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 Odiriuss (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 14 March 2012 (→Missuse of admin power). 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



    Thomas Jefferson

    Without initially naming names, the Thomas Jefferson talk page has, in my opinion, been difficult concerning the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Discussion has often turned into caustic argumentation and bullying of opinions on dissenting or differing opinions. Personal attacks seems to be the norm rather then respectful discussion on the subject matter. Editors team up on other editors and appear to be in collusion of opinion with each other. What can be done to stop the bullying, sarcastic argumentation, and Ad hominem insults? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Probably nothing short of empaneling several experienced editors who don't particularly care about the subject to come up with a consensus on some of these phrasings. Ravenswing 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Ravenswing. This has been attempted many times without any conclusions. Certain editors accuse the article is biased and will not compromise until their views are in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the best remedy is having an administrator or administrators monitor the Thomas Jefferson talk page and control the situation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not the job of administrators to be arbitrators of peace. Admins are only equipped with tools to enforce policy and consensus. Yes the situation has gotten out a bit heated on that talk page, but if policies such as WP:Civil or WP:3RR have been breached, then perhaps those situations should be dealt with individuality. Until then just keep up the discussion and eventually a compromise should be reached.--JOJ Hutton 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If administrators are not the arbitrators of peace then who can be? If Wikipedia asks people to be nice in the discussion page without enforcing the policy that would be an open door to bullying and teaming up on other editors. Yes, things would be nice if editors obey Wikipedia rules, however, without enforcement rational conversations are impossible. Editors who do not listen to reason and act without kindess are not going to change on their own. What then is the point of being an administrator, if other editors are allowed to control the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any Administrators who can enforce Wikipedia policies that forbids personal attacks and ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what's with the bickering. Jefferson's having a child with Hemmings, isn't an impossibilty. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The issue is control of the article and personal attacks. I believe there needs to be a referee to monitor the article. At least an administrator could ask people to be polite. I can't edit in the article, since I believe editors are ganging up on other editors. I believe there needs to be some support from administrators to get the talk page under control. Jefferson having children by Sally Hemings is a huge controversy in the U.S. among historians and Wikipedia editors. Enforcing Wikipedia policy would be extremely helpful for the article discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are any Wikipedia administrators going to enforce ownership prohibition and or stop personal attacks on the Thomas Jefferson talk page? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find the personal attack. Could you link to a diff of the personal attack that violates guidelines? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    Cmguy777, if you have specific examples of WP:OWN or specific examples of personal attacks, those can be dealt with here on an individual basis. If you want sanctions against such behavior in general, that would be an ArbCom matter, but only if you've already exhausted the dispute resolution process. Admins can't really just hover over an article to jump on every PA that happens there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is when cmguy's sourcing or wording is questioned he considers them personal attacks and article ownership, but never answers the questions. In some cases he's posted things that I've asked him to clarify because they're confusing to me. Those are ignored too. He recently stormed off the talk page because of these perceived policy violations. Brad (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    problem in the online ambassador program

    Since Summer 2011 the WMF has been expanding a program to connect the Wikipedia community with university professors, who in turn would ask each of their students to contribute to Wikipedia. To make this work, the WMF set up a system of "campus ambassadors" who physically go to classrooms and "online ambassadors" who support the students online. There is not much screening or oversight for this; people just volunteer.

    It seems to me that being an ambassador is similar to having a Wikipedia community endorsement, much in the same way that being an admin is. I think it would be especially problematic if there were trouble with an ambassador, but I am making no judgement about the situation to which I am about to link. Recently someone made a serious complaint about an online ambassador. We in the ambassador program got into this program expecting to help professors and students and did not establish the system with an internal complaint review process. It seems like we need one, and I thought ANI could help me find people to comment on this. Here is the problem stated on the outreach wiki; that page links back to some English Wikipedia articles.

    Thoughts? I notified no one about this post because I do not think discussion ought to be here on this board and because I am not sure who all is involved. I am not involved in this other than by trying to get others to comment on it. Could I request input, please? What should this person with a complaint do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I and others have unsuccessfully searched for a chain of command in both the IEP and general GEP. Repeated requests for said chain have been met with vague dismissals and general gnashing of teeth by staff members. I'm not sure even they know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at here, this is definitely not something that the English Wikipedia can resolve. I understand your frustration. The Foundation should have had a complaints procedure in place, but people always forget this. They need to put something in place now to deal with this - I can't see anyone else who has the authority. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've posted a bit of the background behind this issue at the link given by Bluerasberry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More generally, it's a difficult balance to strike; the ambassador system (and outreach generally) is a fairly small young project and hasn't yet had much chance (or pressure) to build internal process & policy. We all know what can go wrong if you try to fit a small young project to a procrustean bed of bureaucracy in the hope of getting better quality. Until this disagreement, I had genuinely believed that there was enough (or more than enough) in place already, what with selection and deselection processes for ambassadors, a steering committee, and vague WMF background presence... bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the lack of bureaucracy is the problem, it's the lack of clarity. No one seems to know who's doing what right now, all the way up to Frank Schulenberg. If we could get our shit together and just determine who's supposed to do what in the system we already have, I think many of these types of problems would disappear. But we've been after that for months now and haven't gotten any closer, so I won't hold my breath waiting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I had a concern about "globalisation" of the project and USA-specific stuff but, err, apparently the best solution is to email some WMF person and ask to be a regional ambassador, and that person never replied anyway. BOLD may be a virtue here... just go ahead and change stuff, create policy pages &c and then the rest of the community will either go along with it, or replace it with something better - either way, the project wins. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like I've burned far too many bridges with the WMF people for them to seriously listen to me (except Jalexander, who I've met IRL; great guy), but I may take you up on that if for no other reason than to see what happens. I'd love to be proven wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of accountability in the Global Education Program (and the WMF in general) is stupefying. I think we should take matters into our own hands -- the clearest signal we can send to the WMF that we have lost confidence in a ambassador/WMF staff member is to impose topic bans. Hand out a 6 month topic ban from the Global Education Program and let the internal review process sort itself out. MER-C 01:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I sit on the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee. We have been furiously discussing this issue since it first came up both on and off wiki. It came up at our past IRC meeting as well as over our email list. Looking at my email inbox, I have two extensive email exchanges about this issue. As it stands, there is a recall path for all levels of the ambassador programs, for a Steering Committee member follow the Regional ambassador path. At this point in time, Mathew needs to either attempt to recall cindy or drop the issue. (The opinions expressed here are my own and should not be taken as the opinion of the Ambassador Program, Steering Committee, or the WMF ) --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to pile on, but my one encounter with a Wikipedia Ambassador left me deeply unimpressed.[1] This editor unashamedly viewed Wikipedia as an activism platform for his pet topic - his contributions to the encyclopedia were replete with edit warring, meatpuppetry, and namecalling. Perhaps the program could incorporate better quality control, or even cursorily glance at applicants' edit histories. Skinwalker (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just heard this discussion has now also spilled into ANI and decided to take a look. To clarify, the Foundation is not responsible for the Steering Committee that manages the online ambassadors; the Wikipedia community is. And to echo Ed, I personally have seen no evidence that the issue is being ignored-- quite the opposite. Also, the ambassador Skinwalker mentioned, is no longer with us. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, wait, wait... so, the WMF creates this program, then tells the en.wikipedia community it's our responsibility to police it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We've had several, ah, sub-optimal episodes of late. User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Wikipedia:Request for Comment/WMF - WP relations is pretty empty right now, but I do think that it's time for a centralised discussion on this. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please make this happen, it is long overdue. MER-C 03:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

    NOTE: this proposal is not the remove all of the restrictions, only the additional restrictions added by the community in 2008. The current ArbCom levied restrictions would still apply in full.

    The initial 2007 Troubles restriction was that: "...any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." This was extended by the community in 2008, when a 1RR restriction and direction "to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions" was added. In 2011, these articles were placed under discretionary sanctions and the initial 2007 sanction was rescinded.

    In an attempt to promote normal editing practice, I propose that the 2008 community restrictions be rescinded as well. Instead, enforcement can be through discretionary sanctions on a case-by-case basis. These may include the current 1RR restriction but instead of affecting everyone, and thus hindering normal editing practice, the restriction could levied against disruptive editor(s) or a specific article(s) (possibly for a fixed period).

    My concern is that a blanket and indefinite 1RR (and a blanket direction to "get the advice of neutral parties") puts good editor off and doesn't promote normal editing practice. Additionally, the majority of recent enforcements are of the kind covered by discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, interaction bans, blocks for gaming, hounding, etc.) and not the 1RR restriction.

