Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes

Template:Formerly

Further information: [[:User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots|User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks § Reflinks conflict of interest with other bots]], [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639#Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot]], [[:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Filling recent changes with pointless changes|Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard § Filling recent changes with pointless changes]], and [[:Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?|Wikipedia talk:Citation templates § Template caps: "Cite" or "cite"?]]

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Recently, the AWB bot has been making totally unnecessary capitalization changes. These were being "discussed" on Rich Farmbrough's page, here and here. He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back. When brought up again, his response was to blank (archive) the page. Therefore, I request immediate halt to this use of this bot until this issue is addressed. Q Science (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as == spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xeno^talk 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would there be any objection if a regular editor simply hit the big red button on SmackBot's user page until an admin deals with the matter? Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Rf is blockable about this, but we can stop the bot if we feel there is a problem. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × >9000)  Done... about a minute after you did. Never mind. I left an informative message about this thread though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I've blocked him until this can be resolved. This is clearly causing disruption. In addition to this, it has tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. According to the bot policy, automated bots cannot be run on main accounts unless approved by BAG (and AFAIK, this is not). (X! · talk)  · @926  ·  21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Done[1]. Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard, it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with a user undertaking blanking and implementing 1h[2] (one hour) auto-archiving on the talk page designated as the point-of-contact for the bot. There were multiple threads open on the User_talk page on the topic at the time of blanking. —Sladen (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. Suggest he simply be banned from running a bot or engaging in any automated edits, or edits that seem to be automated, for one year. At the end of that year, if he has demonstrated that he will actually discuss his edits and not summarily blank discussions, he may apply at BAG to have his bot reinstated. → ROUX ₪ 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Good, I warned him like 4-5 times about changing {cite foo} to {Cite foo} in the last two days, and he was still making them. In general, it would probably be a good idea to force him to do these AWB runs on a BAG-approved bot rather than on his main account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user's talk

Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. I have revised the ruleset on Cite templates, as I said. When people start destroying the structure of the talk page the choice is to revert or archive. I had 35 threads, all pretty much dead, it seems reasonable to archive them - all accessible and new messages can still be left. I have no revised the rulset further and removed the Cite templates completely, restoring the status quo ante. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I advised him that he really shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. –xeno^talk 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of doing that anyway? Does it help the server or something? Wknight94 ^talk 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I think Rich's belief is that it somehow helps new users identify templates and improves readability [3]. My belief is that it just bloats the diff and makes it hard to see what the actual meat of the edit was, while imposing a personal preference that does not seem to be shared by the majority of editors. –xeno^talk 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is purely Rich's preference on the aesthetics of the templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had noticed this being done before, and found it mildly annoying that my templates were being capitalised for no apparent reason, especially as personally I think {{cite news|...}} looks better than when it's capitalised anyway. I figured this had basis in policy somewhere so I didn't protest; the edit summary including a "build number" and being performed by a bot suggested that it had been community-approved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, capitalization of templates hasn't been specifically approved. –xeno^talk 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't appreciate that it is only one user's preference, plus the fact I don't really see any gain from doing this. Truthfully, I am surprised that Rich has been so unresponsive in this matter. He has been helpful in the past, performing Admin duties in a clear and objective manner. So what about this appearance of being community approved? Since it was not community approved, perhaps that was not intentional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the edits are uncontroversial there should be no difficulty in forming a Wikipedia-wide consensus, producing a policy, and then specifically authorising a bot to undertake the work. Wikipedia has processes for doing all of these. The large number of threads on just this one topic recently shows that it is controversial and therefore not something that is appropriate automated deployment (whether bot, or automated "manual" edits). —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• The ownership displayed in operating bots against consensus and removing avenues for discussion is deeply concerning conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We're not really that short of avenues for discussion. This has been on two noticeboards and one project space talk page, so far. See above. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It isn't that we're short of venues; it is that the user is deliberately closing off the natural venue while making (to me) extremely controversial edits without consensus. I was noting that this is clearly a conduct issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• My stalker of these many moons is currently turned off? I'd better sneak some writing in. ☺ In the meantime, I hope that everyone commenting on this is aware of all of the prior discussion, (now) linked to at the top of this section. Uncle G (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• A bot being misused is as bad as at least ten regular vandals. Please don't tolerate such things. In case of repeated issues, impose a total automation ban (like Betacommand had back in the day) and/or an edit speed limit of 20 edits per hour or thereabouts, and generally urge the editor away from any repetitive editing of any type. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have two questions:

• What happened with the SmackBot/Citation Bot conflict. Did Citation Bot switched to the capitilised Cite web or not?
• Does anyone know how many of the 200k Cite web templates are capitilised and how many aren't?

