preceded the RfC, people were saying things like "I prefer the status quo, but if it will end this discussion, then I support the compromise." Even the editor who opened the RfC (Blueboar) said he felt this way. So I feel there has been considerable railroading, and I'm hoping the admins who close it will carefully read the comments to see how, or whether, that factors in. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weren't you one of the minority opposing the change? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very recent sudden flood of "opposes" into an RFC that, ever since October 5, has looked like a straight pass for the compromise proposal, is making me feel very suspicious about what's going on. I do not recall a discussion in which it was agreed that this RFC would stay open for 30 days, and would be grateful for a link to it. Since October 5, there has been plenty of opportunity for any editors who were concerned it was not widely advertised to raise the matter. Starting on 26 October, with contributions tailing off, there was a discussion at the RFC about whether it would be appropriate to ask an uninvolved admin to close. Several editors agreed that this would be appropriate, and none opposed, so on 27 October, User:North8000 put a neutrally-worded message on the administrator's noticeboard asking for a close. SarekOfVulcan replied. If SarekOfVulcan was involved, please explain how.

      I believe that SV's revert and her sudden rush of procedural objections three weeks into an RFC that wasn't going her way, followed by a demand that she be allowed to post notices to bring in new editors who were previously uninvolved, is nothing more than an attempt to derail a discussion that wasn't going her way, and I am feeling rather cynical about it.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The "sudden rush" could be a consequence of the RfC finally being properly advertised today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See Blueboar's reply below. It was well advertised, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of editors found it. Look, Maunus, we don't do this. If the discussion hadn't gone my way and it got closed against my wishes, I wouldn't be allowed to unilaterally revert the close and put notices all over the place to ask my wikibuddies to come and support me! If I tried it, my talk page would go red with warnings within minutes, and I'd be summarily reverted. But SlimVirgin appears to be not just getting away with it scot free but also getting away with accusing Sarek of bad faith in the process! I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've seen an awful lot of discussions, but I'd never previously seen such a blatant double standard.—S Marshall T/C 02:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SV and I think Sarek was involved. S Marshall, you may want to review Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. It is hardly a bad faith accusation. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • S Marshall, I'm in your corner and I agree with the tenor of your comments. However, if we put aside our strong feelings, I think we'll find that SlimVirgin's position is fairly well supported. In other words, Sarek did previously comment on the RfC and express his POV earlier in October, and this makes him less than suited for closing a contentious RfC. I would like people to extend more good faith to SlimVirgin in this regard. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, Viriditas, there are all kinds of ways of dealing with it. If SV was concerned about Sarek's prior involvement, she could have raised it with him, or discussed it here. That would have been appropriate. But to revert his close without speaking to him is a quite different kind of behaviour. Also note the sudden rush of "oppose" !votes: where has this been advertised, and by whom?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are in agreement. But I strongly believe, based on this evidence alone, that SV is acting in good faith, and we should honor her request for the RfC to remain open and for more voices to be heard. In response, we should also inform the closing admin that there was a rush of opposes after discussion had wound down, making canvassing of one POV more than likely, but unproven. Keep in mind, if the arguments are strong and the judgment of the closing admin wise, we should not concern ourselves with such things. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like some uninvolved admin to review Slim'sViriditas' claim that I "expressed my POV" on the discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm neither uninvolved nor an admin, but I can look at the edit history just like anyone else and see that you previously expressed your opinion on this topic on October 7.[60] Not sure why you closed this. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, Viriditas, I got the signatures confused -- I was quoting you there, not Slim. However, I disagree that the diff you supplied shows involvement -- it's a comment on the differences between the versions. Really, I was personally leaning toward oppose, but that didn't affect my ability to read the discussion and see what it said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this. Do you object to leaving the RfC open for 30 days and finding a more uninvolved admin than yourself? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sarek, you expressed a view directly on the issue at hand during the RfC, came down on one side ("I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things"), [61] then three weeks later closed the RfC early and inserted the new version! That is what it means to be "involved." SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel this has to be the last straw in terms of Sarek's tendency to act as an admin when involved. He does it constantly, and his last reconfirmation warned him about it. But he has continued to do it, and not just here. I'm sorry, Sarek, I like you, but you seem to have no understanding or respect for the idea of an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to repeat material which is covered there, but this was a very unrushed process....several months to develop the proposal, a long period for comments with extensive participation, advertised extensively (including centralized discussion) floating the idea to close (without opposition) for several days, comments trailing off to less tha one per day over the last several days. A request for closure that stayed a few days with no opposition, and the propoerly closed. Also it had what most would consider to have a very strong if not overwhelming consensus. Now one or two people are trying to undo the results by inventing new non-existent rules because they did not like the results. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion on this RfC is diametrically opposed to SV. However, we should, as good Wikipedians, make every effort to insure processes are fair and reasonable to all involved. SV has observed that the RfC was not allowed to run for its recommended length, was not widely advertised, and was not closed by a neutral admin. Her request for reopening the close and advertising the RfC is entirely reasonable, and we should accept it at face value. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was widely advertised, and had in fact attracted more than 90 separate contributors before Sarek closed it. And it's yet to be established whether Sarek was neutral, see his denial above.—S Marshall T/C 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered above. He previously commented on the RfC on October 7 and put forward a POV that would later support the close.[62] Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In context, that diff shows Sarek asking a question of Quadell. Why do you see it as "putting forward a POV"?—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote: "I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things." That disqualifies him from closing the RfC. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with that assertion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So then you maintain that you were uninvolved? I see, so an admin can comment in an RfC discussion in favor of one side and then close it, favoring that side? Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd actually read what I said, you'd see that I was indicating that I was worried about the amount of weight the new wording seemed to be putting on "a Reliable Source published it, so we can pass it on".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin has been posting notifications about the RFC, asking people to vote soon because the RFC is going to close in days. I think there is a problem here. This invites people to vote based on their gut feelings instead of considering the discussions and thinking deeply about the issue. Particulary the people who would rather keep the "not truth" statement will feel that all is not lost if they are quick to oppose.