    Nonetheless, I suggest that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s). --RA (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I oppose this suggestion - editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position that removing sanctions will simply increase POV pushing disruption. This is also imo not the correct location to suggest such a thing. Ask Arbcom ? - Sadly sectors of humanity are unable to get over their personal bias and in relation to historic issues and look on life from a fresh uninvolved neutral aspect and the troubles and climate change and Serbia - Bosnia and others you all are aware of need heightened levels of control because of that fact. Youreallycan 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit in the Troubles sector :-) (or at least some affected articles)
    A very small subset of editors are so strongly nationalistic that they are unable to edit form a NPOV, I agree. However, the 2008 community restrictions are placed on everyone. The 2007 ArbCom resolution contained no such restriction. The immediate reason for the 2008 restrictions has passed and several of the editors involved have moved on or have been topic banned. Additionally, the majority of enfacements for case are now for non-1RR issues, anyway, or could be dealt with just as easily through the new discretionary sanction. So, there's no need to hinder the vast majority of constructive editors with unnecessary restrictions that are open to gaming by a troublesome minority.
    Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I am not proposing to lift all of the Troubles restrictions, only those added by the community in 2008. The ArbCom levied remedies would (and should) still apply in full. --RA (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the 2008 restrictions were adopted here, that's why I am proposing to rescind it here. I've notified the relevant communities. --RA (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the proposal. Normal editing practice should be given priority, and the 1RR restriction was never intended to be permanent (or as permanent as it currently is). There will be problems. But the community should have faith that good editors exist, and place those editors who are unwilling or unable to adhere to policies under restrictions. Comments and positions such as editors in the troubles sector have shown themselves to be so strongly nationalistic and so unable to edit from a NPOV position... are lacking in AGF and unfairly cast aspersion at all editors working in contentious areas. While some editors have difficulties, others do not. --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - Sadly , in that sector a troublesome majority is closer to the reality - tag teamers roam the sector and reducing any editing restrictions will simply allow them to push their NPOV violating opinion into the whole sector - many articles in the sector are already unworthy of en wikipedia publication from a NPOV perspective - reducing the control will open the nationalistic, partisan floodgates. Oh noes User:HighKing is here already ... with his worn out good faith allegations - a sign. Youreallycan 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, if anything, tag teaming is easier under 1RR. --RA (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inexperienced in tag team editing, how is it easier under 1RR? Youreallycan 23:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the scenario: You make some change. An "enemy" of yours revert you saying you lack consensus for the change. You revert (possibly adding a reliable source to support the fact). A tag teamer then mysteriously appears and reverts you suggesting you take it to the talk page. Blam! You're locked out for 24hrs. The next day the same thing repeats, possibly with an edit summary "advising" you not to engage disruptive content while talk page discussions are on going. Repeat ad nauseam.
    Under 3RR, it takes more reverts to breach the bright-line rule so disruptive reverts are more obvious making tag teaming more difficult. Under 1RR a tag team of three can effectively control an article indefinitely (although two is enough in many practical examples). --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In a area of intense conflicted users such as the troubles, 1RR is a third of the reverts and disruption that 3RR is. Youreallycan 23:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine two editors working on an article together over the course of a day. One adds a paragraph. The other changes the order of two sentences in it. The first then corrects some statement of fact. The second then flips clauses in a sentence. The second editor has just broken 1RR. In ordinary wiki-land, that's not a problem. In areas of conflict, however, if the first editor didn't like you, you could find yourself in blocked by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for simply trying to collaborate in good faith.
    Not all reverts are edit warring. The 1RR puts a chilling effect on collaboration because editors are afraid to engage in this kind of everyday collaboration we see across the 'pedia. Speaking personally, I would not consider engaging in the normal kind of collaboration like the above on Troubles-related articles. It's too risky.
    Ironically, over extended periods, 1RR drives good editors away, discourages collaboration, and gives trouble editors a new means to push their POV and a weapon to attack their enemies. --RA (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Er...the scenario you just described is not a 1RR violation. Because no reversion has taken place. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the reasons given by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs). ISTB351 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not The 1RR works perfectly to prevent groups of editors (of whatever persuasion) skewing articles to their position. See also the British Isles naming dispute, etc. Whilst RA is correct in his above claim (that numbers make a difference under 1RR), merely shifting back to 3RR only ends up with longer edit wars. If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since October, almost all enforcements have been topic bans. Topics bans are more than sufficient to deal with the issue. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The Support proponents buttress their position with the premise that 1RR restricts the normal and customary editing practices prevalent across Wikipedia. Indeed, they're right ... and this would be a problem if these were normal and customary articles. They are not. They are articles dealing with a conflict that has been bitter for centuries, and on form will be a touchy, bitter subject for many decades to come. If instead of free and easy swashbuckling, the restrictions compel all edits to be careful and deliberate, what exactly is wrong with that? I do not believe, as Rannpháirtí does, that such restrictions drive away good editors. I imagine they deter casual editors ... and given the snakepit these articles could once again easily become, I can live with that. Ravenswing 01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Black Kite. Add to this RA's suggestions on the Northern Ireland talk page that politically controversial issues should be resolved by direct editing of the article rather than using the talk page and we have a license to edit wars, sock puppets and all those other "good" things that so plague the issue and which the 1RR restriction has dampened down. ----Snowded TALK 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every edit is controversial and politically controversial issues can be resolved through direct editing. That's normal. It's what we should be encouraging. I'm not going to apologies for assuming good faith in the vast bulk of editors or for wanting to see a healthy editing environment. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor should you apologize. But that being said, this is no different from semi-protection of vandalism-prone articles. No doubt most anon IPs are trustworthy and edit within the rules, but there are articles contentious enough to require such protections, a fact long recognized. Ravenswing 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree. For example, today I did a copy edit of large parts of the Northern Ireland article. Nothing that should be controversial but the sort of thing that takes several edits to work through. Now, if another editor had also happened to edit those sections while I was working on them, we would both have had to down tools for the day because neither of us would have been able to continue without breaching 1RR. I genuinely had a worry while doing it that I would accidentally revert someone without getting an edit conflict. That sort of thing debilitates article development if 1RR is left in for an extended period.
    There is also the simple experience that some content is best developed through a series of quick rewrite between editors e.g.:
    • Editor one: "The moon rotates around the earth."
    • Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth."
    • Editor one: "The moon orbits the earth once a month."
    • Editor two: "The moon orbits the earth once every 27.3 days."
    In the above example, editor two just broke 1RR. Some disputes are best resolved in this way too, with editors quickly arriving at a "good fit" for their contrasting POV. Consequently, 1RR actually removes an avenue for dispute resolution.
    Don't get me wrong, 1RR has its purpose, but it is not appropriate IMO as an indefinite solution. I'd prefer to see normal editing practice being re-enabled and problems being addressed as they occur through discretionary sanctions (including 1RR when appropriate). --RA (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In your example no one has broken 1RR and if that type of editing took place on non-controversial issues then there is no problem. ----Snowded TALK 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "If we're going to change the sanctions, topic bans would be better."

    This comment by Black Kite caught my eye because topics bans are currently the most frequent means of enforcement on these articles. Just to be clear, there are currently three restrictions in the area:

    • A direction to "get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions."
    • A 1RR across all affected articles, affecting all editors and edits
    • Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

    The first two of these are not part of the ArbCom ruling. They were added by the community and I say their time as past. What I am proposing is:

    • That direction to "get the advice of neutral parties" be dropped because it is ignored anyway. (It is impractical to get outside opinion for every edit. I have never seen enforcement of it.)
    • The 1RR be removed as a general sanction and be replaced by a 12 month 1RR for editors who breached it in the past.

    Instead, as is currently happening, the use of discretionary sanctions (e.g. topic bans, indefinite blocks, 1RR on specific articles) should become the normal means of enforcing the Troubles. --RA (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose at present. The idea that you're planning to "handicap" anyone who's breached 1RR in the past is only guaranteed to create more problems that it will solve. If you want to do away with 1RR, do it across the board and issue sanctions to people as and when needed not as some pre-emptive measure that will just cause more strife. 2 lines of K303 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. What I suggested above was "that the current blanket 1RR would still apply to anyone blocked for violation of it in the past 12 months with this restriction being lifted 12 months after the date of their block (i.e. if the block was 12 months ago then the restriction is lifted from them). An uninvolved admin may extend or reduce this restriction for individual editor(s)."
    My motivation to suggest this was as a transitionary measure mainly to head off worries about opening a flood gate of warriors. It doesn't appear to have achieved that (i.e. commenter above worry opening a flood gate of warriors). In any case, I don't foresee that and would be happy to simply drop it for everyone and let discretionary sanctions deal with issues as they arise. --RA (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, you have already opened a threat on getting rid of 1rr above why raise it again as a ub thread? Topic bans etc are already used on the Troubles, so that is already in place. ----Snowded TALK 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity. You and I are familiar with the Troubles sanctions but I got the impressions that some comments above thought I was suggesting we rescind all of the sanctions. --RA (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: I'm neutral on this. Yes it is annoying at times but there are those who would abuse it if the restrictions are lfited. I won't make a decision either way but I will say that it does need clarification at times and could do with some better implementation. For example the page Belfast West by-election, 2011 was considered for some reason to be under the 1RR qualifications. I failed to see how when the only way they can is because it includes the slightest mention of the former holder of the seat, the former Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal

    It's clear consensus is against lifting the 1RR. CoE's observation is good though. Another perplexing example is Carlingford Lough, which is tagged as being under the Troubles restrictions. There may be good reason for these but as a long-term solution, where does it end and how can an article return to normal after (what may be) a temporary trouble has passed?

    All Troubles-related articles are under 1RR and the advise is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." I doubt Gibraltar, for example, is Troubles-related but should I assume that it is? If it did become Troubles-related (because, for example, of the shooting of IRA members there in 1988), how could the 1RR ever be lifted again? Would 1RR apply to that article indefinitely because of a temporary trouble involving a handful of editors? Where does this end?

    So, as an alternative proposal:

    • Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions
    • Additionally, all articles tagged with the {{Troubles restriction}} are under 1RR
      • Any editor may add the template to an article.
      • Only an uninvoled admin (or someone acting on behalf of ArbCom) may remove it.

    This would introduce clarity about which articles are under 1RR restriction and allow a path for articles that are no-longer flash points to be return to normality. Genuinely Troubles-related articles would remain templated indefinitely. The ability for uninvoled admins (and ArbCom) to take sanctions against Troubles-related billigerants anywhere on the 'pedia would be unaffected. --RA (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with the 1RR is that occasionally a well-intentioned editor gets caught in the crossfire and receives a block for breaking 1RR; on the other hand IPs often get away with it as was the case with the Shankill Butchers when the 1RR was broken by an IP and no sanctions were levelled against him. The problem with such a draconian restriction is that if an experienced Troubles-related editor such as myself happens to accidentally break the 1RR, I could be busted by anyone and receive a hefty block. I think it's understood that anyone who edits Troubles articles does not lack their fair share of enemies. No matter how hard we strive to remain neutral we're bound to piss others off. Honestly, I don't know who my nemies are but I'm sure they're out there waiting for me to slip up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think the problem is that articles that do not have 1RR restrictions can easily abitrarily be decided to be under the troubles restrictions by any editor. The Belfast West by-election page was a prime example where no discussion took place and a non-admin took it upon himself to just apply it anyway because it was slightly linked to someone involved in the troubles. As for this proposal, I would support a change of the "any editor" in number 3 to "any admin" to avoid something like this again. Other than that, it seems OK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Concerns of "tag-teaming" are just the same when an article has a 3RR rule, you just get away with more reverts before action is taken. Mabuska (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is now time wasting. Discretionary sanctions are already covered in the Troubles ruling, adding the template or removing it has never been a major issue and current process is fine. I can't think of any example where a draconian block has been applied to an experienced or new editor who accidentally broke 1RR in all my years of editing in the area, if there are some lets look at them ----Snowded TALK 08:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresolved

