Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Future Perfect's current block of Abd.

I believe that Future Perfect has made a bad block of Abd. My argument can be found here. I believe that FP simply wanting to throw his weight around, IMHO, as there is no clear violation of Abd's sanction as far as I can see. FP is needlessly harassing Abd with this block (like there is ever a need to harass someone). I would appreciate some independent oversight of this block. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I shall notify FP of this report on his talk page in that same section.

FP also seems to be under the impression that he is allowed to bar Abd from filing his own Arbcom requests: "And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either." This is presumably in reference to this: "... because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr" I find that premise to be completely absurd. Abd's sanction doesn't even hint at such a notion that Abd is barred from filing his own DR requests concerning matters directed at him. --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your own history of involvement in other people's disputes is... inglorious. I would strongly advise you not to get involved. There is a process for appealing blocks and bans, Abd can follow that process. I would be greatly surprised if your involvement did anything other than make things worse at this point. Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am only the messenger. I have raised the issue and provided pointers to the relevant information so now uninvolved admins can decide for themselves. As to you final point, if you are suggesting that FP is being vexatious in his actions I certainly won't argue with you. --GoRight (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. You crack me up. What a glorious joke. Really. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do you think he meant by "Incidentally, FP's actions have real-world parallels, see vexatious litigant"? It is probably also worth noting that he himself has a rather checkered history with Abd. I, on the other hand, have very little with FP. --GoRight (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you have plenty of history with Abd. He scratches yours, you scratch his. Badger Drink (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

[1] --GoRight (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Not Wikipedia specific but good wiki advice none the less.

• Abd escaped sanction at the ArbCom sanctions board because he said he would step away form the LirazSiri dispute which, after all, existed primarily because of his history of bad advice to LirazSiri. This edit: [2] is just yet another example of Abd interpreting everything as validation of his actions. Abd needs to learn when to STFU and cut his losses. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin) This appears to be a good block. FPS clearly stated the interpretation of Abd's sanctions he wold aqpply, Abd agreed, and continued nonetheless. Prefectly straightforward. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • GoRight seems to be forum shopping and dramamongering at the moment. Abd started making personal attacks in the ArbCom request, contrary to his prior good faith promises. The block by FPaS is appropriate. It's also worth bearing in mind that on wikipedia review Abd's recent personal attacks on WMC go far beyond what was criticized by arbitrators in the original Abd-WMC ArbCom case about which he is currently seeking clarification. GoRight was unblocked conditionally a little while back. Is he currently not contravening the conditions of his unblock? Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    How am I forum shopping? This is the only forum where I have raised the issue. I did place a notice of this discussion on the Arbcom request for clarification and on FP's talk page if that is what you are referring to, but I did not ask for any discussion in either place. Was that somehow inappropriate? --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    If the block was an inadequate interpretation of the Arbcom restriction then I'm sure that the arbs will say so on his replies to the request for clarification. And even then, this belongs to WP:AE because it's related to arbitration enforcement. Oh, wait, an AE request was just closed with no block because Abd had agreed to stop commenting on a certain dispute, and FP blocked Abd because he had kept commenting on that dispute, thus breaking his part of the agreement. Soooo, this was already handled at the proper forum (AE), and arbitrators (the guys who have the last word on the interpretation of arbcom restrictions) will already be able to review it at the request for clarification. That's why this thread is looking like forum shopping: you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, WP:AE does not seem the correct forum to me since I am not asking for any enforcement of any Arbcom sanction which is what I thought that forum was for. If the uninvolved admins here believe that WP:AE is the more proper forum then let them indicate as much and I will be more than happy to close this discussion and move it all over there. I only seek some independent review of FP's actions.

    "you are raising an issue at an unproper forum when it has been handled or is awaiting handlement at proper forums" - Where else has a review of this block been requested and by whom? --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    "[GoRight] causes significant waste of time and disruption by nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it on talk pages and in dispute resolution. If you want a meaningful restriction, ban him from climate change talk pages, and from noticeboard discussion and dispute resolution where he is not one of the primary involved parties." Stephan Schulz, posting one month ago on GoRight's talk page in objection to the laxity of the restrictions placed on GoRight by Trusilver. Indeed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Please. FPaS helped broker the agreement at AE so that Abd didn't get blocked for the first violation and then Abd throws that back in everyone's face with a follow up violation after agreeing that he wouldn't. A block seems a very reasonable outcome and some advice for GoRight. If users like you spent less time enabling and cheering on Adb when he is behaving disruptively and aggrevating other disputes, perhaps he might have got the message that there are limits and that sometimes we needs to pull back. I'm amazed you haven't been restricted from sticking your nose into other editors' disputes yet, IMO that kind of restriction would solve a lot of the issues with your participation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block; Abd failed to comply with his agreement, and went much further than that by referring to users as criminals. I agree with the views expressed above, by Guy, Beyond My Ken, etc. Spartaz raises an interesting proposal to impose Abd's restriction on GoRight also, and I'd be inclined to support (though I do wonder whether it would be sufficient, given that he is already subject to 3 other community sanctions per WP:RESTRICT - I don't believe we've had an user where 4 community sanctions were imposed). I do see signs of a general problem editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "General problem editor" = "one who stands up to the cliqueistas ganging up on him instead of sitting down and shutting up." *Dan T.* (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a creative interpretation you've come up with, but one that is severely misguided too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with most comments here, this was a useless block. Also the attacks on GoRight are ridiculous, he has the right to ask for a review of a sanction imposed by an administrator if he so wishes.  Dr. Loosmark  19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The block is enforcing an arbcom-imposed restriction, the review should have been posted at WP:AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• As the target of Abd's personal attacks and filer of the enforcement request I fully endorse the block (as a non-admin) and only wish it was done sooner, and for longer (as a week is clearly not long enough for the intended purpose). I may be Australian, but that does not make me a criminal (at least not by default!). I would further suggest that User:GoRight be subject to similar restrictions as the two of them are like peas in a pod, sapping the project of vulnerable volunteer time (our single most precious resource) with constant wikilawyering, hair splitting and unwanted and unwarranted involvement in others' business. Finally, with any editor who has ever in any way criticised either of them being declared "involved" it seems we run the risk of exhausting our supply of "uninvolved" people - it's not up to the named party to declare who they will and will not be sanctioned by (though perfectly acceptable to point out blatantly obvious, provable conflicts). Conversely, using the same logic one could argue that GoRight is the last person who should be filing on behalf of Abd. -- samj _in^out 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen Abd and GoRight don't claim that "every" editor who has ever criticized them is involved, far from it. In any case if Abd really broke an Arbcom's restriction in an obvious way then there is no need that a specific Admin does the block as any neutral Admin should be able to routinely detect such an infraction. Unfortunately many Admins on wikipedia think that if they don't do the block then the Earth will stop to rotate. As if we don't have a little million other Admins, most of them are really uninvolved.  Dr. Loosmark  22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a million admins. We have a few hundred actives ones. We have only a small handful willing to deal with WP:AE, probably because participation there brings one into constant contact with the most dispiriting drains on volunteer time and goodwill to be found on the project. MastCell ^Talk 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A few hundred active ones. I see. Ok, so for how many of those few hundred active ones has Abd claimed that they are involved?  Dr. Loosmark  12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at GoRight's unblocking conditions a month ago, it seems that there was some talk of a "mentor". Who is this mentor - Abd? Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that had been rejected as a jaw-droppingly bad idea? Guy (Help!) 09:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There was never any talk of a mentor (read the history if you want to verify this). The only place that a mentor was mentioned was in the unblock statement by BWilkins and it appears to be a reference to the fact that Trusilver indicated that he would be watching closely my edits while the sanctions remain in effect. The final wording of the sanctions is available at WP:RESTRICT for everyone's easy reference. I am strictly adhering to all sanctions which have been imposed. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(comment by non-admin) This appears to be perfectly reasonable action by Future Perfect. Note: I myself have interacted in the past with FP and in the past he has blocked me.Varsovian (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was emailed this link: [3]. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. Now you only have to explain us what exactly does that have to do with FP's block of Abd.  Dr. Loosmark  20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd's recent repeated threats to flaunt policy by taking this off-wiki and proxying out-of-band have everything to do with the block, and everything to do with demonstrating Abd's behaviour overall. FP blocked Abd both for violating a sanction by continuing to discuss the LirazSiri situation and for his personal attacks on me, which involved comparing wiki editing with violent crimes and editors with violent criminals. He also pointed out that Abd's editing restriction would prevent him for filing RfAr in relation to the LirazSiri situation, and one would hope that after one RfAr and not one but two virtually identical clarifications of same (~20,000 words total, most of which are nit-picking over a 50 word restriction) he would be enjoined from further flogging that dead horse via RfAr too. -- samj _in^out 07:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that the links proves is that Abd understands the policy correctly. One is allowed to proxy for a banned user if one verifies the material himself and then takes responsibility for the edit(s).  Dr. Loosmark  11:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