-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• In order:
  1. Rich Farmbrough told Dispenser that Dispenser should fix Reflinks to conform to SmackBot. See the discussion on Dispenser's talk page linked-to at the top of this section.
  2. Possibly. It's possible to find out, but expensive in terms of traffic for mere mortals without toolserver access.
• Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My stalker is back

SmackBot is running again, it seems. I didn't manage to sneak in any writing, alas. ☺ Interestingly, as can be seen from this edit where {{silicate-mineral-stub}} was changed to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, it is still capitalizing the names of all templates. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is Farmbrough blocked but this bot isn't? Shouldn't it be the other way around if the bot edits are the ones people dislike? Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked for running bot tasks on his main account; the bot itself hasn't been doing much wrong right now (though it does seem to be used for non-bot edits). Ucucha 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Angusmclellan just blocked SmackBot. Ucucha 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G's diff is from today and includes the sort of pointless case change complained of. Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour, there seems to be no reason to leave the bot running and add to the comedy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot is not following its own documented stop process, and I have just drawn Rich's addition to this.[4]. The instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits[5][6] including the these capitalisation changes under discussion[7]. A bot making edits while apparently stopped is a fairly serious bug as there is then no reliable way to stop the bot without resorting to an administrative block (as has had had to be performed here). —Sladen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless Rich has reprogrammed AWB, editing the bot's talk page will stop the bot until the orange bar is cleared and it is restarted by the operator. I would guess this is what happened. –xeno^talk 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Same question as above but for Femto Bot (talk · contribs). Wknight94 ^talk 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, it seems this bot does not have approval. (See also). –xeno^talk 17:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked for now. Not sure if it's worth blocking the rest, I'll have a look through to see if they are editing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • None of the other bots are active. So lack of approval won't be concern. As for Rich having access to unblocked account, I don't think that should be a concern here. IF he does start editing with one of them it's not going to do him much good, so not worth blocking the others, imo - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It probably wasn't worth blocking even that one, to be honest. Part of the complaint here is that 'bot-like edits are being done through the main administrator-privilege account. The irony of blocking Femto Bot is that it was making edits that had heretofore been made through the Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) account, apparently entirely uncontroversially, since at least May 2010 (list). It was a 'bot intended to do exactly what people have been asking for.

      I think that we're starting to lose sight of the goal here, as this snowballs into desysopping discussions and the like. The goal is not to stop Rich Farmbrough at every turn. It's to get xem to get SmackBot and other people's 'bots onto the same page when it comes to changing/retaining capitalizations. Uncle G (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason to block any bot account that does good edits and have approval of the community. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see where it has approval? If Rich wants to move some approved tasks from SmackBot to Femto Bot, the appropriate course of action is to ask for a bot flag for the cloned bot at WP:BN. –xeno^talk 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's moving some regular monthly gnomish and robotic tasks from the administrator-privilege account, where they've been performed for months, to an unprivileged account. This is part of what you want, surely? Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, it is ideal for the bot task to moved to a proper bot account, but it needs to be flagged and approved per the WP:BOTPOL. As I said, if the task is already approved (I'm not sure if it is, there are so many SmackBot BRFAs), R.F. can skip directly to BN to just ask for a flag as was done here. –xeno^talk 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I was referring to the idea to block all Rich's accounts. For instance, Mirror Bot mustn't be blocked. Moreover, since edits that don't have consensus stopped I don't see any reason to keep the block and prevent Rich from doing other tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I only pointed to the page listing the other bots, I didn't suggest they all need to be blocked. –xeno^talk 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Desysop?

Seems a bit silly to have an administrator in an indefinite block. If he can't be trusted to edit at all, why would he be trusted to be an admin? If he isn't going to respond to the concerns or even respond to having been blocked, it seems the desysop process needs to begin before long. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well (1) I don't believe that desysopping is within the scope of ANI (RFC / ARBCOM) and (2) as you know, indef doesn't mean infinite. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone is concerned about his administrative actions at this point, merely his bot-like edits. –xeno^talk 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto. No doubt he is distracted by something in RL and will take care of this in due course. Or he may be adjusting the programming as we speak. Once he solves the problem and implements it, there is no particular reason to keep him blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• This seems to be a bit overboard. The desired result is for Rich Farmbrough, Dispenser, and others ‎to get their tools singing from the same hymnal — no blocks, no desysoppings, no fuss, no acrimony. I made the point a week and a bit ago that this sort of thing is usually sorted out informally amongst 'bot owners. That's been my experience, as a 'bot owner. I'm rather saddened to see my argument undermined by the fact that this time, it as yet hasn't been. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. Had an ordeal with it in Jan 2009 when it was inserting {{Ibid}} into 1000s of articles, which I was forced to revert with mere rollback. Stunningly, in one planned action the user behind it used rollback to revert these reverts and then Smackbot to reverse himself.One Example In general there are too many princessy bot operators who cannot be trusted with their tools. I'm sick and tired of dealing with the problems they cause, though of course bots in general are a net plus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I ask is the absurdity of having an admin indefblocked. If he's such a menace that he can't edit, surely he can't be an admin. Otherwise, if we're just waiting for him to return from RL distractions, then unblock him. Shouldn't have one without the other. Wknight94 ^talk 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would guess the block was placed as a form of 'wake up call'. If R.F. were not an admin, his AWB access could simply be revoked (admins have implicit access). –xeno^talk 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues on without resolving/discussing, then nothing happens. If he unblocks himself and continues on without resolving/discussing then you have cause to ask arbcom for an emergency desysop. (This is about any blocked admin in general, not a judgement on the specific admin involved).--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you unblock him and he continues, then he gets re-blocked. If an editor can't reliably keep himself in an unblocked status, they often get banned. They sure as hell shouldn't be an admin! Wknight94 ^talk 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what should be, it's about what is. There's no desysop process outside of arbcom. If he needs desysoping you there either needs to be a case filed or he would have to cross one of those bright lines that would pass arbcoms emergency desysop test. Such as unblocking himself.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm testing the waters for the viability of an ArbCom case. If no one is prepared to take that step, then he should be unblocked. I don't know Farmbrough and I don't care, but you simply can't have an indefblocked admin. Unblock or proceed to step 1 of desysopping. Wknight94 ^talk 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Indefinite is typically chosen when a time-limited block would not necessarily have the desired effect. In this case, the user is indef blocked pending a certain outcome (a commitment to cease making edits of the disputed nature until consensus and BAG approval is attained for the same - see comments from blocking administrator). The commitment has not yet been made, so the user remains blocked. The fact that they hold administrative rights is entirely peripheral. –xeno^talk 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're okay with leaving someone blocked forever - assuming they never meet your requirements for unblocking - even though they have a sysop bit? Wknight94 ^talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've posited a hypothetical situation that I doubt will come to pass in the present case (I expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them), but yes - if a user is indefinitely blocked because of their doing X and they refuse to agree to stop doing X, then they will remain blocked indefinitely (+sysop notwithstanding). If this were the case, one would have a case to ask the committee to consider removing the bit, but it's premature at this point. –xeno^talk 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you - the blocking admin - "expect Rich will agree to eliminate the disputed changes from his AWB matrix until consensus and BAG approval are obtained for them", then you need to unblock him. Wknight94 ^talk 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