    This ANI discussion was closed without being resolved. Can it please be un-archived for further discussion and resolution? Thank you. ClaretAsh 02:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was completed with a level 3 warning. Unless something new occurred, it was over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed that. As another user commented after Drmies mentioned the level 3 warning, I assumed the discussion was ongoing. Thanks for replying and clarifying. ClaretAsh 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, Bwilkins and anyone else passing by, please note that the Sundostund has removed the warning and is editing still in the exact same manner. I'd love to slap a level-4 warning there, or better yet a block notice, but I really, really want someone else to look at this and see if this is actionable or note. I'm fed up with the editors flying solo and completely disregarding community discussion--this is one of the worst I've seen in a while, and that a lot of their edits are good doesn't change the fact that they refuse to be a team player. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having the same problem with Sundostund on List of Presidents of Tunisia and Prime Minister of Tunisia. What is the right course of action? — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 17:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are free to revert now (presuming you're not at 3RR or been further limited) I would suggest wait a few days and if they don't offer any explaination or take part the discussion, revert to your version. If they continue to revert, come back to ANI and ask for them to be blocked (presuming they haven't already). Also although you've initiated discussion on their talk page, it may be better to copy it to the article talk page and direct them there for the benefit of others and of future editors and also to avoid confusion from admins. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have implored Sundostund to start discussing and given a final warning. I did not use a standard template as I don't want to get in to a debate over whether their edits qualify as vandalism. Sadly as I was composing my message Sundostund repeated some reverts but continued to offer no explaination. I reverted some of these edits. I agree a block is needed soon if it's not already, due to their complete failure to discuss even when requested and when others have initated the discussion but willingness to continue to revert despite the lack of discussion. Looking thru their past 1000 contrib history, the only talk page activity I saw was creating talk pages adding templates and removing stuff from their own talk page 8and also some stuff from moves), which is far from ideal for someone who has been repeatedly asked to discuss or offer some explaination recently. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, editor has again performed a large number of substantial edits without even a word of explanation. I have no choice but to block for disruption since it is clear from discussion above and on his talk page (look in the history) that these edits of his are not minor or undisputed. I invite the scrutiny of other administrators and editors. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sundostund and unexplained reverts (again)

    Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742 § User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

    Sundostund has simply waited until the past complaint was archived to resume making the same unexplained reverts on multiple articles. His last six edits are all reverts that he has repeatedly made without comment, with 2 edits prior to that also being edits but with the oh so helpful edit summary of That's your opinion being given to explain those. The user refuses to discuss any of the edits, either on his talk page or on the article talk page, ignoring the article talk pages and wiping away any attempt at raising the issue on his user talk page. He has, since the last ANI thread was archived, twice reverted at both President of Egypt and List of Presidents of Egypt, as well as reverting at Prime Minister of Tunisia and List of Prime Ministers of Tunisia multiple times. There have been exactly 0 edits to any talk page by this user during this time. Can somebody explain how I should collaboratively edit with somebody who has zero interest in anything other than reverting without comment? He ignores the article talk page, he ignores his user talk page, and he ignores this board, just waits until the section is archived without resolution so that he can go back to inserting incorrect material in an "encyclopedia" article. nableezy - 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I had not noticed that this is also discussed in a section above, #Unresolved. Sorry for that. nableezy - 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kumioko block

    RESOLVED
    Block endorsed. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kumioko has been abusing multiple accounts, and I have just blocked him for it. I'm requesting a block review; if the community feels I'm being too harsh I'm happy to reduce any of blocks. Essentially, since he "retired" on February 27, he's been trolling and rehashing old battles as 71.163.243.232 (sometimes referring to Kumioko in the third person, sometimes not) while simultaneously "clean-starting" and pretending to be a new user as ShmuckatellieJoe and 138.162.8.58.

    In accordance with the sock puppetry policy, I have:

    • blocked the (new) primary account, ShmuckatellieJoe, for a week.
    • blocked Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot (the "retired" accounts) indefinitely.
    • blocked 71.163.243.232 and 138.162.8.58 for a month. I would have blocked those indefinitely were they not IPs, and if, after the blocks expire, Kumioko continues to use them as good hand/bad hand IPs, I plan to reblock for longer.

    I don't care if he takes a clean start with no connection to the Kumioko account, but he can't simultaneously do that while trolling and fighting with Kumioko's old foes as an IP. One of many examples is on this page, where he first approaches User:Markvs88 as "new editor" ShmuckatellieJoe/138.162.8.58 ("Question about a reversion"), and then comes back as 71.163.243.232 ("I hope your happy") to rant at Markvs88 about Kumioko. I think a 1 week block for the (now) primary account and longer blocks for the socks is quite reasonable but as I said above, I'm happy to reduce them if there's consensus for that. 28bytes (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing I disagree with is not blocking the new account indef as well. An actual cleanstart account is one thing; this was just a sock created to further old grudges. This person, whatever account they're using, should be blocked. Period. → ROUX ₪ 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot haven't edited since February 28. Kumioko has stated that he is 71.163.243.232 and this IP started editing after the last edits of Kumioko and Kumi-Taskbot. Is ShmuckatellieJoe actually Kumioko? I don't know, but it should be taken to SPI before a block is handed out to that editor. Long story short, if Kumioko, ShmuckatellieJoe and the "old foes" just stop responding and placing messages on each persons talk pages, this thing will go away. It takes two to tango and everyone is dancing. Kumioko and "old foes", please don't respond here, it just will make things worse. Just walk away.... Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are the same person. Kumioko has accidentally edited logged in as ShmuckatellieJoe a couple of times, "ShmuckatellieJoe" has accidentally edited logged out as 71.163.243.232, and 71.163.243.232 has stated plainly that they are Kumioko. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oi vey as I shake my head in disgust. You were right to put a block on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'll defer to User:28bytes as to the block itself. I AGF that 28bytes was doing appropriate mopping. However, I'm confused as to the length of the block, raised the point on that sysop's talk page, and was cordially invited to comment here. To my eyes, Kumioko (an editor of legendary bot-like productivity, if sometimes dramatic) has burnt out, needs and deserves a good long rest. If the editor chooses not to return, then we can all look back on his 300,000+ edits and say he really helped the pedia. But if several months or even years from now he feels his gumption rise enough and misses the back-and-forth, I'd like to think the editor could choose to edit under his original account name. A cleanstart after 300K edits seems absurd. I'd ask 28bytes to modify the block length to a shorter period, say 30-90 days. If the editor has chosen to work under a different name or an ip and has been abusing the policy, then a block is certainly in order. An indefinite block seems harsh to me, given the editor's long and positive history here. BusterD (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I keep wondering how to bring Kumioko back into the fold, but right now it doesn't really look like he wants to. Agree with everything 28bytes did, including the 1 week rather than indef block on the new incarnation, but I have a sinking feeling I know where this is headed, and if old fights continue to be re-fought, we shouldn't let it go on. An SPI wasn't needed here, as the new account self-identified, but if someone wants to file one for posterity, no one is stopping them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - obviously, Kumioko has failed to behave in a collegiate manner and use sockpuppets to disrupt the project. We should never let old fights go on and I have a bad feeling about this. I support 28bytes' reasoning behind his block of Kumioko's accounts. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wow could this guy make a bad situation any more worse...first he says he is going to keep edit warring....then he uses his bot account to evade the block....now socking....If he would have just relaxed and discussed none of this would have been necessary. Such a shame that he couldn't hold his temper or whatever it is that has lead him to this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block I reverted the IP edits and semied his userpage --Guerillero | My Talk 20:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Checkuser needed Per Floquenbeam's suggestion and ShmuckatellieJoe's comment here, I believe that a checkuser would be good for posterity and/or alt sleeper accounts.
      ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand me (which is my way of saying "I probably wasn't clear"). This edit shows pretty convincingly that they're the same person. I don't think a checkuser is needed to link these accounts; all I meant is that if someone wanted to tie them together for posterity in an SPI, instead of here, they're welcome to. A checkuser might be willing to check for sleepers, but (and I could be wrong) that doesn't strike me as Kumioko's style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I've declined ShmuckatellieJoe's unblock request, and locked his talk page for the duration of the 1 week block. Anyone is free to overturn that without my acquiescence if they think it wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment: Kumioko and I have had our differences, but I've respected his contributions as a fellow editor. I would welcome him back to the community at a later date, but he needs to let go of this grudge. In short, if he can let the past be the past, he's welcome back. If he decides to make a clean start to come back, that's fine so long as he makes a clean break with the grudges and drama. For now, regrettably based on his own actions, the blocks are appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, this was long overdue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It saddens me it has come down to this, but I'm not wholly surprised. I was on the receiving end of some ranting, distortions, and accusations from him not so long ago. I didn't bother responding because I thought he was just stressed out. Alas, using sockpuppets for WP:THERAPY is taxing the other Wikipedians too much. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Kumioko should not have socked to continue a fued with others, so the block is valid. -BUT- I've read through all the stuff that happened and I could see that Kumioko was hurt. Deeply hurt. Xe almost certainly felt that enwp had his back, and when that didn't happen during the recent WPUS kerfuffle, xe got upset. Not excusable, but certainly understandable. Kumioko is a long time editor with a good name. Here'e the BIG FAIL. Kumioko was sanctioned, but nobody else was. We, as experienced Wikipedians, should have broke up the fight and sent everybody to their respective corners, not just a single combatant. Kumioko is a good Wikpedian who has done a lot of good work on articles, but more importantly, xe's been kind and helpful to new users and IPs and that is a great value to the project.
    Suggestion: I'd like to see an interaction ban between all the participants in the recent kerfuffle to hopefully end this drama. I'd also like to see people offer words of encouragement to Kumioko after the block is over rather than threats of sanctioning. Yes, enwp is not WP:THERAPY, but maybe it could be just this one time. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for your understanding. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why other sanctions are needed here. Unfortunately, while Kumioko was a good Wikipedian, and I was one of the ones who respected him, that went downhill in a sudden blaze of fire. The pun to 'burning your bridges' is intended. I think we would need plenty of diffs before any sort of sanctions on others were applied. And incidentally, who are you? Did you edit while logged out? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a talk page restriction for a short while? I think all the messages, even the well-intentioned ones, are only enflaming the situation. I'm not logged out, I never wanted an account, so I show up as an IP (dynamic). I just chacked and much of this is me, for those that are curious. 64.40.62.84 (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not therapy. Period. Either you contribute or you don't; we're not the psychiatrist (not even Lucy) and we're not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tomtomn00