and if one has "independent reasons" for making the edits.... --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm I don't know if that editor had "independent reasons" (whatever that is) or not and I don't really care. That issue has nothing to do with FPaS' block of Abd.  Dr. Loosmark  13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not bring it up.  Dr. Loosmark  21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for topic ban of User:Steaphen

Moved here from WP:ANI. Pcap ping 01:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Steaphen arbitration page it was suggested that a topic ban seems to be appropriate for prolonged user misconduct, and that the case could should be taken here.

This complaint is about the conduct of Steaphen's on the Talk:Zeno's paradoxes. His behaviour makes him a disruptive editor Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE in my opinion.

Steaphen has been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and has almost exclusively edited on Zeno's paradox, the related talk page, and pages related to mediations attempts [4][5][6][7][8]. During this time Steaphen has pushed the same point, from 2006 [9] until now [10], [11], [12].

He refuses to provide sources or respond to other editors questions [13], [14], [15], is threatening mediation and arbitration [16], [17], [18] uses the talk page as soapbox [19], [20], [21], and mocks, insults, or attacks other editors [22], [23], [24], which in the end is driving away productive editors. The above examples were just a selection of examples taken from the current talk page, and did not consider the archive, except for the first example from 2006. Of the 998 main edits on the talk page accounted here [25], 362 were by Steaphen.

I want to stress that this is not about the editing of one particular statement or phrase, but about the disruptive behavior Steaphen has shown over the years, and continues to show. In the last day Steaphen did use the talk page not only as a soap box [26] but he also discriminated other editors [27] and violated their privacy [28].Ansgarf (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban (say for a year) for User:Steaphen for edits related to Zeno's Paradoxes. I'll basically repeat here my comment from the arbitration page. I have not had any involvement in this dispute (and I don't think I have ever edited any articles or pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes), but after looking at the diffs provided by Ansgarf above and at the article's talk page, it appears to me that Ansgarf's assessment of the situation is basically correct. User:Steaphen has started editing Wikipedia in November 2006 and since then he has managed to remain essentially an SPA user, concentrating on a single article and a very narrow issue related to that article. That, in and of itself, is indicative of a problem. Steaphen's contribution record appears to be largely non-constructive, with a combination of POV pushing and civility problems that are, apparently, continuing. The Zeno's Paradoxes page has been dragged through several mediation cases already and there is an arbcom request pending. I personally think that a broad and lengthy community topic ban on User:Steaphen for any pages related to Zeno's Paradoxes would be desirable and beneficial under the circumstances, which also will spare us a full blown arbitration case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This is the 2nd arbitration request in this area. The previous one was declined [29]. Pcap ping 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That arbitration case was brought by Steaphen and was presented essentially as a content dispute; of course the case was declined. The current arbcom request is about user conduct issues. Given that there have been three mediation cases already, it seems likely to me that the arbcom case will be accepted, unless the issue becomes moot, that is unless a community topic ban is adopted. Nsk92 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this is still relevant, given the note below on the ban. But I'll respond anyway with respect to the previous two mediation and arbitration attempts in which I was involved. I might not be objective, but I got the impression that Steaphen might not have been really interested in a consensus. He might have just been playing the rules or trying to intimidate.

For example, Steaphen mentioned in his very first response to me on Wikipedia already the need of "setting up formal mediation/arbitration" [30]. Before I ever replied to him on the matter. This was on 29/10. On 30/10 he said to have a "justification for mediation (more likely arbitration)" [31]. On 31/10 he referred to an "impetus for mediation (-> arbitration)" [32], and later that day to the "necessity of arbitration". On 6/11 he mentioned "the need for arbitration" [33], and that "arbitration is inevitable" [34]. On 8/11 he concluded that "grounds have now been well-established for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [35], and later he thanked me for "sufficient, ample grounds for actioning formal mediation/arbitration" [36]. The mediation request was initiated within an hour.

From this stage on Steaphen eluded to a coming arbitration. On 9/11 he said that "if necessary arbitration" will sort out the matter [37], on 18/11 that he would call "if necessary, arbitration as well" [38]. On 25/11 he mentioned the necessity for "in all likelihood, arbitration" [39]. There were similar comments made in December and January. Steaphen had a break of a few weeks which started with the statement "Email me when a mediator shows up. Otherwise I'll pop back in a few weeks or months to initiate arbitration." [40] on 18/12, and he effectively ended his break on 22/01 with a reference to the "mediation (come arbitration)" [41]. To cut things short, he initiated arbitration on 11/02 and the case was declined and closed on 13/02. Later the month he started mentioning arbitration again [42].

To be fair I should mention that I met Steaphen once in person before I joined Wikipedia - and only then - at an event I organised. He himself used our brief encounter once as argument on the talk page, so it in not a secret. He probably has for that reason my university email address, which I use for announcements. We did however not discuss Zeno paradoxes, but the paradox of the absolute infinite, decidability and his theory of one-and-all, which he has mentioned in the past on Wikipedia as well. We continued this discussion briefly on his blog.

I also want to point out that Steaphen did already use the threat of arbitration before I met him or joined Wikipedia against other editors. For example on 17 August he suggested to Jim and Blippy to "bump this straight to formal mediation, followed by, if necessary, arbitration."[43].