X! (talk · contribs) was the blocking admin. –xeno^talk 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Eck, y'all and your X names.... Still, if the consensus here is that Farmbrough will break out of this odd trance, then he needs to be unblocked. Like now. For all we know, he is waiting to be unblocked before he'll even discuss. I don't see any comments from him about RL distractions. (Or are they offline?) Wknight94 ^talk 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think the user should be unblocked you could ping X! (talk · contribs) for his thoughts. I agree that it may be ideal to have the user conditionally unblocked (conditional upon them not resuming their AWB tasks until the matter is finalized) so they can participate here directly, rather than by proxy. –xeno^talk 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If my reading of the consensus is correct, it would be useful to unblock Rich and allow useful, administrator activity to proceed on the condition that Rich agrees to abide by BAG (that means no automated edits, no AWB, no Smackbot, no Army/*bot). For those worried that unblocking might be premature, perhaps we can agree (and document) that Rich would be blocked again immediately if any automated edits are made. That would allow discussion to continue, and for Rich to apply for suitable bot permission. If WP:BAG is being followed (in spirit and letter) then there is no longer a problem. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be reiterated in the process of unblocking that bot-like activity is not allowed from main accounts and the same for bot accounts that do not have up-to-date approval. The suggestion of <20 edits/hour may be a way to enforce this (although it is a technical solution to a social problem); without automation, the 10 edits per minute speed that I have clocked Rich at previously is unlikely to be attainable.

Above all, demanding punishment is the wrong direction: all that is being requested is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies. —Sladen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

resp to Wknight94 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) post - as far as I am aware, RF is still able to perform sysop functions (such as, but hopefully not, unblocking himself) but as blocked cannot post on any page other than his talkpage to say what he has done. RF can block, move over redirect, protect, and have access to The Chocolate Biscuit Jar, etc, as any other admin. It is his editing privileges only that are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As Deacon knows perfectly well "Rollback" is a blunt instrument, which he was using against policy. Specifically it reverts all consecutive changes by that user. Moreover he simply mass rollbacked a bunch of articles without differentiating by edit summary. Had Deacon used "undo" - even blanket undo it would not have been a problem. As it was he created a situation where potentially very old, very complex, fixes for which the code no longer exists (because they were one-offs - eg importing population figures, or correcting RamBot grammar problems) could have been undone. Since any edit, however trivial, would now prevent the recovery of this information without manual analysis of every single history of however many articles it was, I speedily reverted the hasty patch wherever possible, picked out those articles that could not be fixed for manual analysis, and removed the "ibid" tag, that he found so offensive, cleanly, without damaging the articles in any other way. As I recall I spent a considerable time undoing his mess, whereas if he had simply let me sort it out it would have been minutes. Nice to see that he bears a grudge about it though. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

So if you mess up c. 1000 articles with your bot and you refuse to reverse your actions, anyone seeking to revert you is supposed to use undo? And you expect people to care about your time being spent? As you should remember, I informed you that I was using rollback and explained, which is enough to comply with rollback policy (not that anyone cares about that these days). If you did it now I would just block you, but I was trying to mencourage you to co-operate of your own free will. At this rate, you are unlikely to retain both your bot and admin access, but if you started being responsive and respecting bot policy and stopped arguing with everyone giving you feedback, you might have a chance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My response at the time:

Please note that Deacon rollbacked these edits without discussing with me. It is not an issue that he has reverted several hundred recent edits that are not those he is targeting (although they have a different edit summary) - recent stuff can by and large be redone - the problem with rollback is it undoes all the consecutive edits by that user to the article. So for example, edits the bot made in 2006, using code which will no longer run could be reverted. Adn there is no way to know which articles this applies to. Had deacon come to my talk page as clearly requested on the bot's talk page and discussed the matter there, we could have avoided a lot of work for both of us. I have rollbacked as much of Deacons rollbacks as I can, and am re-applying the removal of the template he finds so disquieting. I will be left with probably several hundred articles to go and check the history of manually. Deacon, you really needed to talk to me about this, rather than just apply rollback which is for anti-vandalism purposes only. Rich Farmbrough, 17:43 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I did not mention that you were rollbacking at 60 edits per minute. Hardly "mere rollback". Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