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

    User:Tomtomn00 received several complaints about misusing an automated tool (STiki) (reverting good faith edits as vandalism), and about revealing too much personal information about himself on his userpage; user continues to do the same things and even wonders if he'll get to be an admin if he continues to make 500+ edits a day. I don't know if a block is warranted right now but he needs a serious warning at least. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not belive in getting admin by that cause, or by bad edits. Also, I have had some comments about the edit summary I used at first with STiki, which was the default. Due to this I changed the edit summary I use currently. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And something also needs to be done about the watermarks on the images he has uploaded. →Στc. 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently removing them. Hopefully my Wi-Fi will be fast enough. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am one of those that has put a notice on Tomtomn00's userpage. I have since checked his edits after I put a couple of notices on his talkpage and he appears to be taking note of what I said. He needs to go slower, he needs to consider his edits and he needs some mentoring. Although I concur that he has made some bad edits, I think with guidance he will make a good editor in due course. I am sure the fact he has been listed here will also act as a salutory lesson. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried as well as I could to follow that advice you gave me. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest WP:TROUT for Jeraphine for posting to this forum advertising the userpage of a young editor who revealed too much information about themselves and "continues to do so" (this seems an increasingly worrying trend, twice in the last week already, do you people not think before posting here?), cookies for Richhoncho for giving positive advice and then following up on it in a positive way, and Tomtomn00 advised to spend large amounts of time learning about Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Resources (Depending on how fast that works, re-read WP:NOTVAND in the meantime). Then I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As if posting here actually increased any dangers; yalls seem to think it's a-okay to keep his userpage the way it is. Makes sense. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His userpage is under considerable scrutiny from a sufficient number of people who, by all accounts, know what they're doing. And yes, posting it here brings it to the attention of maybe a hundred times more people, of whom some don't know what they're doing, and some would be better off not doing what they do. Possibly you weren't to know this - I'm sure it was mentioned in earlier versions of the editing notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about "scrutiny", I brought this here for action to be taken. I made my own judgement call and decided that posting about the issue here won't do any additional damage. Either way it's pointless to keep arguing about that now. I vote that it would actually be insisted this time that he wouldn't post personal information about himself and that the existing material be oversighted. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The oversighters have substantial leeway in identifying material that needs oversighting (there are means for appeal, of course, and I've assisted successfully in that process before). This is not the place for debate as to what material should or should not be oversighted (for obvious reasons); you see the email address for oversight every time you edit this page, together with advice not to discuss such material here. (Did you miss that advice?) If you have emailed oversight and your insistences are rejected, then you should write in confidence to the arbitration committee, who are entrusted by the community to deal with such difficulties. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You "vote" - but Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. It's just a way of saying "this is my (final) stance on the matter". Whatever the consensus is, I've made myself clear. Won't argue here endlessly. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To get back on topic, the user in question has asked me to adopt him, which I haver gladly accepted. He looks like he does want to improve and be constructive, which is great and we should certainly encourage that. If no one else minds, I'm closing this discussion, as Tomtomn00 is now taking positive steps and to improve as an editor. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Al-Andalusi not participating to resolve conflict (on purpose in my opinion)

    In the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article, Al-Andalusi added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute on the talk page, but wanted to here al-Andalusi's view first.(see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved and hasnt even responded even in last 8 months.

    Given this user is not trying to resolve the issue, just blatantly tagging them (to get me to revert it, which is why i think his doing it, like he did last time which got me banned due to edit war), I would like this user to be either banned from editing that article or forced to participate to resolve the issue. We can hear all his arguments here for tagging.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No-one can draw you into an edit war: that's entirely your choice. It's highly concerning that you've returned to the same kind of disputes which led to your two indef blocks, and seem to be picking up where you left within days of the most recent block being lifted. I can see no evidence of you having discussed this anywhere, and coming straight to ANI to demand that admins either ban Al-Andalusi from this article or be force him or her to discuss it with you is rather unhelpful. Your posts on my talk page and the talk page another admin asking that we block Wiqi55 (talk · contribs) ([2], [3]) are also concerning, as are your posts asking admins to weigh in on a content dispute ([4], [5], [6], [7]) instead of first trying to resolve this with the other involved editors. As a very blunt warning; you are on a path to having your block reinstated as you have returned to the conduct which led to the blocks in the first place and are basically in breach of your restriction against disruptive conduct. There is no need to generate all this drama as you are asking for admins to weigh in on matters you haven't properly tried to resolve for yourself. I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming you did not read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expedition_of_Ghalib_ibn_Abdullah_al-Laithi_(Al-Kadid)#Dispute , it shows i have been trying to resolve this issue for 8 months (he never participated or even comments) ! Where did i return to the same actions. I am trying to PREVENT returning to the same action ! "
    "I strongly suggest that you move away from the areas in which you're involved in disputes, and focus on writing articles", good advice, that is what am intending to do. I am just putting this in the back of my head. I am going to concentrate on creating more military related articles to be featured of wikipedias front page. Once I finish Muhammad's military history related articles, i plan on moving to some other areas.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Al-Andalusi says on his talk page:

    My concerns were clearly stated at the time on the talk page (which I started btw). In addition, another editor (Wiqi55) raised another issue regarding the references. So I'm afraid I don't have time for this "he got me banned" drama.

    I dont think this is a helpful attitude, he says he contributed and participated, that was right at the start, here, and it was just an argument. No dispute resolution. This was actually a dispute resolution where someone offered to mediate. He refuses to take part--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss the matter with them. An eight month old post followed by an ANI report lodged almost as soon as your block was lifted isn't dispute resolution: it's disruptive conduct. See also WP:STICK. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Lawrence Goldfarb

    Please avoid creating vanity articles and edit warring to keep them in place, as attention on the article has increased any continuation of the dispute without discussion on the Talk:Lawrence R. Goldfarb will likely result in editing restrictions for someone. Youreallycan 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've been in an edit war for months with User:Popandlockitfool in regard to the content of the Lawrence Goldfarb article. He has been doing disruptive edits, blanking out sections, and at one point also flagged the page to be deleted. I've invited him to peaceful discussion on the talk page, but I am usually met with an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Somehow it seems like this person has a personal vendetta against the Lawrence Goldfarb article. I've contacted the administrator Slon02 on 3 separate occasions for advice, and at one time it was even required that the page be protected from edits. He's finally suggested I come here to discuss the issue. Is there any way to ban him or somehow prevent him from continually doing disruptive edits? Feversleeved (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both of you seem to have only one interest here--Mr. Goldfarb. Fool's edits seem to mainly remove stuff from the article, whereas you are also adding things like links on Amazon for his books. I wonder what the actual article looks like. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Fool is not going to get banned for anything. If anything, they deserve a barnstar for reverting this edit of yours--it is clear that you are consistently confusing Wikipedia with a social networking site or a resume database. I think this case can be closed: there is no administrative intervention required here; if anything, we need the occasional eye on the Goldfarb article. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for backing me up here Drmies. Goldfarb and his employees have been trying to turn wikipedia into his personal vanity page for months and I would apprechiate the occasional eye. Every time I left a pretty fair page and every time they complained. If you thought the edit I reverted before was bad, check out the way the page looked before I ever touched it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_R._Goldfarb&diff=456087630&oldid=456080042. Look at the external links, the awards table, and the first paragraph. I mean COME ON. --Popandlockitfool (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Mr. Goldfarb has over twenty years of expertise in investment banking, trading, and law. He is an avid skier, tennis player, and equestrian, as well as an accomplished jazz pianist." That's pretty sweet for a lead. The only thing missing from that lead was a description of his sexual prowess and his philanthropy. Fool, if you wish to avoid the perception that you're a Goldfarb h8er or that you have nothing better to do, you can always consider a note on the appropriate noticeboard if things get out of hand again, or a note on the talk page of BLP warriors such as User talk:Youreallycan. I propose that the next admin who walks by closes this. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban for User:DeFacto