    But this would undo all the work that BlueBoar has put in to find a good compromize. There is nothing wrong with opposing if you have considered this compromize seriously and then still come out against. But I don't think this is going to happen. We have to remember that an RFC simply on removing "Not Truth" was held previously and that doesn't have consensus, instead you're then stuck in a 50-50 quagmire. The consequence of that was never ending discussions on the talk page.

    So, I think the best thing to do is to close the vote for week to allow for new discussions and then re-open the vote for, say, two weeks. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Totally opposed to that. Totally. We've been discussing this for nearly nine months now and, until a couple of hours ago, we had finally reached a consensus. Suddenly SV decides that even though she's massively involved, it's appropriate for her to unilaterally revert another admin's close without speaking to him, and add neutrally-worded notifications made in selected places, which are somehow leading to a major influx of !voters supporting SlimVirgin's preferred wording, while she edit-wars to keep the discussion open so her chums can !vote. It's all quite inappropriate and needs to stop. What I think would be appropriate would be for someone to re-close the debate as Sarek found it, on the basis of the 90-odd !votes from the self-selected participants; I think that no account at all should be taken of the sudden rush of opposers who've appeared since SV started this behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only am I completely neutral admin, who doesn't really care if the proposal succeeds or not, but I wasn't even aware that the RfC was ongoing until I saw this thread on my watchlist. Thus, I have avoided forming an opinion on the issue itself. However (as a completely uninvolved, neutral admin who doesn't have an opinion), I've reached two conclusions: first, that if Viriditas' diff is the extent of Sarek's involvement, that he was not nearly sufficiently involved that he couldn't close it and second, that (based on a quick read through), his close seemed to be in line with consensus.

      That said, though, I would suggest leaving it a day or two now to let the fallout from this drama to subside, and to see what effect it has on the consensus, and then closing it when it appears everybody who wants to has given their opinion. I'm willing to take a look and close it then if a closer is needed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is worth noting that this is a controversial change to a core policy and that the level of consensus is currently about 1 to 2 (wouldn't pass in a RFA). I think that this suggests that it is important to make sure that the wider community has time to comment and voice their opinions. As SlimVirgin notes the RfC has not been very widely advertised untill today. I think a hasty closure can only create problems for both sides.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While many RfCs are left open for a full 30 days, just as many are closed earlier. 30 days seems to be a rule that is ignored as often as it is observed. Also, there is no requirement that an RfC be closed by someone who did not express an opinion. Nor is there even a requirement that RfCs be closed by an admin.
    Now... perhaps this particular RfC should go 30 days, and perhaps it should be closed by someone who is completely uninvolved (has not commented in the RfC or in any of the talk page discussions that preceded it) and perhaps that person should be an admin, but let's be clear that all of that isn't a requirement. Sarek acted in good faith, whether you agree with his actions or not.
    That said... as the author of the RfC in question, I have no problem with keeping it open a few more days. And given that this is a core policy we are talking about, I think having this particular RfC closed by a completely uninvolved admin (or group of admins) is a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek expressed an opinion on the key issue during the RfC, BB. That is what it means to be an involved admin. We need widespread notification of this RfC (you guaranteed that before you opened it), time for people to arrive and form a view, and then closure by at least two 'completely uninvolved and experienced admins (uninvolved in the discussion, no disputes with key participants, etc), so that everyone feels the closure is objective and informed. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Slim, considering you've been edit warring and canvassing non-neutrally, I'm not sure I buy your definition of "involved admin". And considering you're involved, why do you get to revert my close instead of going to an "uninvolved admin" to do it? A little consistency would be nice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it was Slrubenstein who undid your close[65] which was followed by an edit war involving S Marshall and yourself,[66][67], then later by SV and myself. Anyone with unclean hands here? Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, to Sarek) I reverted because it shouldn't have been closed today, and it shouldn't have been closed by you. Sarek, how many times in your career as an admin have people complained about you being involved, even if you think they were all wrong? You promised during your reconfirmation (as I recall) not to do this anymore. Look at the person-hours now being spent discussing the meta issue. It isn't fair or reasonable to cause this expenditure of time and energy. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So if it isn't fair or reasonable, why are you doing it, Slim? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am closing this discussion as successful—as I believe the consensus is sufficiently in that corner—but with very strong counsel to SarekOfVulcan toward a much more strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED than he has used in the past. The overwhelming reason for those opposing (far above any other) was due to concerns that he has regularly become involved as an administrator in areas where he was already involved to one degree or another as an editor; WP:INVOLVED cautions very strongly against this."[68] Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's accepted that there may have been times, in the past, when Sarek didn't strictly follow WP:INVOLVED. But the past isn't at issue here. The question is whether he was WP:INVOLVED today, in this particular matter. And HJ Mitchell's already answered this one for you, above. Sarek was uninvolved. SlimVirgin, by her own admission, was involved. Therefore, she as an involved admin should not have reverted Sarek's close without discussing it with him first. I really don't know how I can make it any clearer for you than this, Viriditas.—S Marshall T/C 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because you and HJ Mitchell do not get to decide who is or isn't involved. If there is any reasonable doubt about involvement he shouldn't close. Sarek was bold - but there was doubt and he was reverted. Sarek should be less bold and dedicate more attention to when he might reasonably be perceived to be involved.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, no? Consensus decides. In this case whether or not HJ Mictehll agrees there is resonable doubt about whether he[Sarek] was involved and that requires discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, perhaps that's something to discuss then? Something to move on to? Instead of driving in circles over that piece of horse flesh? It's been undone, SoV has turned in his bit, and HJ has offered to step in. That's just my opinion, from following this since it's started. That would bring us to, "Does anyone have any reason for believing that HJ should be considered involved?" Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    User:Remony repeated copyrighted image uploads