As said, I am not sure if this is all still relevant, but this way it is at least on record.Ansgarf (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked indef over that "bringing your school into disrepute" edit above (#71 at the moment), since Ansgarf does not seem to have clearly indicated an affiliation. Feel free to reduce that without consulting me first, but I would object strongly to voiding it without a clear indication from Steaphen that he understands why it was problematic and agrees not to repeat it. Note, however, that he claims to be severing all ties with Wikipedia in his most-recent userpage edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the edit leading to this block was this one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been briefly involved with Steaphen's edits, discussions and the above issues, and I can understand the feelings that have led up to this particular set of accusations. However, I do not concur with such a block. But then, I'm not all that crazy about censorship of any kind. No matter what Steaphen has done, we've all seen lots worse. To gang up on him, block him, and induce him to desert Wikipedia is no more, no less than a travesty of justice. I've had an account with WP for just over a year now, and I truthfully can say that the vast majority of administrative decisions have been fair, just and untyrannical. But this idea is completely unconscionable to me. Just my take, but that's how it looks to me.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what in the world are you talking about? Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[44] to which he chose not to respond. Nobody "induced him to desert Wikipedia". An arbitration request has been filed in relation to a long-running dispute that he has been involved in. Steaphen himself had initiated an arbitration request on this dispute (which was declined) earlier this month and he has been involved in several mediation cases, so he knows quite well how the dispute resolution process works. The current arbitration request has not even been accepted or declined yet at the time when Steaphen declared his intention to leave the project[45]. Note that the latter declaration also happened before the block. He had and still has plenty of other options. He could have presented additional evidence and further arguments at the arbitration request case. He could have responded to the warning about WP:OUTING violation and explained his edit that led to the warning. Before the block he could have commented in this thread (note that this thread initially suggested a topic ban; a discussion has started and no decision either way has been reached). After the block occurred, he could have requested an unblock. Instead he threw a temper tantrum and left. If he was a newbie who did not know the procedures, that would have been one thing. But he is an experienced editor who knows quite well how various dispute-related processes work on Wikipedia. He had other options here which he decided not to exercise. That's his choice. On a last note, I have no sympathy for cries of censorship in the face of a long record of persistent POV pushing. I had suggested a topic ban for Steaphen, not an indef block. As far as I am concerned, that is still a preferred option, if Stephen choses to respond to the block and address the WP:OUTING concerns that led to the block. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool Nsk92, and as I said, I understand your words and feelings on this matter. We'll just have to "agree to disagree", for unlike you (apparently) I see this as censorship and a form of majority-rule heavy-handedness. Steaphen is argumentative and seems to feel very strongly about his philosophical beliefs. He also appears to be misguided as to what should and shouldn't be discussed on Talk pages, as well as WP's stance on "truth" vs. "verifiability". And lastly, as intelligent as he seems, he is persistent (or stubborn depending on one's viewpoint) when he thinks he's right thusly making him largely uneducable. He lacks wisdom as well as sensitivity. Such editors always seem to piss people off, sometimes to great extent as in this case. Each and every descriptor I've used could have also applied to at least one founding father of the United States, Thomas Paine, one of the most outspoken men to ever live. Would we ban Paine? Probably. We would ban him, too, because like Steaphen, Paine would wound the hell out of our sensibilities. Unfortunately, the situation aligns administration with the wrong side, doesn't it? We are not tyrants, nor are we babes whose sensibilities send us into such gray areas as this. Steaphen should not be blocked from editing in any way. Like I said, this is just my take. No one is required to agree with me, and I certainly do not say these things because I have any love for most of Steaphen's arguments, nor to misalign myself with WP administration. I just think that sometimes these situations are more a case of people putting up with so much that they refuse to put up with any more. These are the people who might want to rethink their tolerance levels.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to censor Steaphen on content. I think that I was very patient, if not too patient, to reply to his various objections. But I learned a lot about Quantum Mechanics in the process.

When Steaphen initiated arbitration against me I checked what common outcomes of arbitration are. When I later filed for arbitration I expected that Steaphen would be put on notice for calling people stupid, a shame for the scientific profession, idiots, witch burners, etcetera, and for claiming that the onus was not on him to prove anything, and for telling them repeatedly that their opinion should be banned from Wikipedia, their contributions removed, and if they wouldn't stop he would have them banned. I also expected that other editors (like me) would get reprimanded for feeding his disruptive behavior rather than ignore it.

I was surprised that after I filed the arbitration request, Steaphen didn't try to justify his behaviour, but instead, for example, told Paul August in his reply on the arbitration page that he wasn't sorry if his behaviour drove editors like him away, thus confirming my complaint. I expected him to know that in arbitration for disruptive behaviour attack is not the best defence. Also, after arbitration was filed, Steaphen made a veiled threat to talk to my assumed employer [46], and then went ahead and insinuated that Paradoctor is some kind of fascist [47]. He knew that there was a complaint about his disruptive behaviour, and he still went ahead; this was his doing, his choice. I didn't ask for him to be banned for any of those, but I am not surprised that he was. Ansgarf (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Nsk92: "Steaphen was blocked for a violation of WP:OUTING, after a warning[41] to which he chose not to respond." That looks like its confounding two different problems. The warning was about incivility towards me rather than outing Ansgarf. I can't really tell whether Steaphen had a chance to address my request before all hell broke loose. I would have preferred a considerably slower escalation, but I still have to say that Steaphen was cruising for a block. I also have to admit that I made a breath of relief when I saw it, followed by a small pang of guilt. When he appeals the block, I'll be available to try my hand at mentoring him. He is an opinionated thick-headed bastard, but so am I. ;) IMHO, despite his long presence and number of edits, he is still a newbie. I've been here almost as long as he, editing all over the place, racked up several times his edit count, and I am still learning important new things about this madhouse every other day. Paradoctor (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect to my outing. I notified Steaphen on 1 March, 13:24 that I had filed arbitration for disruptive behaviour [48]. He outed me on 1 March, 23:46, [49]. I added this edit to the arbitration request as proof of ongoing incivility on 2 March 1:31 [50]. Steaphen did respond to the arbitration a few times after, including 3 main edits [51][52][53] over a period of 24 hours, without addressing it.

With respect to incivility towards Paradoctor at 2 March, 11:12 [54]. He was warned by Paradotor on 2 March 13:30 [55]. Steaphen's next edit after that warning, on 3 March, 2:08, was to remove his user page [56], so he probably had made up his mind to leave, and chose not to respond anymore. Ansgarf (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think Steaphen has put forth several valid points. Unfortunately, he hasn't been particularly suave in trying to express them over the last four years. However, regardless of his views and lack of poise there are certain kinds of behaviour which are completely unacceptable, one of which is WP:OUTING. If Steaphen contests the block I would imagine a time-limited topic ban (say one year?) and/or mentorship would be a much preferable course of action, but if he doesn't show an intention of returning with a sense of humility and cooperativeness I see no reason to unblock him. Gabbe (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether requiring "humility" is a good idea. IMHO, it's not part of Steaphen's temperament. How exactly would a display of humility have to look? Besides, mentorship is about teaching wikiquette, so it's kind of self-defeating to require the desired behavior in order to allow him to be taught about it. ;)

A point to be made in his favor is that, to my knowledge, his behavior was never effectively challenged before, so he didn't have much of an opportunity to learn from his mistakes. Paradoctor (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are experience a case of Stockholm syndrome :). If you look at WP:DISRUPTIVE on unacceptable behaviour, there is only one thing that does not apply to a fair extend to Steaphen; and that is that he didn't use sock or meatpuppets. Steaphen has been repeatedly pointed to various WP guidelines by other editors, such as WP:COI, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:A, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROVEIT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:TALKNO before the first official complaint against him was filed. It is not that he simply didn't know who to behave. It is, however, also not the case that Steaphen is completely immune to input by others; a few month ago he had the habit of pointing to his own website, which resulted in a few WP:COI warnings, and he almost completely stopped pointing to his own website and business. So regardless of what the outcome of the WP:OUTING case is - it is indef because the length is still undecided - if Steaphen returns he should, in addition to any topic ban, be put on notice that ignoring basic rules of wikiquette, repeatedly, for a prolonged time, might cause him to be banned.Ansgarf (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stockholm syndrome": ^_^ Yeah, that and my Nazi ancestors, too. ;) I just meant to say that escalating things sooner might have prevented a fair amount of wastage. Indefblocks are a pretty severe measure against a user who does not seem to intend to harm the project. Oh well, the sky is blue once again, let's see where the road will take us. :) Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (in case he is unblocked). I have looked at the disputes about content, and Steaphen has been consistently pushing his own POV above what the sources actually say.