    BLOCKED
    Editor blocked indefinitely for tendentious editing by User:HJ Mitchell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. Some more drama, perhaps, to get less disruption. User:DeFacto is having a hard time understanding that "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone has to agree". They've been wanking on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom for days now, refusing to accept a complete and utter consensus on some minor issue in the article. In the meantime, Todd came by to close two discussions there, and then was nice enough to nip another attempt by DeFacto in the bud at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. DeFacto doesn't seem to get that there isn't a dispute, and they are taking up too much time and community resources. I request that DeFacto be issued a topic ban requiring them to stay at least a Swedish mile away from the Metrication article and its talk page. Of course, if anyone finds it in their hearts to add a block for a couple of weeks for persistent disruptive editing, that would be nice as well. But please, tell DeFacto to stay away from that article and its talk page. Tack so mycket. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we make that a topic ban on metric v imperial units in any article please? Otherwise he will just take his flying circus of disruption to another page as he did to Hindhead Tunnel.--Charles (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is beginning to look like a WP:Witchhunt, and is unseemly. I disputed that a consensus discussion had properly finished, yes, that was my strong opinion at the time. But let's move on now, there is still a lot of work required on that article. -- de Facto (talk). 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: I would support a topic ban for DeFacto on topics broadly constructed having to do with metric v imperial units. I realize DeFacto says he's learned here, but his/her rejecting such a broad consensus so emphatically and in such an indurate manner was an extreme position that a minor correction won't change. It caused significant disruption affecting numerous editors and has continued for months an extended period before it was forced to a head. It speaks volumes about the interpersonal skills or perhaps more succinctly, the lack of on-wiki communication skills of this editor. I don't think this is a witch hunt, rather a measured reaction to an extremely problematic situation. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That event though is history now, and lessons have been learnt. The discussion, resulting in the removal of a paragraph from that article, lasted about 5 days. Last time there was a proposal to remove that same paragraph, from that same article, the disussions lasted about 2 months, and the paragraph was kept. It is a paragraph that uniquely seems to divide opinion and disproportionately stir the emotions in many. Not excuses, just mitigating circumstances. -- de Facto (talk). 13:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modified proposal: DeFacto be topic-banned from articles (and their talk pages) which, broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. This is supported, if I read them correctly, by all three (III) editors who have weighed in so far--User:Charlesdrakew, User:David Biddulph, and User:Toddst1, besides myself. I encourage tweaks. My first proposal was an ell off, but I feel we're inching towards the proper phrasing. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support perhaps a slight reword towards any content changes that broadly construed, involve a discussion of metric vs. imperial units. But the wording is almost there. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Please note that User:Toddst1, an administrator involved in this action and in the dispute that preceded it, has resorted to canvassing all the editors (diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) who opposed my views in the recent bitter consensus dispute in Metrication in the United Kingdom for their opinion on whether I should get a topic ban for that article! This, I would say, is with the intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion in a particular way. -- de Facto (talk). 16:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's why I included VsevolodKrolikov and Alpha Quadrant who are not folks that you have made your adversaries. Unfortunately, the number of folks with experience on this issue that you've made your adversaries far outnumbers the others - which speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Six to two then (and one of the two is inactive!). So why didn't you also invite all the editors who have agreed with or supported my edits on these articles in the past? There in one obvious reason - you have made your mind up which way you want this vote to go - and that is indefensible. -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not sure a topic ban will solve the problem. DeFacto needs to be able to identify then a discussion has reached a consensus. He needs to understand that once a consensus has been reached, he should disengage from disputing the particular issue. While a topic ban would solve the problem on this particular article, it won't resolve the main issue. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree, but tackling the very apparent WP:Competence issue that you refer to head-on is much more difficult. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- Discussion never hurt anyone. We don't need to continue trying to topic ban every editor who holds a minority opinion. This is starting to become the first response rather than the last resort this page is covered with these topic ban discussions by editors who continue to feel that anyone who holds an opinion other than the majority opinion must be a disruptive editor. JOJ Hutton 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I support the proposed topic ban on DeFacto.
    I bore the brunt of his actions in the "Asda" topic last year when he (in which he was supported by User:VsevolodKrolikov) refused to accept that the addition was made to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was not encyclopeadic. He initially placed this "addition" in the article Metric system, mentioning it once in the lede and twice in the body of the article. I did not have time to examine it properly, so I moved it to Metrication in the United Kingdom and after I had looked at it properly, I tried to remove to. DeFacto objected. The discussion ran over six talk page topics, three of which were attached to the topic:
    There is no need to read these threads fully, just count them – together they contain over 300 responses of his and VsevolodKrolikov’s WP:wikilawyering during which time he refused to concede that the results of an in-store survey was unencyclopeadic, as was an announcement of a short-lived product launch. I had support from a number of other editors, all of whom eventually gave up in disgust.
    DeFacto has also been active on a number of other articles connected with metrication – in all of them he has tried to belittle the metric system by introducing adjectives that are inappropriate in the context (for example using the word "certain" to represent "100%" in the articles gallon and stone (unit) - this edit and in this edit), or by inappropriately pushing hard to promote sloppy use of metric unit symbols (in a manner often by market traders, but actively discouraged in schools) in article ledes. One such example was equating "kilo" with "kg" as a shorthand for "kilogram" (approximately 80% of Talk:Kilogram is devoted to this topic) or by introducing the abbreviations "ltr", "mtr" into the article Introduction to the metric system. Revoking these changes is such an exhausting business that I would wait for a week or two rather than enter into a tedious edit war with him. Meanwhile the quality of Wikipedia has been compromised.
    After he had been rebuffed on the Hindhead Tunnel and WP:MOSNUM articles, he “attacked” (I can think of no better word) the article Metrication in the United Kingdom by deleting one section of the article and adding banners to three other sections (My reinstatement here). This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from a two year-old. After I reverted and he again reverted and then rewrote the section "Legal Requirements", replacing a summary of the law with his own summary which bore no resemblance to the law whatsoever. Again we had an edit war and he reverted my text with the comment "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (DeFacto’s revert diffs) I demanded an apology for abusive language, but none was forthcoming. Moreover, when I was preparing an argument against him for piublication on an appropriate noticeboard, he twice deleted my work from my own user area (other editors kindly restored it for me befor eI was aware of what he had done).
    Finally, I have wasted a considerable amount of time having to deal with his wikilawyering, reverting of text and abusive language when he is pushing an untenable argument – to the extent that I have wondered whether it is worthwhile spending time as a Wikipedia editor. I believe that an outright topic ban would be appropriate – something along the lines proposed by User: Drmies.
    Martinvl (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us sympathise with the intolerable treatment which you have received at the hands of this intransigent disruptor of Wikipedia. Many people stayed away from the affected articles because of his attitude and actions. It now looks as if the proposed topic ban will be a moot point, as he has now been indeffed. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Support ban if block lifted. If DeFacto's block is lifted, please can it be replaced with a topic ban on metrication in particular and on engaging in editing and/or discussion on the merits or use of metric and/or imperial units in any article? I'm sorry to say that this will need a wide scope; Defacto pays particular attention to wording; his interpretations can be surprising and might be regarded as testing boundaries, finding loopholes, wikilawyering and just plain looking for any way to win. For example, I can easily imagine Defacto injecting additional measurements in imperial into articles that have been using metric, using inappropriate metric units or abbreviations in order to demonstrate the flaws he sees, or selecting inappropriate units when originating articles, and then bogging us down in further arguments. So please, can we have broad phrasing and an emphasis on following the spirit as well as the letter of such a ban? NebY (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, took too long to write the above and only saw the discussion was closed after I pressed Save. NebY (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Persephone19

    I started a previous ANI where I was directed to DRN. DRN [14] are now redirecting me back here as the user is still edit warring without discussion. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Quantum_mind Here are his re-inserts: [15] [16] [17] [18]. Here is the talk page discussion about the re-inserting text against consensus: Talk:Quantum_mind#Bad_Style. Here is the warning I gave some days ago: [19]. I can't find the original ANI discussion in the archives for some reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Orginal discussion can be found here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I feel bad about this because I was the one who suggested to IRWolfie that he try dispute resolution. User:Lord Roem directed him back here because he said it was "a disruptive pattern of a user's conduct" (I believe Roem means a "pattern" in one article). I'm not convinced Roem is correct, but there's no doubt that IRWolfie is trying to do the right thing. In the previous ANI discussion, no admin responded. Perhaps an admin could respond this time - or at least another editor besides me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock on a proxy

    Resolved

    [20] I have reported him at SPI but I would like him blocked now please. There is no doubt this is Nangparbat, first edits are to revert me and restore the content of his last sock Barrot0114. His edit summaries are also the same revert vandal He also has a habit of writing Stop vandalizing Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block of User:DeFacto

    Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [27]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

    This breech is all the more serious because:

    • a) he is an administrator
    • b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

    Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [28]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [29]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [30]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [31]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [32]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

      I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerenetalk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.
    In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerenetalk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of block by EncycloPetey

    Block lifted, anything else probably beyond the auspice of this board. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) had a content dispute with WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) on the Book of Habakkuk article over WP:ERA dating. However, EncycloPetey's last edit was to revert WP Editor 2011's "illegal changes" and then to immediately block WP Editor 2011 for edit warring for 48 hours, presumably so that EncycloPetey's edit would not be reverted. 48 hours just seems a bit much when WP Editor 2011 has had no previous block, and has (from what I can tell) never been warned about edit warring in any capacity. The blocking administrator also failed to leave a block template on the blocked user's talk page, so the blocked user likely has no idea how to appeal their block, or even that they can do so.

    During the past two days, each of them made two reversions back to their preferred versions, each of them explaining on their talk pages why they made the edits, so I'm at a loss as to why WP Editor 2011 was edit warring, and EncycloPetey was not. Looking at the article's contribs, it looks like somewhere around a third of the edits to that article have been made by EncycloPetey, so the user doesn't appear to be WP:UNINVOLVED by any means.

    I'm not involved in this dispute, but an editor with administrative privileges using their tools during a content dispute to maintain their preferred version and block the other editor concerned me, so I would greatly appreciate it if administrators could take a look at this and review both WP Editor 2011's block and EncycloPetey's actions. I left a message on EncycloPetey's talk page ~15 hours ago asking the editor to clarify why they made this block, but as of posting this message, EncycloPetey has not edited further and their contribs show relatively infrequent editing, so I wanted to bring this here so that this could be reviewed in a more timely manner and the block adjusted if doing so is appropriate. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WP Editor 2011 and EncycloPetey have both been notified. - SudoGhost 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow.... I've unblocked WP Editor 2011 as this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call to unblock. Entirely agree that this was a textbook case of an involved admin. Does the unblock put this report to bed? In my view it would be good to hear from EncycloPetey before we do. I'd want to hear that he accepts this was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, and an undertaking to be more careful in future. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot on Kim - unblock was entirely correct, and it would be beneficial to hear from EncycloPetey on the matter. GiantSnowman 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that WP Editor 2011 was simply lying in his edit summary "Undid revision 481432198 by EncycloPetey (talk) since this was the same change made against the rules by this editor on 12 Dec 2011". [This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Habakkuk] was the condition of the article before EncycloPetey made any edits on 12 December. As you can see that version of the article contained both era styles, which is clearly against the MOS, which calls for one style per article. EP simply made the article consistent throughout. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How was he lying? This was indeed "the same change" that EncycloPetey made on 12 Dec 2011, there's nothing untrue in the edit summary. They were both "making the article consistent", and WP Editor 2011 was making it consistent with the first version of the article. Not saying WP Editor 2011 was correct, but this was not some critical disruption that caused for an immediate block by an involved administrator, it was a content dispute. Nor was it "illegal", which is an odd choice of words for an administrator to make in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the "against the rules" part. However, I don't think it was a matter of lying so much as a misunderstanding. - SudoGhost 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Comment - Apparently this issue isn't resolved. EncycloPetey apparently doesn't think this is an WP:INVOLVED issue, stating that "all my interaction on this particular issue has been in the capacity of an administrator". I don't see how blocking an editor for having a content dispute with you isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and this statement seems to suggest that this problem will potentially repeat itself in the future. - SudoGhost 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An administrator using their tools in a content dispute to block an editor to win an edit war for an escalated period of time when the user has no previous blocks, without warning the user or so much as placing a block template on their talk page? To top if off, that administrator makes no comment that this will not happen again, quite the opposite, not seeing that it is even an issue by egregiously misinterpreting their actions there as somehow not being WP:INVOLVED? Yes, I do think that this is a serious issue. - SudoGhost 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics

    No action required, please direct further inquiries to intervention on vandalism board. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Also reported as a possible (anon ip) sock of an unknown pupeteer (as the two attack messages are the only contribs from this anon ip. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. For the record, we have something called AIV.... -FASTILY (TALK) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    To be fair, if Gaijin42 had reported personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry at AIV, they would have probably been told to bring it here. This was the correct forum, I think , although I have no problem with a 4im warning instead of a block, especially since the editor was probably not going to edit from that IP anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To be more snarky than a responding admin, we also have something called not bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 02:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oldsunnygirl

    BLOCKED
    Long term behavior, indefinitely blocked.- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For the last nine months or so, User:Oldsunnygirl has been repeatedly including content like this Spanish orthography, which are both factually inaccurate and contrary to the intended presentation of the table in question. Requests to discuss the issue or cease re-introducing the edits have been ignored. I'm not really sure what sort of action would be necessary to stop the user's I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude.— Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request IP block for naughty school

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

    208.108.91.156 contribs talk

    A block until the end of the school year (or more) in that location is indicated. Maybe next year the teachers would be supervising the little darlings, or they can just sign up. Penyulap talk 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but no. One edit of minor vandalism (the first in nearly 2 years) is not grounds to block. Add to that the fact that long-term IP blocks are discouraged, and it's not the time. Neitehr is is the place - in future, should it continue, please use WP:AIV. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    no problem, thank you. Penyulap talk 19:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Youreallycan