    Resolved

    Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    Remony (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images of Indian actresses with claims that the images are his own work, but has not explained how he is the copyright holder. I have already gone through several of his images a couple of days ago and listed them for deletion discussion, and warned him about them at that time, and yet, he is still uploading professionally created images with claims that he is the creator of the images. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP editor who self-identifies as being User:Remony has also vandalized the image deletion discussions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked & blatant CV's were deleted, rest are listed for deletion. Skier Dude (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also blocked as a sock is Block Listed (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 04:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User 74.46.248.251

    Resolved
     – IP blocked - The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This user just edited my usertalk page with a racially-motivated insult (presumably due to my presence on the talk:Nigger page), though doesn't seem to have any history of other vandalism from that address. I spent a few minutes looking around to see if there's a better place to report this but can't find anything, so I'm reporting the vandalism here.

    --Walkersam (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Occupy Wall Street

    I would like administrator attention on the article. There seems to be disruption, at least from my point of view. For example, this carefully sourced contribution was edit warred out of the article on false grounds, as the sources I inserted are either ones which discuss OWS or are cited as relevant to OWS in articles discussing OWS (such as the Congressional Budget Office report). At the least, please drop by and make an evaluation as to whether disruption is going on. Even with the most careful sourcing, it seems difficult to add highly relevant information at that article and at the least an admin's mediation skills would be valuable. Be——Critical 01:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like a content dispute, have you tried hasing it out on the talk page?--v/r - TP 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're wasting your time here. This is the place you come to when you want to get your opponents blocked, nothing to do with resolving content disputes. Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ask the protesters to start an "Occupy Wikipedia" protest to make propaganda for their cause. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, well deleting well-sourced material seems like it's worth a warning. Be——Critical 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you could rewrite it and get it back into the article, but the way you've got it structured is confusing to other editors, which is why they keep removing it. You're relying on primary sources outside the topic. Start with the OWS secondary sources you are using first and then show how the secondary sources tie directly into the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourced material only goes into the article if there is a consensus that it is relevant and correctly weighted. The fact that it is sourced is a necessary criteria for inclusion, but not a sufficient one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be confusing. Note that this subject is controversial, and that's probably why the problem arose, not because it's anything less than highly relevant or very well sourced. The primary sources are used because they were tied in by the secondary sources, and they are themselves RS for their topic. Be——Critical 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD is the relevant policy - if you insert material however well sourced and someone removes it then you start discussing and building consensus instead of editwarring or starting ANI threads. It is perfectly acceptable to remove boldly inserted sourced material pending discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block review: Colofac

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite block review: Colofac? A close as "keep blocked" or "unblock" is needed to determine whether WP:CBAN #2 is met. As Swarm (talk · contribs) wrote: "a consensus in support of an indef block means that a user is community banned, and that's a far different situation than simply closing a discussion and saying "request unblock normally" (as Jehochman evidently did)." Cunard (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=457929990"