The 'mere rollback' was in reference to its power vis-a-vis bots. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The way you were using it was more powerful than bots, and considerably more of a blunt instrument. And curiosity prompted me to check - in addition to the several hundred unaffected articles which you rolled back, you caused (unintended) damage to another 146, destroying edits going back to April 2007. It's no big deal but nor does it seem to me a shining example. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich, you are only further illustrating your tendency to avoid taking responsibiity for your own actions while arguing childishly with those trying to give you feedback. Believe it or not, this continued protesting only harms you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback or rollback? You had a problem with my actions, your response was to violate policy in two different ways and break hundreds of articles. And to report me to ANI. I fixed up all the articles you broke, undid the actions you had objected to responded to your comments, asked you to talk to me about any future problems, and considered the matter closed. 18 months later you bring it up again and call me childish? So who is being responsible for their actions? The editor that takes action to resolve them, and invites discussion, or the one that gets out his admin-tools, and creates havoc? Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

The two complaints you are playing up are 1) rollback was used to revert bot disruption and 2) when your edits were reverted, good edits were reverted at the same time.

1) See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; as was explained to you, this was necessary and complied with policy . 2) If you included good edits with bad edits in a bot run, then that's your mess, not the person reverting you; then as now, if you want your good edits to stick, don't package controversial ones along with it. Not everyone has a bot, and they aren't expected to spend days and days cleaning up the mess of bots when it can be done much faster.

These are poor and unpersuasive ways of deflecting blame. What's childish is not that your disruptive bot runs get remembered, but that you constantly argue with people trying to help you and constantly try to evade responsibility. Because you are very bad at doing this, all people perceive is immaturity and inconsiderate brat-ness ... the community expects people with active bots to be mature, to take responsibility and to deal with people with care. If you look like you have a princess complex, you are unsuitable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My view

There seems to be a history of poor botop practices on RF's part here. This is not a new problem. This is a problem that has been going on for years. Bot operators are expacted to respond to concerns about their bots, and instead, he has reverted them as "vandalism". This is not appropriate conduct for a bot operator. What more, one should know that running one on your main account is prohibited, and that is also not a new problem. Even if the problems that led to the block are resolved, I would like to see some sort of action taken as a result of this. If nothing happens, this is just bound to happen again. It should go without saying that all of his fully-automated tasks are operated from his bot account and approved by BAG, for each and every task. If he refuses to comply, I think a reblock may be needed. I am reminded of Lightmouse in this situation: good intent, poor execution. (X! · talk)  · @728  ·  16:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed not, as I commented above, a new issue. RF should be banned from bot or bot-like edits, period. Same as Betacommand was. → ROUX ₪ 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding my view, and a new note too: RF does not do sandboxing. Every experiment is in main space and real time. "One more 30 trials by BAG for BRFA please" - go ahead. "Oops, I the bot something botched it". I don't get why this admin-bot-loner is cared for in our community this way. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor technical question

re bot and {{DEFAULTSORT}}

Smackbot was doing what I thought were strange things to DEFAULTSORT for cats eg [8]. ie ÖBB Class 2070 became sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Obb Class 2070}} Which was fairly counterintuitive. (yes I know what Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys says but if the bot had made no edits the page titles caused perfect categorisation anyway, whereas incomplete bot activity made a mess.) Whilst I had no real objection to what it was doing in principle the effect was usually to totally mess up alphabeticalisation of categories requiring remedial manual editing work . Can I assume that no more edits like this will ever be made and I can ignore what the bot was programmed to do - and consquently stop having to make edits that fix problems inherited?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) This was a very good edit. Pagename has special characters and DEFAULTSORT needed to be added. Check also WP:CHECKWIKI that detects pages with special characters with no DEFAULTSORT. Let's stick to the initial subject of this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry to digress. A good edit, but not in isolation , see Category:ÖBB - the rest were untouched. Can someone point a still functioning bot at the rest. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Since we're on this digression: Why do you want all of the articles in that category under the same letter anyway? Surely it's better to sort by the number in that category, so that the 2070 is under "2", the 770 is under "7", and so forth? Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Ah ok. Yobot can do the rest as part of WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes and then decide how to handle the categorisation in the specific category. DEFAULTSORT is global. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC) respond to UncleG - yes probably, I didn't create the articles, and a standard for categorisating these things doesn't seem to exist, but is needed. Otherwise I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia#Yobot about the issue, for those who wish to discuss or solve this tangential problem.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Btw, I finished the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I've already brought this up with RF. I consider it intentional disruption. He make tiny meaningless changes throughout articles that break diffs and then changes them to something else the next day. He basically told me too bad. Changing the names of reflinks is one of his favorites. -Selket Talk 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Bah, editing too late at night. This was in the entirely wrong section and I was talking about a different editor. Please disregard. --Selket Talk 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that, anything like this can be brought up with me an quickly fixed. As for sorting under 2070 for that category probably a very good idea - the only caveat is that with large categories we should avoid sorts that diverge from the leading characters - i.e. fine to sort Henry IV as Henry 04 - because he will be where we would look for him, but not fine to sort him under "Anjou and Castille" - to give a flawed and improbable example. Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Unblocking?