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

    User:Youreallycan accuses me and User:Silverseren to support pedophiles.[33] I see that as an serious insult. Could someone help him to get some manners or at least remove this kind of comment from the history? --Niabot (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Tarc (talk · contribs) was the original accuser, Youreallycan (talk · contribs) just translated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally nothing here. Collect (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Related but not related to the discussion on Jimbo's page, the statment remove yourself from the entire wikipedia project as imo your contributions are a net loss is pushing the WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA definition a good bit further than it should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think CIVIL violations are anything but an old hat in relation to Youreallycan/Off2riorob. *shrugs* A simple ANI archive search proves that one. SilverserenC 20:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • - I would as is usual prefer notification if I am to be reported or discussed at ANI - anyway , I support all my comments and the discussion complete is here - please read the whole report and discussion in situation and in context - User talk:Jimbo Wales#Global policy on child protectiion - Youreallycan 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But really, YRC, can't you just assume that you're being discussed at any given time on ANI? *gd&r* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I do keep an eye out, as in the past - in the early days of my editing, an email from (****) to his mate (*********) and I was blocked before I had been reported at ANI never mind I even had time to comment or had been notified - all those users have been dysopped or left or been severely restricted at Arbitration now though - happily - those days from two years ago are behind us and imo general NPOV uninvolved administration is greatly improved since then - Youreallycan 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no qualms about my statements in that discussion either. Niabot's disgusting attitude at Commons regarding Beta M have now come to en.wiki. It needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit to Sandra Fluke

    I want to request that Sandra Fluke be edited to redirect to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. The page currently redirects to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, which redirects to Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy. I would use the editprotected template, but the redirect is fully protected, and the talk page is salted. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WarriorsPride6565

    I have recently had to revert User:WarriorsPride6565 addition of an old image at the Human article a few times over the past weeks or so. As see by this consensus a new image was chosen. I have informed WarriorsPride6565 of this talk (that he/she has joined). However he/she is simple reverting saying things like The changing and talk is not necessarily. I do not want to see the user banned over a simple image. The "I dont like it" agreement by one individual does not override even the smallest local consensus. Looking for help in how to proceed without having anyone blocked or the page lockup. Basically I not sure what to do or were to go as the user has stated they may report the page (is this a threat of some sort?) Moxy (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As seen below the editor is not willing to go about this in a mature manner.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Moxy

    I have recently had to revert User:Moxy of an image at the human article a few times over the past weeks or so. While in the talk page most users prefer to use the old image like me, because the old image is an really bad representation of human figures. Moxy decides to replace to replace the old image (which shows 2 moderate human figures) with the new image (which shows 2 very anorexic figures), at the same in the new image it shows the Asian guy that has an penis problem ( of all picture, moxy insists to use this one). Which I believe is partially motivated with bias racism. I do not wish for Moxy to get banned, I just wished the wikipedia keeps it's old image and stop these exaggerated stereotypes. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 5:56, 12 march (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Pls dont call me or anyone a racist as you did here Moxy (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would appreciate it if those of us (which seem to be most of us) who think the new pic is fine would not be referred to as racists. It is a very nasty personal attack. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WarriorsPride, a couple of notes:
      • There is consensus for the new picture, so stop reverting to the old one unless a different consensus develops.
      • If you imply that using the new picture is motivated by some kind of racism one more time, you will find yourself blocked.
      • This copy/paste/modify gamesmanship with the ANI report is annoying; while not blockable, it's generally considered poor form to be annoying when you post to ANI.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WarriorsPride reverted the image on Human again, so I've blocked him for 31 hours. I restored the page to the version before the edit war started. If disruption resumes when their block expires, let me know and I'll just block indefinitely; their talk page indicates numerous not-quite-blockable problems before this, and they're starting to add up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not seem many productive edits from this editor, and I've given them a final warning before, for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: talk page access removed for continuing the "racist" meme, and I'm fast losing tolerance for this crap. So unless someone objects, if this resumes when the block expires, the next one will likely be indefinite with no talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest there's actually a worse problem then the 'racist' meme. WarriorsPride6565 keeps insisting the model who is a living person identified by name in the image description has a 'penis problem'. To diagnose someone has having a penis problem solely based on one photograph and possibly from a misintepretation of that photograph (WarriorsPride6565 says that the penis is erect but this isn't stated in the description and it seems to me it's easily possible it's simply looks a bit like it is from the angle) is rather offensive and IMO violates WP:BLP. In other words, if WarriorsPride6565 wants to come back, he not only needs to stop accusing people of racism without evidence, he needs to stop claiming medical problems in living people without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From his ranting on his talk page, it seems that WarriorsPride's issue is that the model's penis is not large enough to suit him. Further, deponent sayeth not. Ravenswing 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We've got a serious problem here...

    Despite numerous warnings on his/her talk page and discussions of the notability of the video game characters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Once again Metal Gear characters, 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly engaged in incivility and personal attacks in the Wikiproject discussion, the discussion on the Tekken character list talk page, the talk page of the Metal Gear characters, demerging articles without showing consensus while discussion is taking place and has attacked other editors such as myself, MonkeyKingBar (talk · contribs) ([34]), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Tintor2 (talk · contribs) and Sergecross73 (talk · contribs). He has also called other good faith edits vandalism and has repeatedly breached the relevant policies: WP:NOR, WP:OWN, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOTABILITY. Today, the IP readded the unsourced material to the Onimusha: Warlords page, unmerged the Shadow article from the Final Fantasy VI character article without consensus again and has engaged in uncivil and disruptive activity in the Wikiproject discussion. These issues have gone out of hand and I cannot tolerate the IP's disruption any longer as the attacks and incivility are particularly urgent. What is the best possible solution to help resolve the situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • In am mostly uninvolved in the discussions mentioned above, but I have spoken with the user about two weeks ago. After this edit (which I only happened to see because I had recently tagged the article with the WP:VG banner), I left him a note on his talk page about what appeared to me as a revert of a revert with no visible discussion, and also about the innapropriate edit summary. I pointed him to WP:BRD; he presented a few instances where discussion was being held (or at least sparked). I realized this was nothing recent nor short-lived, but rather a lengthy, sometimes sour debate. Having no interest nor particular knowledge of the subject matter I did not involve myself further, but haven't had much of a choice but to see the discussion evolve (maybe "devolve" would be more appropriate) since it was held at WT:VG. While I believe the original intent had at least a healthy measure of good faith, the editor has shown incapacity for proper discussion, and an inability to accept that people may disagree. Salvidrim! 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to work with him and discuss things with him multiple times, but he gets so wound up in these long, rambling responses, where he talks about various outrages and injustices of Wikipedia, and I can't follow what he's even talking about, let alone have a real discussion with him. I've left several messages on his talk page and several other places saying that he comes off way too aggressive and that it's not helping him out any addressing people the way he does, but he never outwardly acknowledges what I say postively or negatively. I'm tired of his antics, but he, for whatever reason, at least doesn't repeatedly revert any of my edits (though he frequent instructs me on what to do), so I don't need any specific help with him. I'm just tired of his antics in general. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supporting the statements above. User responds to conflicting views by attacking the editor in question and suggesting that they re-read their post until they "get it" and go away. User repeatedly states that his actions are just to 'get things started' on various stubs and "it's up to the rest of you to fix it after that" as he has no interest in doing anything further. User disregards concensus, and continually seeds his edits and edit history with exclaimations such as "jesus don't you get it?" -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although at first I thought the user had good faith attempts, his civility was intolerable. Edit summaries use capital, continuously says "rewrite", tags every article (see Jax (Mortal Kombat) and discusses he starts are lack formality. Moreover, when he created three articles, Liquid Snake, Hal Emmerich and Meryl Silverburgh, all of them were empty and reverted an edit by AxelTantium (who was returning them to their own sections) calling it vandalism. I would have liked the anon to be more constructive and civil, but I have seen him for several years with the same attitude with another account that was blocked because of wp:sockpuppet.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't personally engaged with this anon yet. I might have inadvertently sparked this rant by carrying out the "revert" step of WP:BRD. I did not participate in the extensive discussion at WT:VG but I did read through it a few days ago and was impressed by the amount of civility and rational discussion that other WP:VG members showed in trying to deal with him. From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to be interested in improving articles so much as he thinks his favorite characters deserve to have articles and wants everyone else to prove it for him. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for six months. This may seem harsh but I feel given the level of exasperation expressed above by multiple editors in good standing (and the supporting evidence on talk pages and contrib histories), it's warranted. The IP editor does not appear to be a net benefit to Wikipedia and dealing with that is actively detracting from the efforts of other editors who, I'm sure, would rather be spending their time more productively.

    Incidentally, the IP has been blocked previously as a sock of HanzoHattori (talk · contribs); this may or may not be unrelated. Hope this helps and review welcome as always, EyeSerenetalk 11:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad behaviour by an admin

    Dreadstar steps away, this vanishes from ANI. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Collecting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, Alan needs to explain how an article that contains an entire section on how it is 'collectable' doesn't belong in the collectables category; amongst many others. And yes, I said tough shit.Dreadstar ☥ 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will if you give me a chance. I am having trouble getting a word in edgeways on my talk page because of the edit conflicts. Anyway you behaviour is appalling, even more so since you are an administrator, and it is preventing me from doing the actual work of improving WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I hate to go up against one, maybe two heavy hitters, but what is this doing at ANI? Alan, do you want us to block someone for being a jerk? (I take it that's your take.) Drmies (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)What do I do about the behaviour that I am being subjected to? By an administrator no less! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HOG OILERS this is about? Talk about WP:LAME.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The behaviour of Dreadstar is completely unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only just begun making a list. Dreadstar ☥ 23:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just an edge away from a threat to continue disruption. Please consider this a warning (which will be duplicated on your talk page). - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I have no idea what you are playing at. Do you think editing is some sort of game? Is this a vendetta? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alan has been removing the collectable category from many articles that clearly fall under collectables, if any of you think my reversal of those removals is disruption, a game or a vendetta, then I invite you all to ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What I think is that your responses here are not helping to get the content issue solved, and are making it less likely that an appropiate outcome will, err, come out anytime soon. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)And I clearly explained my rationale at Category talk:Collecting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaron, I'm not sure what you expect, I didn't bring it here and I feel Alan is wrong. I have no idea what you're threatening me for. Please explain to me exactly what I'm doing that is sanctionable. Dreadstar ☥ 23:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blindly reverting Alan's edits, including edits which have nothing to do with your collectable dispute, is certainly disruptive. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (I really hate that this is in two places.) If you really want, I'll go and dig up ArbCom principles about how we're supposed to respond when someone says "admin abuse." The fact that you haven't actually used the tools, or that you didn't bring this here, are les important than the fact that you're fanning the flames. Someone is upset, don't go out of your way to make them more upset. It's disruptive. Disruption is "sanctionable". - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'll let you folks handle it. Have fun. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this should be reopened, Dreadstar has not stepped away, so the reason for its closure is patently false. 86.** IP (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that prolonging this discussion was unlikely to lead anywhere productive. I have warned Dreadstar that further tendentious editing of the sort seen over the last few hours would lead me to block him. He has not abused his admin tools, but can you imagine him/her passing an RfA after tonight's display of disruptive editing? I believe admins need to set a good example to others and this was not it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass canvassing, meatpuppets or botfarm

    I spent some time this morning looking into an issue of suspected canvassing relating to Talk:Republic of China. From what I can determine, 131 editors across enwiki and zhwiki have been canvassed to participate in the move discussion currently running on that page, by 71 different IP addresses in the 61.18.170.* IP range.