Comments like "I will contact your employer and tell him what you do in wikipedia" can only be interpreted as an attempt to out the editor, put a chilling effect on him, and force the resolution of a dispute on your favor. This is winning a dispute via means that have nothing to do with building a good encyclopedia, and it should be considered a blockable offence. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for your review

Resolved

 – Page ban endorsed, semi-protection placed, options for further action discussed contingent on future editing. Kudos especially to EdJohnston. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Caleb Murdock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seth Material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background reading:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/39#Seth Material from December 2008, showing that the same problem existed then, and Caleb Murdock's attitude has not changed over the past year.

I have closed a recent edit-warring case at WP:AN3#User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: Topic ban) with a topic ban of Caleb Murdock from the Seth Material. (The Seth Material is a collection of psychic texts by the author Jane Roberts, who lived from 1929 to 1984).This is a case of long-term edit warring by Murdock who is an enthusiast for the Seth Material and has repeatedly taken maintenance tags off the article after they were placed by regular editors. The 3RR was closed with a proviso that the decision would be offered here for review. Attempts to explain Wikipedia policy to this editor were not successful. He thinks it's a two-person edit war between him and User:Verbal, who in his view, inexplicably prefers a shorter version of the article. So far as I can tell, Verbal has been trying to make the article an encyclopedic summary rather that a large dump of primary source material. Caleb Murdoock is a single-purpose account since he has no editing interest besides this article. Murdock will still be able to participate on the article's Talk page. This is a long-running problem, and I'm not optimistic that his attitude will change, but if it does so, I think lifting of the ban could be considered in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good call, IMO - that looks like a classic collision between WP:NPOV and WP:TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good, although I question the wisdom of allowing him to comment on the talk page. That is a violation of the topic ban. He's banned from the topic, not just the article. That would also apply to the Jane Roberts article and talk pages, as well as any other pages that mention or deal with it. It would be wise for him to stay away from paranormal topics for awhile and ask for permission from the banning admin to edit anything like that. It's up to that admin to interpret what is included in the topic ban. A topic ban means "the topic", not just articles with that name, no matter where it is mentioned. If he sees anything that mentions those subjects, he should run the other way and resist the temptation to comment. It's time he ended his dubious status as a single-purpose account. He should edit articles on totally different topics and get some experience and learn what is acceptable and what is not. He doesn't understand that yet. He probably won't believe this, but I actually wish him well and hope he will mature into a more well-rounded editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good work, thank you EdJohnston. If he becomes disruptive on other articles or talkpages we can look into extending the ban then. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• You folks just don't understand what's wrong with Wikipedia. By allowing editors who are ignorant of the subject-matter to make extensive edits to an article, you are insuring that the information in any controversial article will be either incorrect or missing altogether. This policy has spawned an army of editors who are more intent on censoring articles that they don't like than building the encyclopedia as a whole. It is this policy that allows so many editing wars to occur. It allows editors with a bias -- such as those who fancy themselves to be skeptics but are actually atheists -- to impose their will on a large number of articles. You assume that all editors who are knowledgeable about and focused on certain topics are necessarily biased, but that is only your assumption. By favoring the censors on Wikipedia instead of the knowledgeable editors, you are insuring -- quite clearly -- that Wikipedia is a less informative encyclopedia than it might be.

I made it abundantly clear that Verbal was refusing to collaborate, and the evidence was right there on the talk page for everyone to see. By punishing me and not Verbal, you are enforcing a clear double standard. The fact that administrators, who should be impartial, would impose a double standard is evidence that they are also biased. On Wikipedia, the wolves are now guarding the hen house. In the area of religion (at the least), Wikipedia has become a haven for narrow-minded cranks who are afraid of any information that contradicts their narrow world view. Verbal did as much edit-warring as I did. My only real crime was that I got too passionate, and that I wouldn't assume good faith (and after three years of dealing with the jerk, that was not about to happen).

WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME CORRUPT, WITH BIASED AND BUREAUCRATIC EDITORS RUNNING THE SHOW.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it, talk offensive to me, baby. So you're saying that you should be allowed free-reign because you've got one POV, and others shouldn't because they've got another? And this is different to what you claim the MedCab has done because...? Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's MedCom you're referring to; I don't remember a MedCab case with this user. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the last straw. Ban him. Wikipedia won't miss him. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, Brangifer. I was a computer technician before I became a retailer. I could sign onto this site from 20 different IP addresses if it suited me. The reason I don't is that it isn't worth the aggravation. The rules on Wikipedia are stacked against good editors who care about the subjects they edit. The rules, which embolden non-knowledgeable editors like yourself, encourage warring. I was just trying to defend the integrity of the article. But now that I see that the admins are also biased, why should I want to stay here?

What I'm REALLY being punished for is speaking my mind honestly. I won't hang my head in shame and say, "I'm sorry", so I'm being booted off. Verbal wouldn't collaborate, and he gets away with it. Verbal did almost as many reverts as I did, but I get punished for it and he doesn't. There's no fairness here. There's no impartiality. This is a place for people with enormous egos to act like bullies. Any editor who is honestly trying to develop a good article that is even slightly controversial gets a phalanx of hostile editors descending on the article to rip it to shreds. It took this incident to make me realize what a bad place Wikipedia is. The real shame is that Wikipedia values the disruptive editors over the knowledgeable editors. That is a bizarre situation. Hopefully, the people who run this place will come to their senses.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I thought Caleb might still be able to provide useful sources, but his rants above and general behaviour have pushed me over to supporting an indef block now. As anyone who has looked at my userpage would know, I'm not an atheist, and if you look at the talk page you will see me attempting to engage Caleb in useful discussion. "dealing with the jerk" isn't very collaborative, and the repeated references to editwarring and ip socks just show a lack of understanding about how wikipedia works. Verbal chat 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, you were never willing to work with me on any issues. In order to iron out differences on a Talk page, you have to get specific about the language, but you were never willing to do that. You would occasionally make a broad statement about the article, but you wouldn't discuss the actual language. Furthermore, your actions were always provocative. You started the edit war by twice rolling back edits that I had made over a period of time without comment. Good editors don't behave in such a fashion.

So you're not an atheist. Maybe you're a right-wing Christian or something. All I know is that you had it in for the Seth Material article since the first time you saw it. I remember in the early days the way you searched through the policies to find something that would stick, but nothing stuck. You brought up one policy after another -- it was clear that you had an agenda. Something about the article threatens you.