Rich wrote somewhere (I can't be bothered to find right now, I am busy in real life too) that he removed the cite -> Cite from SmackBot's code. Should we move on, unblock, let SmackBot keep doing its main tasks and re-report of there are still complains? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Check User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Is_it_not_possible.... Rich removed the cite -> Cite and the spacing around heading from his fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There's still a problem with other templates, like the stub one. Also, Rich was also blocked for running unauthorised bots on his main account, I'm yet to see any suggestion that this is going to stop, and it's an on-going issues, which he's messed up repeatedly. I think editing the main page like that (arguably making this an unapproved admin-bot) can not be ignored. Personally, I think that an edit limit of ~20 edits/hour, along with a(nother) stern warning that all automated tasks must be approved by BAG, would be a good way to go here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am opposed to unblocking him yet, per "My View" section above. (X! · talk)  · @491  ·  10:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So what would satisfy your concerns? Let's come up with something concrete and actionable. Here's a starter that you can boldly modify: Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • for context, "here" is referring to this section. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I would only support this is it was made explicitly clear that all automated bot-like tasks be approved by BAG. (X! · talk)  · @553  ·  12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Be bolder with the section! ☺ It's there to be edited. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think unblocking is the way to go until/unless he agrees to some kind of restriction on automated edits. StrPby (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree. This response goes some way to addressing concerns but it does not go far enough. I have suggested an alternative, simpler, set of possible conditions below. I would like to try to minimise any chance of this problem reoccuring before unblocking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich should be unblocked at least to comment in this discussion. I bet nobody believes that Wikipedia is at danger if we unblock him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others

1. No more changing the cases of the initial letters of any templates. No more changing {{for}} to {{For}}, or changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}, or changing {{coord missing}} to {{Coord missing}}, or anything else.
2. No automated editing at all from main account. Specifically:

1. All 'bot-like tasks, like this one, no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts like Femto Bot (talk · contribs), and approved via Bots/Requests for approval.

2. Use of a dedicated non-administrator account, in accordance with AutoWikiBrowser rule of use #2, if editing at speeds like 10 edits per minute with AutoWikiBrowser.

3. Clear linkages be provided on the bot pages to the appropriate approvals through Bots/Requests for approval.

4. No altering a bots function outside of the linked approvals without approval of the change.

5. Scope and function(s) of the bot explicitly stated both in the application for approval and on the bot page.

3. A message to any bot's talk page stops the bot;

3.1 the task is not restarted until the issue is resolved.

4. No unblocking one's own bots.

--(end of list)--

Small-ish suggestion re point 2:

Merged with above.

Looking at the preceeding discussion, it should be crystal clear regarding he be fully transparent and accountable in his use of bots.

- J Greb (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I support the modified conditions now that the BAG approval is added. (X! · talk)  · @914  ·  20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have to say, one of the things which I personally find wanting is Rich's attitude. He seems very reluctant to ever admit that he's actually done anything wrong (even after slapping a maintenance template on the main page..), for example, his first unblock request showed a clear lack of remorse, and his comments on his talk page display that he doesn't really seem to appreciate what he was actually blocked for, let alone be prepared to admit that he shouldn't have done the various things which lead up to the block. However, I do agree with the conditions above. Although I'm not completely convinced they would be enough, they're all basically already in policy, so Rich should be doing most of these already.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and guess that User:Sladen would too, judging from RF's talk page. It's not really a complaint but I think RF's 'man on a mission, the only one who can possibly solve wikipedia's problems' attitude is starting to look a bit silly. I thought the unblocking was so that he could respond here, not so he could carry on with what he was doing before. Is this guy actually listening to anyone? Can someone suggest he post a short note to us mortals here on his own wp:ani section. Please :) Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1 is redundant to 2.4

2 has nothing to do with some of its sub-conditions

2.1 goes off at a tangent

2.2 is good

2.3 is good

2.4 is good

2.5 is good

3 Is unreasonably onerous. AWB tasks will be stopped by a talk page message. Other tasks you will have to find an admin to block if I am not around - although I am likely to be for non-AWB content tasks.

3.1 Again unreasonable. This gives the other party veto - on Wikipedia you will find someone to oppose the tiniest changes. I will discuss, as I have with everyone (except with one editor who has been gentleman enough not to bring it up - for which my apologies), but we are talking about approved tasks here. Ninety nine times out of a hundred problems are sorted out on talk pages, but it is not reasonable to expect every one to be. A Bag member can be called if the other party thinks there is clearly a problem that a botop is refusing to acknowledge, and they have the power (or so the template documetnatin says - and templates documentation, I am informed, is the ultimate authority on Wikpedia (yes-joke)) to revoke BRFAs. There are 17 "Active" Baggers and 24 "Inactive". Or you can find an admin to block the bot (pretty easy - changing one letter got SmackBot blocked) or maybe even a 'crat who will do it on the basis of two duff diffs? (Yes another joke, but also true.)

4. Seems reasonable, given my arguments at 3.1. As long as I am allowed to remove CBM's blocks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally I would expect those admins that zoomed to stop/block my bots to have taken the trouble to leave me a note to that effect, especially as this ANI is supposedly about communication? Well maybe they had collective amnesia, but five admins all failed to leave me a note, including the one who left a stinky edit summary in his block. Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

• I (no admin) support. RF's reply here into 3: RF is opposing "no resuming the bot while unresolved", and that says it: "unreasonably onerous": well, RF, this is what this community is about. If you can't stand -let alone cope with- a stopped bot, then you're in the wrong place or in the wrong attitude. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: as for not being able to restart the bot until it's resolved, I'm not sure I see the problem; "resolved" is a fairly flexible term: I would consider it resolved if a) the user didn't give a reason or gave an uncontroversially frivolous reason (or indeed, were "just playing it safe" and it suggests to do on User:Smackbot's page), b) the user agrees that it is resolved, or c) the community determines that the issue is resolved or the bot should be resumed. As for the redundancy between points 1 and 2.1: it's redundant, so it's a moot point: redundancy isn't always a bad thing, and in this case it serves to make it double clear what the proposed constraints will allow or disallow. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed[9] to both participate in discussion here, and to cease doing the disruptive and unresponsive editing that got him blocked in the first place. So I've unblocked him. Wknight94 ^talk 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. - it's hard to know where to start with this one. It is more about human nature than anything else - and text communication. So lets start with Wknight94's message above.