    The canvassing has targeted editors that the IP believes either come from Taiwan, or have sufficient interest in Taiwan that it has been mentioned on their userpage. Typical canvassing messages are as follows: [35][36][37]. This surely violates our WP:CANVASS guideline on scale (mass posting) and audience (partisan).

    For background, several IPs in this range have been blocked both on enwiki and other wiki projects for being open proxies, and recently there have been a number of unblock requests made on some of these IP addresses claiming the IP is not an open proxy but simply dynamically allocated. As the timestamps in the evidence below will show, this is a false assertion - at numerous places in the table, the IP addresses are in use simultaneously. IP address reallocation typically takes a few minutes to take effect in the ISP's DHCP system, making it temporarily unavailable for use, but this user has been able to switch between addresses instantly (eg. [38][39][40]). Further, there are no ISPs anywhere in the world that I'm aware of that reallocate IP addresses on a 60-second basis. Such changes would render the user's internet experience almost unusable. It's simply not possible for this evidence to be explained away as simple dynamic IP allocation.

    I believe there is strong evidence that there is either mass meatpuppeting or (more likely) an open proxy/botfarm running on this IP range. The canvassing alone is highly inappropriate, but the posting behaviour demonstrated by this IP range is downright worrying.

    Evidence as follows:

    Evidence
    Canvassed user Canvassed by Date Diff
    User:Butterfly0fdoom 61.18.170.186 Mar 11 11:57 [41]
    User:Gorden Cheng 61.18.170.222 Mar 11 12:03 [42]
    User:Hsinhai 61.18.170.130 Mar 11 12:12 [43]
    User:James8312201 61.18.170.117 Mar 11 12:17 [44]
    User:Marcushsu 61.18.170.227 Mar 11 12:20 [45]
    User:Minkuo67 61.18.170.204 Mar 11 12:21 [46]
    User:OnionBulb 61.18.170.25 Mar 11 12:24 [47]
    User:Pryaltonian 61.18.170.131 Mar 11 12:25 [48]
    User:Ronline 61.18.170.113 Mar 11 12:27 [49]
    User:Ronald Chien 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:30 [50]
    User:Shang2 61.18.170.10 Mar 11 12:31 [51]
    User:The alliance 61.18.170.78 Mar 11 12:39 [52]
    User:Yhjow 61.18.170.166 Mar 12 10:24 [53]
    zh:User:殷浦藤熙 61.18.170.130 Mar 12 10:28 [54]
    User:Wctaiwan 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:38 [55]
    User:虞海 61.18.170.216 Mar 12 10:39 [56]
    User:Nyttend 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [57]
    User:Edouardlicn 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [58]
    User:Rennell435 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:40 [59]
    User:ASDFGH 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [60]
    User:Tommyang 61.18.170.188 Mar 12 10:41 [61]
    User:Peterkingiron 61.18.170.76 Mar 12 11:00 [62]
    User:Sussexonian 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [63]
    User:Matthew hk 61.18.170.79 Mar 12 11:01 [64]
    User:Courcelles 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 11:06 [65]
    User:RevelationDirect 61.18.170.223 Mar 12 11:10 [66]
    User:Good Olfactory 61.18.170.212 Mar 12 11:12 [67]
    User:Johnpacklambert 61.18.170.206 Mar 12 11:13 [68]
    User:Northernhenge 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:20 [69]
    User:Jim Sukwutput 61.18.170.66 Mar 12 11:21 [70]
    User:TaerkastUA 61.18.170.121 Mar 12 11:56 [71]
    User:Andyso 61.18.170.104 Mar 12 11:57 [72]
    User:ConorOhare 61.18.170.78 Mar 12 12:00 [73]
    User:Sgt Simpson 61.18.170.198 Mar 12 12:03 [74]
    User:Presidentman 61.18.170.168 Mar 12 12:05 [75]
    User:Jsc1973 61.18.170.150 Mar 12 12:09 [76]
    User:Allentchang 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:10 [77]
    User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.83 Mar 12 12:11 [78]
    User:Silverhorse 61.18.170.142 Mar 12 12:12 [79]
    User:Tuckerresearch 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:14 [80]
    User:Kintetsubuffalo 61.18.170.36 Mar 12 12:15 [81]
    User:Ominae 61.18.170.214 Mar 12 12:30 [82]
    User:Imdabs 61.18.170.189 Mar 12 12:33 [83]
    User:Timberlax 61.18.170.33 Mar 12 12:38 [84]
    User:BilCat 61.18.170.23 Mar 12 12:39 [85]
    User:Therequiembellishere 61.18.170.6 Mar 12 12:41 [86]
    User:Think777 61.18.170.250 Mar 12 12:43 [87]
    User:Dirtybutclean 61.18.170.230 Mar 12 12:46 [88]
    User:W Tanoto 61.18.170.27 Mar 12 12:47 [89]
    User:Marbles 61.18.170.64 Mar 12 15:19 [90]
    User:Nimora 61.18.170.112 Mar 13 14:18 [91]
    User:A. Exeunt 61.18.170.108 Mar 13 16:46 [92]
    User:H2ppyme 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:48 [93]
    User:Thew ent dan 61.18.170.83 Mar 13 16:48 [94]
    User:MichuNeo 61.18.170.209 Mar 13 16:49 [95]
    User:Paul Benjamin Austin 61.18.170.180 Mar 13 16:51 [96]
    User:IJA 61.18.170.8 Mar 13 16:57 [97]
    User:Canadian Bobby 61.18.170.47 Mar 13 17:02 [98]
    User:Spesh531 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [99]
    User:AlexanderKaras 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:04 [100]
    User:Jamiebijania 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:05 [101]
    User:Qcomplex5 61.18.170.236 Mar 13 17:08 [102]
    User:MichiganCharms 61.18.170.117 Mar 13 17:09 [103]
    User:Holy Santa 61.18.170.85 Mar 13 17:10 [104]
    User:Mouramoor 61.18.170.146 Mar 13 17:18 [105]
    User:Veyneru 61.18.170.136 Mar 13 17:21 [106]
    User:Ken Takahashi 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [107]
    User:Smsagro 61.18.170.206 Mar 13 17:21 [108]
    User:Njcraig 61.18.170.119 Mar 13 17:23 [109]
    zh:User:櫻花公主 61.18.170.188 Mar 13 17:27 [110]
    User:Sf46 61.18.170.168 Mar 13 17:28 [111]
    User:Xabiereus 61.18.170.6 Mar 13 17:30 [112]
    User:Base64 61.18.170.57 Mar 13 17:37 [113]
    User:Noblesham 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:38 [114]
    User:Bolegash 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:39 [115]
    User:Nerdygeek101 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [116]
    User:Obaidz96 61.18.170.36 Mar 13 17:40 [117]
    User:Cradel 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:41 [118]
    User:Czar Choi 61.18.170.91 Mar 13 17:43 [119]
    User:The Bushranger 61.18.170.41 Mar 13 17:46 [120]
    User:Petero9 61.18.170.161 Mar 13 17:47 [121]
    User:Cargocontainer 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:50 [122]
    User:Scriberius 61.18.170.115 Mar 13 17:51 [123]
    User:Ipatrol 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [124]
    User:The Great Duck 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:53 [125]
    User:Lunar Dragoon 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:54 [126]
    User:Tanzhang 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [127]
    User:SGCommand 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:55 [128]
    User:Laci.d 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [129]
    User:Unobjectionable 61.18.170.245 Mar 13 17:56 [130]
    User:Smart30 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [131]
    User:Vasko Kelich 61.18.170.66 Mar 13 17:58 [132]
    User:Boniek1988 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 17:59 [133]
    User:Beggarsbanquet 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [134]
    User:Iune 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:00 [135]
    User:SergeantGeneral 61.18.170.52 Mar 13 18:01 [136]
    User:Typhoonstorm95 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:30 [137]
    User:Ferox Seneca 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:39 [138]
    User:Ngchen 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:42 [139]
    User:Srnec 61.18.170.229 Mar 13 18:42 [140]
    User:Kevinhksouth 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [141]
    User:Visik 61.18.170.223 Mar 13 18:43 [142]
    User:Pi 61.18.170.228 Mar 13 18:43 [143]
    User:Bigmorr 61.18.170.214 Mar 13 18:44 [144]
    User:Justincheng12345 61.18.170.202 Mar 13 18:46 [145]
    User:WhisperToMe 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [146]
    User:Jsjsjs1111 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:46 [147]
    User:Jj98 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [148]
    User:Nlu 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [149]
    User:刻意 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:47 [150]
    User:Tyle4ful 61.18.170.76 Mar 13 18:48 [151]
    User:MtBell 61.18.170.81 Mar 13 18:48 [152]
    User:Pmanderson 61.18.170.67 Mar 13 18:50 [153]
    User:Night w 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:51 [154]
    User:StoneProphet 61.18.170.49 Mar 13 18:52 [155]
    User:CWH 61.18.170.26 Mar 13 18:53 [156]
    User:Michaeldsuarez 61.18.170.128 Mar 13 18:58 [157]
    User:Deryck Chan 61.18.170.129 Mar 13 18:58 [158]
    User:Mys 721tx 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 18:59 [159]
    User:Cobrachen 61.18.170.116 Mar 13 19:00 [160]
    User:Zazaban 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [161]
    User:T-1000 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [162]
    User:Aronlee90 61.18.170.227 Mar 13 19:02 [163]
    User:Σ 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:04 [164]
    User:Danaman5 61.18.170.173 Mar 13 19:05 [165]
    User:Avanu 61.18.170.205 Mar 13 19:06 [166]
    User:Ohconfucius 61.18.170.224 Mar 13 19:06 [167]
    User:Icarus the younger 61.18.170.199 Mar 13 19:07 [168]
    User:Jabo-er 61.18.170.183 Mar 13 19:11 [169]
    User:BritishWatcher 61.18.170.171 Mar 13 19:12 [170]