I don't care if you ban me from all of Wikipedia. I no longer see this as a good site. My essential message remains: The input of knowledgeable editors is not valued on this site, and that's an absurd situation given the fact that an encyclopedia is a book of knowledge. Verbal, you REPEATEDLY said that the article needed to be cut down, yet it was always fairly short. The more it is cut down, the less information it contains. On a site like this, articles should grow with more information, not be cut down by antagonists like you. I can only assume that you feel threatened by the information in the article, whatever your personal reasons.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• An indef ban seems to be the only solution. It's classic ownership behavior by an SPA who doesn't understand, and refuses to abide by, our policies. He needs to read WP:LUC. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support a full ban based on the threat of sockpuppetry. That's like telling everyone in a courtroom that you'll kill them if they dare to convict you for assault... It's somewhat counterproductive. -- Atama頭 20:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are some opinions in this thread in support of the topic ban, and other editors who favor an indefinite block. I'm leaving a note for User:2over0 asking his advice on how to close this. Since there are only seven editors who expressed an opinion (including Caleb Murdock), and since a topic ban is a weaker sanction than an indef block, the topic ban could be the way to go. Nobody who is not involved in the article dispute has so far spoken up against sanctions. If an uninvolved admin happens to wander by, he should feel free to close the above discussion and state the result. (Topic ban or not, indef block or not). Otherwise I will close the discussion myself after some more consultations. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Ed. You wrote "Nobody who is not involved in the article dispute has so far spoken up against sanctions." I know that doesn't exactly apply to what I'll say, but I'm just going to let you know that I haven't been involved in any "article dispute" at all, and only made a few edits after this AN/I started. My dispute is with Caleb's attitude and failure to understand Wikipedia. I have been totally uninvolved in article disputes, having been drawn into this because of Caleb's vicious attack on Verbal. It's his ownership attitude and total failure to understand policies that's the problem. He's a classic SPA who has limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I stuck to warning and advising him, and have only made a few edits as of late. As such I'm a pretty "uninvolved" editor. Since his comments are a consistent pattern, and not a "heat of the moment" thing (per 2over0's comment below), I support an indef ban now. He is using Wikipedia as a battleground to further his understanding of "the truth". He's not a newbie. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I still think we can get away with just the topic ban - people say things in the heat of the moment, but I favor letting such things slide unless and until they actually start editing disruptively. If CM starts editing productively elsewhere - great; if he moves the pattern to Jane Roberts or other closely related articles - extend the topic ban (the threshold for taking this step should be fairly low); if he starts socking and harassing other editors, RBI. An indef might not be unwarranted, but the cost to the project of waiting to be sure should be fairly low. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is now an anonymoust IP editing the article with edits that follow the pattern of Caleb's edits. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then, especially in light of his threats, it needs semi-protection for a long time. There is no down side to semi-protecting any article for long periods of time, and for controversial articles that should be the default. Note that whether one agrees with my opinion or not, that doesn't detract from the need for semi-protecting the articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Result - I have enacted a ban of User:Caleb Murdock from the Seth Material article. For now, he can still edit the talk page, so we can see where Murdock goes from here. There was some support for an indef block, and I'll withhold that for now on a wait-and-see basis. Murdock's evident use an IP sock to edit the article (72.82.20.134) will not win friends and influence people. I've semiprotected the Seth Material article, and will enter this page ban at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

As there's been no activity on the above page for over a month, I think we have a stable version of the article that can be moved back into article space. The desired title would be Comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires, rather than the old Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, as explained here and consensus has been reached in the linked section for such a renaming. Currently, there's a fully protected stub under the name comparison between Roman and Han Empires. The history of that article and its associated talk page is spread across at least two locations (comparison between Roman and Han Empires and Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, and possibly Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft as well but I can't remember), so a history merge would be needed. It looks complicated, but given the complex history surrounding the article I think both article and talk page histories should be preserved if possible. This doesn't fall within the remit of WP:RM (not for merging article histories) so I thought I'd bring it here. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get a response here, try WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen‎. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Flatscan, I've taken the issue there. So much for WP:AN. Nev1 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like your request was declined and referred to WP:Requested moves. I think you should rewrite it as two separate requests: 1) histmerge and 2) unprotection. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Block Review of User:DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked, by me, under the terms of WP:ARBMAC. I invite a review of this block. He took it upon himself to begin redirecting old articles about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the article on Serbia and Montenegro. He suggested a merge on January 4 but received no comments. On January 6 he began the mergers. His efforts were almost immediately met with resistance and several reverts were made in January and February. He declined to enter into discussion. I became aware of the problem and warned him and another user who is indef blocked, on March 1, 2010. Today he has made a similar revert at Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR believes he is in the right but is not willing to discuss this on talk pages or to initiate the dispute resolution process. I blocked for 1 week up from a recent 48 hour block for edit waring. Your thoughts are appreciated. JodyB _talk 15:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. One week after a 48-hour block for edit warring is a fair period. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. This is obvious POV pushing. We don't generally redirect or otherwise obliterate articles about former countries, e.g. GDR etc. Pcap ping 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. I've supported DIREKTOR in a lot of disputes because he's under attack, unfairly, by a lot of editors with particular nationalist POVs. A lot. It's almost constant. But he's not perfect, I've given him warnings myself about some of his behavior (like labeling something as vandalism when it isn't). I have faith that a short block will turn him around, he's usually a good contributor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• I can only see one recent revert here against an IP whose first two edits don't indicate a new user. Those reverts in February were against Иван Богданов (talk · contribs), who was indef-blocked for "personal attacks, harrassment, impersonation of other users".[57] If Direktor proposed a redirect and began to do so after receiving no comments, it's perfectly within the bounds of WP:BRD. You said he's "not willing to discuss this on talk pages", yet he's clearly done so at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Based on this evidence, I'm not convinced this block is based on solid grounding. Spellcast (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The talk page section of the artile you mentioned showed an initial discussion which certainly produced no consensus for his moves [58]. But notice further down the page when someone suggests an RFC and DIREKTOR asks What's the point? [59]. It should have been clear to DIREKTOR that he was working without the support of the community.

It is correct that one of the editors was subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and editing abuse. However other editors in good standing were also reverted. Furthermore, in an attempt to prevent this block I warned DIREKTOR on his talkpage [60] to take this to the talk page and further discuss these sorts of changes. Please bear in mind that these Balkans related articles which he is redirecting were in their original form for sometime before DIREKTOR begin his push to change them. There have been many reverts of this sort across many different articles. JodyB _talk 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