"Rich Farmbrough has finally agreed both participate in discussion here... "

OK so this is minor, maybe, and in good faith, but the implication is that I was reluctant to join the discussion. Obviously that is the impression Wknight94 picked up, probably from something said on my talk page by my unblock request. However I was in the middle of typing a comment here when I was blocked.

• 21:01 notification of ANI
• 21:03 - 21:06 started reply
• 21:09 - blocked.

As my comment (later forwarded by Xeno, for which thanks) said "Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. "

-so I wasn't exactly reluctant to "cease doing" .. "that [which] got him blocked in the first place".

Further "disruptive and unresponsive editing" is rather jumping to conclusions, based on what others were saying.

More later as I am being pinged on my talk page (about responding here I think). Rich Farmbrough, 07:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

OK. I'm going to keep this short: I could write a book, but it would be TLDR - I hope the following is both informative and reassuring.

What happened? SB dates maintenance tags as it's most intensive task. It also does various minor cleanup as it goes - as people have said pretty unexceptional.

One of the features of templates - indeed all wikilinks - is that they are not simply literals but a minor grammar in their own right for example:

____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Template____ __ _ __ :____ __ _ __ Citations____ __ _ __ needed____ __ _ __ is a perfectly good link to {{Citations needed}}. Particularly when SB's regexes were hand crafted for each template (back then merely 1000 , now well over 2000 counting redirects) dealing with this complexity meant canonicalisation of template names was the only way to go. (I thought dating a few templates was going to be trivial when I started.) Therefore standard functionality is to replace the clean up template names with a clean version, following redirects. This also has the benefit that the number of different possible clean up templates left after a run is 569 (!) rather than four or five times that number. It also means that the template is capitalised - an "arbitrary but intelligent" decision I made - yes I know algol coders, C coders, perl hackers just love lower case - and I have been all of those things - but for someone who has never coded it seems to me that the capital says "Here is a new thing starting that is somewhat like a sentence." - and it is not a great leap from {{Citation needed|reason=this seems unlikely|date=July 2009}} to "Citation needed, because this seems unlikely, request added July 2009" (Incidentally anyone looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Citation_needed&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 right now will see six articles that appear to redirect to Citation needed - these are almost certainly articles that have had the redirect placed at the top and the article text left in place - normally I would go and fix them, but I am being "chided" for not writing here as a priority.) Having canonicalised the templates - which - only takes (569 + a few) rules, dating them is simple - provided that they haven't already been dated, don't have an invalid date don't have "date" mis-spelled (SB will pick up "fate" but not "jate" - that is left for some poor human drudge to do - as being a very unlikely mispelling SB is pretty conservative to avoid errors, similarly it will pick up "date=Spetember" and correct it to September but "date= Josh is ghey" will simply get over-written with the current month and year) - so another 569 rules for the basic dating and a few hundred to deal with specials like "As of". Anyway some of the minor cleanups SB picked up were related to templates in wide use that either had oodles of redirects or were moved. Again pretty unexceptional. Foolishly on 6th Spetember (or September if you prefer) I added the Cite templates to this list - this was foolish because cites are an area where "angels fear to tread" much like dates and MoS - I have been foolish enough to contribute to MoS too. Having said that it was foolish, it wasn't mind-numbingly stupid, despite what others may think, I had been pleasantly surprised not to receive negative feedback on other changes, and there are a surprising number of redirects to , for example {{Cite web}} - 21 in fact. That's 21 templates - not 21 pages, the number of pages is 12,118 and the number of actual uses will be higher still. Moreover I knew that removing those four templates would be fairly trivial. So what was the response? Were seven different kinda of hell unleashed upon my talk page? Find out in the next thrilling episode. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I get the impression that you think the only reason you were blocked, or that people are concerned, is this recent problem with SmackBot's capitalisation, which I see this more as being the last straw. I think the underlying problems are: You ignoring bot policy, by running unapproved bots; running bots on your own account; not responding to concerns, which you are also expected to do as an administrator, but instead you blank messages, ignore concerns, claim to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired), you even seem to play word games. These are the problems which need to be addressed, since they are what lead to problems such as the template capitalisation. It's no good just dealing with the result of these problems, as we know (from prior experience with you in regard to bots) that all that happens is problems arise again. This isn't a one-off mistake. That said... Looking at what you say above, it mostly seems to be explaining how the task works, that's nice, but really the question is can you prevent SmackBot from changing the capitalisation of all templates (not just the cite templates or whatever). You could maybe even use a regex find/replace after the other changes are made to effectively "revert" any capitalisation changes made (but before actually saving to the wiki)? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of explaining how the task works - which is pretty deadly dull - is to lay the ground work. Understand, for example, that powerful though AWB is, it is an application, not a programmers framework like Pywikipedia. SmackBot's rulebase runs to 750k+ of XML - let me find out how many regexes that is - 5067 rules plus some "advanced" rules. The suggestion you make above might be workable - while I try to keep the rules as simple as possible, there may be an elegant solution, but on the face of it I would have to pull apart the redirect consolidation rules and have a separate one for "Sentence case" and "lower case", and the same would apply to any specific rule - since there are about 2500 redirects and some hundreds of other rules this would mean a massive increase in the rulebase (possibly more than doubling it). I outlined what is easy and what is hard to change, on my talk page, along with the benefits. And I really don't hear a clamour for {{infobox... There are two reasons I find commenting here tiring: one is the fact that every word is hostage to fortune - as shown in your comment. And indeed every edit or lack of an edit: - I don't know whether its funny or sad to have people counting my edits between being unblocked and starting to comment here. The suggestion that it would have been better for the project to leave redlinked categories on a hundreds articles than to keep the ravening hordes of ANI waiting - especially when commenting on the volume of text here, let alone the 50k or so on my talk page was likely, and still is likely, to take some time, may have some merit, but I can't see it. More later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