    I'm not sure what the appropriate admin action to request would be. A range block? – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked 61.18.170.0/23; slightly bigger range than the one used above but still small. Maybe a CU wants to poke around a bit and see who is behind it? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the users were definitely selected because they expressed opposition in one or more community discussions on whether to move pages from "People's Republic of China" to "China". Some of the relevant polls are here.[171][172][173] This has been orchestrated by a user who has been following these discussions for a long time; possibly the same user who has been operating under a rotating Hong Kong IP, sabotaging and filibustering every related community discussion and trying to force a 'no consensus' result. If the botmaster is not User:Instantnood, then his behavior is close enough to be indistinguishable from it. Shrigley (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat

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

    Resolved
     – IP blocked 1 month by Floquenbeam. If talk page abuse occurs, you know the drill.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP, 71.195.125.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just threatened the life of an editor.--Racerx11 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Johnsc12 on the page Humat al-Hima

    This user has repeatedly made the same disruptive edits without explanation. I've tried a few times to discuss with him on his talk page but I have been completely ignored and the user has kept on repeating his edits. I'm not sure what else I could do except report the issue here. Thanks — ABJIKLAM (t · c) 06:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the article to prevent further edit warring. However, I'm not an Arabic speaker so some additional information would be useful. I see you've made an attempt to communicate with Johnsc12, which they've ignored, but at the same time you've both been edit-warring on the article. I guess what I'm asking is why were those edits disruptive? If you could point to some policy/guideline/consensus that would support your repeated removal of their edits that would be helpful. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Operation Storm

    Hello ! In article Operation Storm I placed references to youtube which are directly connected with article subject. However them constantly delete. I ask managers to pass the decision on the matter. Links from Youtube:

    Best regards ! 78.153.134.178 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Usually we don't link to YouTube because of copyright and other reliable sourcing concerns (see this guidance which specifically mentions newscasts). However sometimes a YouTube link is okay. I think the best thing you can do is to ask on the article talk page why other editors have been removing the link. It might be that the links are not suitable and are being removed for a good reason. You also need to be careful not to keep adding them back on the article. We call that edit warring and it can get your account blocked. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 10:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The second link at least according to the title is CNN footage but is hosted by some random user so will likely be out. I'm not sure about the first link but the fact it's from the same Youtube user doesn't inspire confidence it's not a copyvio. However I agree with EyeSerene, feel free to discuss it in the article talk page if you feel they aren't copyright violations. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ! Best regards ! 212.119.226.91 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Odiriuss

    User:Odiriuss has repeatedly accused me of vandalism,[174][175] arrogance[176], misuse of administrator power,[177][178] and had implied I have no reason.[179] He has also been reported for edit warring. He has stubbornly disregarded reliable sources and the opinion of his co-editors at Talk:2Cellos and pushed his own view at 2Cellos, disregarding the opinion of others. I'm sorry to have him reported here, but it just seems something has to be done about his behaviour. --Eleassar my talk 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have accused Eleassar of vandalism because that is what he is doing. I have not disregarded opinions of others,just the ones that were blatantly false. I have also provided evidence for my claims,evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute in any way,shape or form thus he is using his admin power to block my account and because all of that i request that he be punished by any means necessary. I will post my evidence here,so there is no confusion,again evidence that Eleassar cannot dispute and is using his admin power because of that to try to ban me. All what i have written,under logical conclusion states that he is unreasonable,as i have also stated.

    Here is the evidence i have provided,which Eleassar cannot dispute (copy from the 2cellos talk page):

    I am done arguing with you. You cannot prove your points,you have no evidence for your claims and you refuse to accept valid evidence such as: In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

    A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

    Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

    Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

    Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

    When you can answer all of those questions and find video proof that says otherwise,you can change the article. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Missuse of admin power

    Related threads merged EyeSerenetalk 13:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eleassar has been using his admin power for making false articles on 2cellos article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos) and trying to get me banned User:Odiriuss because he cannot cope with the truth and does not accept valid sources and evidence i have provided and continues to neglect them all,shaping the article as he sees fit,even though it is false. He has already reported me couple of times even though he cannot dispute the evidence i have given forth. The evidence i have provided is sufficient for any reasonable person,but he does not seem to be one.The evidence:

    In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28RhnkhMgs&feature=related see part at 0:55 mark (you are both from Croatia: and they say YES) , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=531gS0UW-XQ&feature=related see part at 1:40 mark (you guys are from Croatia,what do you miss most about that beautiful country ).

    A better question would be why didn't he say he was Slovenian in both of those interviews if he was.

    Or why didn't the host announce them as a cello duo from Croatia and Slovenia rather then just Croatia in the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuCRU5lLX8 , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4oNp9iAnRI&feature=related . Luka would feel insulted if he was Slovenian,to have his country not mentioned not once,not twice but at least three times, wouldn't he?

    Or why does it say in the article on Elton John page they are both Croatian? The man they are currently on tour with would surely know? http://www.eltonjohn.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110608&contentid=20202498

    Or why does their OFFICIAL facebook page say hometown: Croatia, instead of hometown: Croatia and Slovenia? http://www.facebook.com/2cellos/info

    Numerous other articles all over the world state they are both Croatian,only Slovenian sites make Luka look like a Slovene. Because all of this i request that User:Eleassar is stripped of his admin rights and banned,and that the 2cellos article is locked to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to add that a third opinion was provided which was in my favor,again shows that User:Eleassar does not care about wikipedia protocol. Odiriuss (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified. GiantSnowman 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The real question is, whose sock is he? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly seems to be 78.1.187.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was going to be blocked for edit-warring though that apparently didn't happen. Other IP suggestions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.138.76.254 - David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict × 2) Odiriuss, it looks like you don't know that Youtube and Facebook are not reliable sources (as they have no editorial oversight) and that self-published sources can only about themselves (in this case the Elton John website could only be used for information related to Elton John, and not for others). Also after a second look I don't see any admin action by Eleassar either to the article or against the user, thus there is no case for "Missuse of admin power". Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I made this account today because i wanted to have full access to present my case on the 2cellos article,and i have behaved in a cool manner,presenting evidence and sources which Eleassar cannot dispute. As for the reliable source it clearly states : there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material,and there is no doubt that their official facebook page is theirs. Furthermore it does not state nothing about youtube,as it has a wide variety of videos,and the ones that i sourced were form TV stations,which do have editorial oversight. I am not a sock or whatever,as i stated i have made this account this morning so that i could present my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This source is contrary to all others stating that Šulić was born in Maribor, including two interviews where he states this himself. However, this discussion belongs to the article's talk page, as already explained. --Eleassar my talk 13:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Armbrust, B.Ed. who do you not see missuse of admin power? The changes he made are in dispute with every single article and video there is about them.ONLY the articles from Slovenia state he is Slovenian.

    Evidence: http://www.mtv.com.hr/vijesti/2cellos-luka-sulic-stjepan-hausar-izdaju-album , http://www.matica.hr/www/vijesti2www.nsf/AllWebDocs/ciklus202?OpenDocument , http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/105855/hrvatski-violoncelisti-potpisali-ugovor-sa-sony-music-entertainmentom , http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ocio-y-cultura/20110607/los-chelos-del-pop/1034351.shtml , http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10196/1/2-Cellos-Luka-Suliae--Stjepan-Hauser-2-Croatian-Geniuses-conquering-the-world.html , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wtBXkGrxws (the Ellen show which has editorial oversight) . There is not one source out of Slovenia that claims he is Slovenian,if you can find me one show it to me. And in the end a Slovenian site telling the truth : http://www.rtvslo.si/zabava/zanimivosti/video-hrvaska-violoncelista-videlo-na-milijone-americanov/256245 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • And as is stated their official facebook page is not in conflict with reliable sources as there are no questions that it is theirs. Furthermore according to : Template:Infobox musical artist, the "origin" section of the Infobox is for "the city from which the singer or group originated (that is, the city where the group was founded; or the city where individual performers started their career, should it not match the location of their birth)" and he changed that to write Croatia and Slovenia. If tampering with articles after being warned is not vandalism i do not understand what is.Odiriuss (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore User:Eleassar lied in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2Cellos stating :"It seems like we disagree about what is a reliable source and that we won't be able to solve the dispute by ourselves. I think the Slovene-language sources are completely valid, contrary to the YouTubes that are one-sided and not detailed enough, and there are also other non-Slovene sources listed in the article Luka Šulić that is already locked due to an edit war there." If you have a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_%C5%A0uli%C4%87 there is NOT a snigle source outside of Slovenia stating that he is Slovenian,on the contrary they all say they are a cello duo from Croatia.And it also proves that he is neglecting ALL the sources all over the world except the ones from Slovenia,does that sound objective to you?Odiriuss (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a report about the abuse of administrative powers. As far as I can see no admin tools such as blocking, page protection etc have been used (never mind misused...) What we have is two editors in a content dispute, one of whom happens to be an administrator. This is not an incident requiring AN/I, but a content dispute for WP:DRN or a question about sources for WP:RSN. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have provided my sources at the relevant talk page and the reference for the claim in the article Luka Šulić that I had in mind has No. 3. If Odiriuss or anyone else needs a source based outside Slovenia, it is e. g. [180] or [181]. Nonetheless, in my opinion the interviews (cited at the talk page) where Šulić said that his home is Maribor, Slovenia, have greater weight. I have yet to see at Facebook written that Luka Šulić comes from Croatia, contrary to the band, for which we have agreed to list Croatia as the country of origin (per third opinion).

    Dear Kim, this post was in the first place (see the top of the section) about Odiriuss attacking me and claiming that I'm irrational, that I'm lying and that I'm abusing my rights. It is also about him edit warring and his controversial usage of multiple IPs and accounts. --Eleassar my talk 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He has not provided any sources that can dispute mine,also his first outside source also states they are from Croatia (http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/music/278479/the-pains-of-being-pure-at-heart) ,how about that? :D User:Eleassar clearly does not understand the difference between place of birth and nationality,as i have stated before i was born in Tokio,Japan but neither me or anyone else has ever considered me to be Japanese.And I have not been using multiple accounts,there he lies again. I have been using this account since this morning,made all of my replies with it and not with another account. This is what i have been saying all along,he cannot dispute the evidence i put forth thus he is trying all he can to get me banned,that is the reason i titled this page Missuse of admin power,that is what i was talking about. He is the only admin that gave me warnings,and accused me of vandalism and without any sufficient proof of his claims or any attempt whatsoever to dispute my evidence,which he clearly cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here you have another non-Slovene source claiming Šulić is not only Slovenia-born but was also raised in Slovenia.[182] I think he being in born in Maribor, raised in Slovenia, saying that his family lives in Maribor and that the town is his home surely disputes your unbalanced sources stating that he is Croatian - the rephrasal Slovene-Croatian was legitimate.
    The WP:ILLEGIT states: "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles." and it did, per: "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history" and contrary to "Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts". --Eleassar my talk 15:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=481861153"