From 24 February to today, the only people to participate in the discussion were those that supported a redirect. Without any feedback for about 10 days from users who initially opposed it, it's perfectly reasonable to redirect and if reverted, continue discussion per WP:BRD, which is what Direktor was doing. (Also, the user who suggested an RFC supported Direktor's edits by saying that having 2 very similar articles is "impractical"). So basically, today's block comes down to this one revert against a suspicious IP that made no attempt at discussion, which is not good grounds for a block. If reverts were being done today against users who are actively engaged in the discussion, I'd definitely support a block, but that's not the case here. Apart from the user who was indef-blocked for harassment, where are these "many reverts" across "many articles"? Spellcast (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been a redirect since 2 March with no reverts or replies at the centralised discussion at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia. Yet when he redirects Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia today for the sake of consistency, there's suddenly a block. There weren't even any reverts on that article since last month (and the other user has since been indef-blocked). I'm really not seeing the logic here. Spellcast (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the history of Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), DIREKTOR can be seen participating in an edit war about the redirect from 13 January 2010 to today, without engaging in any discussion on the article talk page, and without even making reference to any discussion taking place elsewhere. This is a violation of our normal editorial process as described in WP:ARBMAC#Editorial process, which mandates building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The block, therefore, is a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion under WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which allows discretionary sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the normal editorial process. Accordingly, I see no reason to lift the block.  Sandstein  21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was centralised at Talk:Serbia_and_Montenegro, where he was discussing before and after the RFC suggestion. For about 10 days, those who initially opposed his edits didn't respond to the new arguments, so it was reasonable for Direktor to redirect to see if consensus had changed. Now if, at this point, he reverted without discussion, a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Atama, I have also taken DIREKTOR's side when he has been targeted by other editors as regards nationalist sentiment but believe he acted outside of proper process here. Although he may have initiated a discussion regarding the moves, the lack of opposition then does not mean he has consensus sufficient to disregard subsequent raised concerns; WP:BRD applies in this case. I would be minded to lift the sanctions earlier if DIREKTOR agrees that the moves now require a new consensus (which, per the comments here, is unlikely under existing practice relating to former nations). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to address a couple of issues raised here. First my reading of WP:BRD is that DIREKTOR would be bold, which he was, someone would revert, which they did, and then he would go to the talk page to discuss, which he did not. On the talk page of Serbia and Montenegro a discussion began involving eight editors and one ip (includes User:Иван Богданов who was indefed for socking). Although it was clear there was no consensus, DIREKTOR continued to revert and declare blatant violations of policies.. This is not what WP:BRD invisions.

This issue is not limited to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There were other related articles that DIREKTOR redirected to what he deemed was a more suitable article.[61] [62]. I don't think DIREKTOR will agree to anything that restricts his editing but I can be convinced. I would remind all that this is not just any article. It is part of a group of Balkans related articles which have been the target of much drama. Also, this is not just any editor. DIREKTOR is experienced and knows well what is expected of him. He has been blocked 5 times including twice this year. he certainly can be an effective editor but he has to work with others. A reduction in time is not out of the question if he agrees with a new consensus attempt. JodyB _talk 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The first edit was last month, which no-one even reverted since then. If today's block was based on that, it's obviously late and punitive. Exactly what edit was he blocked for today? Was it this? If so, then it's ridiculous because 1/ no-one else has edited that article since last month and 2/ the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article has been redirected since 2 March without any challenge, so it's common sense to also redirect a subpage of that article as well, which no-one even reverted today. Spellcast (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is the slow-motion edit war. Articles that fall under WP:ARBMAC sanctions are given tighter control than other articles. If such a slow edit war were happening at, say, TCBY then I'd call the block unwarranted. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was the result of slow running edit war across Balkans articles which are specifically dealt with under WP:ARBMAC. I was not required to issue the warning that I did but after being warned and reminded he continued. JodyB _talk 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I challenged your warning on your talkpage as misrepresenting the issue. I did this because I thought your interpretation of slow edit war was wrong and I stated to you that I considered your warining would be used as an excuse to block DIREKTOR the next time he reverted a possible IP sock. Your issue of the warning sometime after the event and with the indef block already in place on one of the two users being warned struck me as being very poor (not the words I used on your talkpage). Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one responded to Direktor or his other supporter(s) for 10 days on the talk page, so it's reasonable for him to make his edits to see if there was a new implicit consensus. That is not edit-warring. The FRY article has been an unchallenged redirect since 2 March. When he redirects subpages of that article today for consistency (and out of common sense), why is there suddenly a block? If anyone reverted him today and he reverted back without discussion over a long period, there would be a slow edit war and a block would be justified, but that's not what happened. Spellcast (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Bad Block. A week! When the majority of DIREKTOR's actions which this block is for involve reverting a now indef blocked user who amongst other things was running a malicious sock User:DIREKTOR SPLIT against him. This block shows no common sense or flexibility in the rigid imposition of sanctions and penalises a genuinely constructive user who is very willing to use talkpages (as shown in this case) even when he is being maliciously socked against by extreme problem users. There is far more history than has been considered about in this merge, when the split was first made it was actually opposed and reverted (not by DIREKTOR) but it was made again in the meantime, hence DIREKTOR's merge proposal. There are very good Serb nationalist reasons for requiring the separate articles including possibly absolving Milosevic from responsibility for genocide but I won't go into that here. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider that in making this one week block JodyB has also come close to abusing or has even abused his admin position. Before the block I had raised serious concerns about his potential non-neutrality in the situation on his talkpage [63],[64]. I consider that making this block appears to be equivanlent to saying I don't care what you think I'm an admin and I can do what I like because I'm enforcing sanctions and you just have to lump it because other admins will back me up. Polargeo (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is just wrong here. Prior to these events I was not in any way involved with any person in this dispute nor was I involved in editing any of these articles. To suggest I was non-neutral because he doesn't agree with my action is way over the top, inaccurate and just plain false. As I told Polargeo then, I stand by my decision. Does that make me non-neutral? JodyB _talk 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered you non-neutral because I thought your warning looked highly vindictive to me. You gave a warning to two users who had a short edit war. Their edit war was not "slow" in any way. You imposed the warning sometime after the edit war was over and some time after one of the two users had been indef blocked anyway. DIREKETOR had been using the talkpages and the other user had miliciously socked against DIREKTOR. Why did you feel right to impose an official warning after the events were clearly over then a 1 week block for a single reversion of an IP (as I had predicted that you would). The whole thing appears highly vindictive, unnecessary for the running of wikipedia in any way and a misuse of admin powers weakly justified by your own warning. I had already said before the block just based on your previous actions that I thought that they were wrong. One thing that is not needed in sensitive areas of wikipedia is admins who have no idea what they are doing stomping around and imposing blocks based on misconceptions. Polargeo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• This block looks justified to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question: Can anyone explain the logic in blocking someone who redirects a subpage whose main article has been an unchallenged redirect for nearly a week? There was no "slow" edit war because the other participant was indef-blocked last month and no-one responded to Direktor's comments on the talk page for 10 days, so he was entitled to make his edit. Spellcast (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On January 6, 2010, DIREKTOR made his first redirect of the article. This was after a merge suggestion 2 days before with no response either way. On January 21 at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro User:Craigzomack asked for two separate article instead of the one. On January 29 DIREKTOR was reverted by User:Cjdh and then DIREKTOR revert him with the edit summary "Rv vandalism..." An ip reverted on February 16 and that was reverted User:Mladifilozof. User:PANONIAN reverted on February 17, DIREKTOR on February 17 and then the sock and DIREKTOR went back and forth from February 17 until February 26 when the sock was blocked. During that period there was frequent discussion on the talk page and there was clearly no consensus for the reverts/redirects that DIREKTOR was making. Now we can quibble over whether this was a fast or slow edit war or whether this should be simply called tendentious editing. But given the discussion it should have been clear that there was still work to be done. Further, given that this is an area which has been so conflicted in recent years one would think that any editor would tread carefully especially after being reminded of the ARBMAC case. I am truly sorry that DIREKTOR is blocked because I think, as I said to him, that he is a passionate editor with a knowledge of this area. However as he acknowledged, he has a difficult time with his temper and is angered by other editors sometimes. That is not unique to DIREKTOR. The problem here is that he simply overstepped. I have no problem lessening the block duration if he will give assurances to be more aware of the need for consensus - I have said that before and stand by it. JodyB _talk 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't need an outright statement of support from the other side. You're presumed to have consensus if no-one responds for days on the talk page or article. Just because there was initial opposition to Direktor in January and early February, it doesn't mean it remained the same throughout the rest of the month and March. The discussion shows no opposing users responded to him from 25 February to the end of the discussion on 2 March. Although a suspicious IP restored the article on 1 March, he reverted once the next day with an explanation on the talk page, which is perfectly fine per the WP:BRD cycle. (If he kept reverting without discussing, a block would be warranted, but he didn't do that). Since then, no-one still challenged his edit, so a few days later he redirected a subpage for consistency, and was blocked for that. It's just common sense: If a main article has been a redirect for almost a week (with no-one challenging it), it makes sense to also redirect a subpage (which again, no-one challenged). The block was good-faith yet misguided because I think you perceived this to be a continuation of a mass edit war without discussion, but the talk page shows that he (and another user who in the end supported him) were the only ones engaged in consensus-building for quite some time. Spellcast (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer 1: I was at Direktor's side at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro concerning the merge/split proposal.