This reads a bit like "Smackbot is too big to be maintainable". If that's the case, break Smackbot up into small pieces running on separate bots that are individually auditable. If the answer is that individual smaller tasks would mean loosing the opportunity to discreetly make whitespace/capitalisation changes otherwise deemed without merit, then that's actually a positive; the minor changes brought your activities to a head—as Kingpin mentions (and I'll reiterate for the explicit avoidance of doubt) there is a wider general problem; which is one of interaction (acting on feedback, not disputing/arguing it; and participating in discussion to a closure). —Sladen (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but here (and on my talk page) you are plain wrong about software maintainablity.

• (Citation[ _]+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference[ _]+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source[ _]+Style|Sourced[ _]+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup)

is longer than your proposed

• (clean(up)?-?(ref(erences|s)|citation)||(cit(ation|e)|ref(erence)?|source?)-?([Ss]tyle|clean(up)?)|sourced[ _]+wrong)

But it is also more maintainable and more readable

Your version

1. Has errors of coding
2. Has errors of design
3. Is hard to add to
4. Is hard to remove items from
5. Has no discernible performance benefits, and maybe performance costs (although I do agree that this is "in this case" not critical, I'm fed up with people saying "don't worry about performance" as a blanket statement when we have literally hundreds of fantastic servers worth millions of dollars which time out serving pages, yet my little desktop, encumbered as it is with the world's worst operating system, runs most of the software I write (pace infinite loops) before I can blink, or at least IO bound. I was running SmackBot - and everything else on a skip-rescue PC until about 18 months ago.)
6. Is less readable

It is also very very clever - and I am not being sarcastic. In fact I am being a little peacocky, because it is exactly the sort of regex I was using until I simplified and automated. And it caused a number (not necessarily a lot) of problems, picking up incorrect templates.

(See now, this has taken me over half an hour to write, maybe I'm slow, maybe I'm just being careful what I write - and maybe other people spend as long and as much care on what they write, but I certainly see evidence that some of them don't read what I say, and just bash of a few hundred words at top speed to express their feelings. But I have probably already spent about 4 hours on this thread, let alone my talk page. And I am being accused of "not responding" - I know there are subjects here I haven't even broached, and I have made it clear that it will take time to get to them - anyone who can't wait - well I would offer an informal reply on my talk page - but it would only get quoted back out of context here -as has already happened.)

Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

At the risk of putting words into Rich Farmbrough's mouth, I'm going to respond to something Kingpin13 wrote: that RF has claimed "to be too tired (even claim that you're always too tired)" -- only because it sounds true. There seems to be a familiar pattern to the last chapter of the career long-term Wikipedians: increasing lack of patience with others, obsession with details (which may appear to be WikiLawyering), & an increasing weariness with contributing or the discussion which follows contributions. The bastards finally wear the dedicated & selfless volunteers down. Now if this is truly what is happening here, then the only advice I can offer to Rich (I say "only" because I honestly don't have a better solution & wish there was one) is to simply cut back on what you do. If running certain bots on Wikipedia is getting to be more of a pain than it is a joy, then stop doing it. Wikipedia can survive without all of the bots being operated here, believe it or not; & if I'm wrong, it's likely someone else will pick up the slack. If someone doesn't, the resulting carcass will get preserved, & another group will try to resurrect the online encyclopedia with a slightly different set of rules of operation. And I'm writing this because I, too, feel tired with Wikipedia, just like Kingpin13 says RF claims to be. And after I finish the projects on my plate here (i.e., a few groups of articles & upload a few PD images), I'm going to drop my involvement here even more. Or if one of these leads I'm chasing gets me back into the job market, maybe sooner. -- llywrch (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

llywrch is right - but I don't blame the "Aha! I have a diff... " brigade. "I too was once as you." (Yes that's (self-deprecating) humour, not being patronizing.) Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, take time to consider my advice. Maybe if enough experienced Wikipedians say "I'm burned out, so I'm quitting" the PTB may decide that it would be better for the Wikimedia projects to allocate resources to retaining veteran editors than increasing the the pool of Crowdsourcers in places like India. The idea is to create a quality encyclopedia, not to recruit every Tom, Dick & Hari to make questionable edits to Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to cite template

I have just discovered that, without any discussion, Rich made significant changes to the Template:Cite web. Specifically, while we were complaining about his bot, he changed the template examples from lower case to upper case. Since this was his response to complaints on his page, and since his deleting the comments on his talk page without responding to our comments is what started this whole discussion, I think that these changes need special attention.