Disclaimer 2: I do think that Direktor tends to be stubborn and, having defended the Balkan articles from nationalist POVs, tends to automatically assume himself right and jump to edit wars.

Having said that, it's a terrible block. The centralized discussion was held at Talk:Serbia and Montenegro#Federal_Republic_Of_Yugoslavia and its outcome, at least temporarily, was to merge all the articles related with Serbia and Montenegro and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the main opponent, Ivan Bogdanov, being indef-blocked. Direktor merged all the articles Military of Serbia and Montenegro, Prime Minister of Serbia and Montenegro and all of that went unchallenged. Several days after the discussion ended, Jody appeared out of nowhere and dealt several WP:ARBMAC warnings around. I found it odd but ok, no big deal. Now, Direktor gets blocked out of the blue sky out for purported "edit war". No one had edited Military of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for seven (7) days, and Direktor's edit was for consistency with other articles.

If you're unable to follow what is going on on related pages, please do not involve yourself in administrative actions. I'm not a "strangle the administrator" guy, but your engagement was as graceful as a bull in a china shop. No such user (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:WildBot blocked

Resolved

 – Bot fixed, bot unblocked, bot doing bot things. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI for all... I just blocked WildBot (talk · contribs) for 24 hours as it was mistagging main space articles with CSD G7 and was not heeding [65] its on-wiki shutoff page. [66][67][68] I left a note on Josh Parris' ‎talk page. Hopefully he will notice before the 24 hours is up, can fix the problem, and an admin can unblock the bot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gogo Dodo. thanks for dealing with the bot. Looks like Josh just forgot to change the page to edit to the talk page (easy to fix) so it shouldn't take him long to fix it. Hopefully he'll be able to fix the shut down as well. I'll keep an eye on the bot's talk page. By the way, in future you can report bot problems to BON, most of us BAG members are administrators, so we can normally handle things like this (although there's less of us, so we are slightly slower to respond). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is an approved bot, why is it running without the bot flag? —Farix (t | c) 12:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help with edit warring

Need advice on an edit war that crossed my talk page. Between these two editors User talk:Athenean and User talk:Sulmues. I gave Sulmues a level 3 warning for removing other editors talk page text, because I have advised both of better means at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The dispute is over article Talk:Vjosë. I need advise or your intervention thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done everything right here. You have left personal messages (templated warnings SUCK in these sorts of situations), reminded the participants to keep a cool head, and let them know about options for resolving their dispute. I would give it a half a day or so to see if they take your advice, then check back into the situation; if the edit warring has continued, then you can report both of them to WP:ANEW to get it to stop. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your review and advice, I felt right but this is my first involvment in this type of situation, Again thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed the block at Here , after bieng involved yesturday I think it only fair that the other editor Here receive the same block. Although it seemed to me that the intent of each editor was equal, the aggression was not. "My Input" Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Also see Here for futher information Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a community ban on User:Spotfixer

Spotfixer has had an appallingly large block log, which usually consisted on personal attacks, edit warring and modifying other user's comments without permission. The block was extended to indefinite back in April 2009 for sockpuppetry, but recently, he created another group of sockpuppets, in which all of them were blocked by Hersfold. As he has evaded his block at least twice, does anyone agree with my decision to put him up on WP:LOBU? Minimac (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spotfixer/Archive, no objections. Durova⁴¹² 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason not to, I guess, is WP:DENY. If folk are happy that logging the account on that page is beneficial, or at least does no harm, then why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussions are only useful for users that are likely to ever be active editors. In other words, users who are not indefinately blocked and if they are indeffed, could be seen to return to the fold. For already indef-blocked users, they may be a useful means of instituting editing restrictions as a condition for unblocking. But for any user that is currently indeffed, and that no reasonable person would ever see into unblocking, such a discussion is unneccessary bureaucratic hoop-jumping-through-ed-ness, and as such, there is no point in having it. If he's indeffed, and he's actively socking to dodge it, he's effectively banned. --Jayron32 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quickie

Resolved

 – Fixed, see diff. below. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone remove the red linked template from the top of User:Jaranda/Wikipedia's_first_IRC_chat please? It's bugging me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with {{humor}}. [69] Ignore the edit summary fail. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we take ANI to ANI?

It's not hard to see that ANI is basically a drama festival consuming about 99% of total text. This isn't new per say, but it's been exceptional the past week or so. Anything remotely controversial or involving editors of notability for one reason or another will always get derailed and ever seeing "consensus" on something is laughable. Outside (admin) view is made nearly impossible without someone that has a spare hour to read everything up to current. Basically, ANI could use a ANI-type intervention. It's unfortunate (but understandable) that the general sanctions page is just a collection of ongoing things, so could a new incident board be possible? "Drama Forum" sounds nice, but how about "Sanctions Discussion"? Set things up such that any uninvolved admin (anyone feeling bold?) determines it refined or evolved into discussion elsewhere. Matters of misconduct on policy would stay at ANI (loosely defined as "block-possible" troubles?), but most anything else can split away I'd think. Matters of enforcing page/topic bans shouldn't be too hard to handle locally, yes?

Any other type of proposal or dispute has somewhere better to go (and should be pushed to), but sanctions? No. RfC/Us just aren't in style, I guess. Given I haven't been here terribly long I don't know the answer to this... is this level of fervent demands for topic bans or misc other sanctions been this continuous before? ...And if they were, did all such postings balloon as much? This is why a generic sanction "request" or enforcement area I'd figure would be welcomed. In theory it could save ArbCom some work since people could feel they have some other option than to leap there. *Shrugs* I hope this has made a bit of sense, at least. Obviously this just bare bones thinking. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Community sanction noticeboard, or Votes for banning as it was known, was tried before and rightly deleted. Worth a read.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI is triage, with all the messy bloodiness and quick fixes that that implies. All the other boards are where things are made better (or at least expires with as much due care as is possible). Since most hospital soap opera's are based around the Accident & Emergency and Operating Theatres, rather than the convalescent wards, it is obvious that ANI is a drama magnet - really, if an issue could be fixed in a civilised and responsible manner then it will never come near ANI. Remarkably, either because of or despite the screaming and bewailing that is endemic there, most matters do get resolved in some manner (if not the first or second time, usually by the fourth... maybe fifth or sixth) - even if it is a referral to a more appropriate venue. Once in a while, of course, the patient dies - but that doesn't mean the operation itself was not a success. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/02/14/heart-transplant-on-valentines-day-romantic-ultimately-fatal-007/ Guy (Help!) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"ANI is triage": So what does that make ArbCom? Our hospice wing? Paradoctor (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A triage unit that's continuously being smacked with every type of case imaginable is close to the hospital definition of disaster mode/state of emergency. Natural disaster, apocalypse, The Rapture, etc. When you run things up that way, the quality of all the 'staff' goes down and it drains the hell out of people. I know people adding sections get the template menu of where they should be posting and neglect it, but that's no excuse for all admins to shove off the advice. My non-admin boldness has given me a decent amount of heat trying to suggest moves in the past, so the majority of anything I post at ANI is to try to keep people on-topic and not even made it look like I have a theoretical theory on any opinion. I just... really hate seeing what should be a professional detox clinic degrade into a third-world triage unit. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, M*A*S*H was pretty good. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"the quality of all the 'staff' goes down": Down where? I mean, the "staff" is basically a bunch of homeless drifters with nothing better to do. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If ANI was cleansed of all the less savoury aspects and operated in the ideal model as suggested in the header and WP help page descriptions, then the drama/handwaving/bewailing/tantrums would find another home - or worse still, homes - and would still require attention and resolution. ANI is patrolled by admins (and other editors) who are generally inured to the corrosive atmosphere, at least for a while - burnout happens, and actually are sometimes able to effect good results; much like the hospital analogy, it is sometimes a place where some people prefer to do their bit because of the instant gratification potential... and folk like me who are drama whores, who need the rush to fill our jaded lives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I forget who it was once described wikien-l as like a sewer: a necessary conduit to remove the effluent, which therefore necessarily smells of the effluent it carries. Blocking it would have a predictable and detrimental effect since it would not actually reduce or control the production of effluent. The same applies to ANI, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll add to the prior analogy and list an alternate to the editor cool enough to use kawaii-style emoticons on Wikipedia-- If ANI is triage, then ArbCom (in the US at least) would be FEMA. That itself is a scary thought. That's not a jab at ArbCom, just kind of a talking point to show how silly this all can get... your street has a pothole and you jump to the top (FEMARbCom) for a fix. I know drama is a permanent feature. The internet, in fact, runs on drama and has resulted in exponentially faster connection speeds as social networking and open-source continue to grow. But would it not be better if it went away from ANI? ...off Wikipedia? There's no shortage of forums or chats or blogs where the stabbings are frequent. Ironically, a lot out there is directly related to things on Wikipedia, from what I've ever read at WR. They even use diffs. It's just, "often uncivil"?. Such places (sadly) need to exist. Outlets are good! How on earth are we supposed to ever see the drama knob turned down when we state in writing that we don't do anything relating to cool-offs? A drama quota! If exceeded, WP at random picks users of 1yr+ and bans them, then blocks an equal number of new editors for no reason... demoralizing all. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Gadget proposals

Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals has been pretty much abandoned by admins. I posted a proposal a month ago, and it wasn't answered until I notified at WP:VPR. I'm asking for some admins to watch the page and also see the unresolved proposals there. Thanks. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 13:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Living person task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.

I hope to see you there.

Yours sincerely, NW (Talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist

My watchlist is pretty boring. What are some interesting things I can add to it? Interesting things, mind you, not dramatic things. harej 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this should be here, but I recently added some of the reference desks to mine which are very interesting--Jac16888^Talk 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Intentionally blank page Paradoctor (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Find the unprotected articles that use images from MediaWiki:Bad image list. Alternatively, I imagine watchlisting DYKs could be interesting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

When I felt that way, I picked several random high traffic articles in areas that I was interested in but haven't edited much. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry

• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)
• Per WP:RESTRICT entry; "...is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians."

A two-part question; does the "US politics or politicians" restriction apply to articles involving the First Lady, Michelle Obama, and does this restriction extend to XfD disussions? Grundle2600 has, IMO unwisely, opened an old can of worms by bringing WP:DRV#Michelle Obama's arms to DRV. This article, deleted almost a year ago, was one of the larger nails in the coffin that led to Grundle's original Obama-related topic ban, since extended as noted above. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Tarc is still making scurrilous attacks. It's unfortunate that Arbcom didn't do more to squash his beligerent and destructive behavior when they had the chance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Part 1 of your question seems easy: an article involving the First Lady is clearly related to "US politics or politicians". Part 2 is a bit murkier, since WP:DRV isn't inherently a page about such topics. Since just making the request isn't disruptive and he hasn't edited on the DRV request since making it almost two days ago, I'd be inclined to leave it be. --RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a mostly friendly relationship with Grundle, and have scolded him about this on his talk page. No harm, no foul, de minimus non curat wikipediex. PhGustaf (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has initiated a deletion review of an article that is IMO within the topic ban, on an article that he created, and the subsequent mess that ensued from said creation led to the topic ban before us now. Let's not be so quick to write this off as an innocent act, just because Grundle is nicer than others, i.e. ChildofMidnight, about the POV-pushing. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, PhGustaf -- what's the purpose of imposing a community editing ban if it's not going to be enforced? RESTRICT states "any pages", not "any articles", so this is definitely covered. The most recent block was 48 hours, so I'd say this calls for an escalation to 1 week. I'm not imposing it myself because I have some history with Grundle: I'd prefer someone less involved to impose the actual block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree strongly with either Tarc or SoV. But see how he responds to my rather strong[70] scolding first. Annoying though he be, he hasn't posted many unkind words. PhGustaf (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week, for a clear and recurrent violation of his topic ban. The inability to stop beating this particular dead horse and the failure to get the point are aggravating factors. I will leave the DRV to run its course. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm waiting with bated breath to see who will unblock him and start the drama fest. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Closer needed for the BLP RfC

Hi again. The BLP RfC is in need of an uninvolved closer. A close was made earlier, but reverted procedurally by Coffee due to concerns about the closer not being uninvolved. So if there is a living, breathing admin who hasn't commented in the BLP RfC, your help would be greatly appreciated.

For reference, this RfC follows on the heels of Phase I of the BLP RfC, which was closed by User:Risker. It hasn't really been the model of how to run an RfC (and probably inspired the current RfC on RfC's), but extracting some form of consensus should (at least in my opinion) be possible. Thanks in advance, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've handled this request. Hopefully we won't have to fight too much about how the RfC should be closed and can progress to acting upon what it revealed as constructively as we can.--Father Goose (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old is stuck

Resolved

Thanks to whomever; it's now populated. Jack Merridew 05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old

Currently appears empty, but it shouldn't be (and yes, I tried purging and the null edit on the template trick mentioned there). I know that there are images ripe for rev-deletion; these, a b c d e, for example, and there must be a bunch more. Anyone know what's going on? Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what happened, but this happened at the beginning of the year as well; I ended up going through Category:Rescaled fairuse images and deleting a large number of images that should have been in the 7-days-old category but weren't. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Messed up move

I meant to move Hastings College, Sussex to Sussex Coast College Hastings. Instead I moved the talk page. Could you help me undo this and perform the actual move? The college has a new name, as its website will confirm (linked in the article). Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)