• 22:21, 21 September 2010 Start of "Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?"
• 15:49, 26 September 2010 Start of "cite vs Cite"
• 12:47, 27 September 2010 Rich says that the bot is no longer changing "cite" to "Cite"
• 18:41, 27 September 2010 I complain again because the bot is still making the changes
• 18:42, 27 September 2010 Rich changes the case of the first character in the Template:Cite web examples
• -- There are additional comments in both threads
• 20:29, 28 September 2010 Rich blanks the talk page without responding to anyone since
  • 15:19, 26 September 2010 in the 1st thread, and
  • 12:47, 27 September 2010 in the 2nd.
• 20:54, 28 September 2010 This ANI discussion was started by me.

It was very difficult to step back through his contribution log. It appears that on Sept 28, he made well over 5,000 edits. (Perhaps over 100,000. And all with AWB. It is totally unbelievable that the admins allow this. Link to contribution log so no one else will have to search for it.)

As a result of this "new" information, I am requesting others to comment before I simply undo his uh, changes, to the template. I for one do not like them. For another, I think this was an underhanded slap in the face. He didn't even have the courtesy to mention this on his talk page when two groups of people were complaining about the same subject. He also did not mention it in any of the other discussions since. Q Science (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously been established above that he has no consensus for the capitalisation changes, so I say change them back. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just revert Q. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

ok reverted [10] Note there's one reason why none of the fields are capitalised, and that is that non-bot editors can enter them without having to press shift key. Clearly the first field could be an exception, and changed by bots later. There are many arguments, it probably didn't need changing - anyway continue that debate on relavent page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just revert Q. RF, above. Why this message at ANI? It was not a question, RF. It was a example of problematic and strange behaviour of the bot operator. You did not see that - q.e.d. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I stalk Rich's talk page, but even now, I still fail to understand why some editors object so much to capitalisation. The typical reason seems to be they are immaterial and thus unnecessary. Whilst I am not sure why he changes the capitalisation, it makes not a jot of difference to anything, whether in the smaller or the larger scheme of things. Our servers recognise and resolve both. The important thing I see is that SmackBot is providing an invaluable service with all the detritus it picks up. This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions (whether in terms of load or in types of small changes) by Rich and his bots. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The question is indeed, why does he do it? Imagine a page with all cite templates in lower case. RF comes along, changes them all to uppercase. I add a new cite, using the edit box cite functionality. This by default add cites in lowercase. We now have, thanks to RF's unnecessary edit, an article where some of the cites are in uppercase, some in lowercase. Everything still works, but we get less consistency for no good reason at all... Fram (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The great thing is, being only visible in the read mode makes them totally inconsequential. Not worth busting a blood vessel over it, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Totally inconsequential, but a nuisance when you notice an article on your watchlist being updated by an RFbot. You get tons of "differences" which consist only of meaningless spacing or capitalization, and to find what was actually changed (usually, admittedly, improved) takes a lot more work than it should do. Fram (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • In their defence, the changes should happen only once - once the page has been spaced and template tagged to the bot's satisfaction it should make no further edits ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • That is not in fact, the case. Go to the top of this discussion and read the past discussions linked there, where you will find the discussion of the pointless back and forth that brought this issue to prominence in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
            • I was ignoring the "bot wars" which I think you are referring to. Clearly that was an error. Excluding that I believe my statement is still (ie currently correct)Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"This business about capitalisation should be allowed to overshadow the huge contributions" I'm not sure if you're suggesting we should let him continue with these disputed changes (which makes zero sense to me), or if we should "cut him a break" as long as he doesn't do it going forward. You have to keep in mind that this ANI would not have come to be had Rich stopped making these changes after being asked several times. –xeno^talk 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Rich ignore the talkpage complaints; au contraire. Of course he should be transparent with the rationale for the capitalisation changes too. If I understand correctly just what Rich he has programmed his bot to do, I'd say it combines a large number of inconsequential changes which would otherwise never be made with jobs such as tag-dating. One way forward is perhaps he will program his bot with more consequential tasks (such as date format alignment or other style fixes), so that the chances of there being only inconsequential edits is further reduced. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The capitalization changes aren't merely inconsequential but also undesired. –xeno^talk 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: cleanup template capitalization

FYI WP:AWB does cleanup template ucfirst capitalization in-house (see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#autotag makes disputed capitalization changes), so Rich is at the mercy of his tools. –xeno^talk 16:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if AWB does it automatically, operators are still fully accountable for actions the script takes. The warning is on top of Huggle, Igloo, AWB, etc. (X! · talk)  · @131  ·  02:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35. Fram (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been soapboxing all day at Talk:Libertarianism. Now he is admittedly disrupting the talk page by hiding other editor's pertinent comments, with the edit comment "Fine, I can play this stupid game too. Carol's comment about UNDUE also applies to scope... hide it too" which shows it to be an intentional WP:POINT violation. Yworo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding (yet another I've been having with Yworo, but it's hard to work out differences when he deletes your comments from his talk page and requests that you not post there again) and refuses to continue discussion and answer questions in discussions he starts on my talk page.

1. That hide referenced above with the poorly chosen words in the edit summary was in compliance with a decision made by some editors earlier in the day and subsequent hides were made in enforcing that decision.

   The decision: Talk:Libertarianism#General_warning_regarding_disruption

2. As a result of that decision, you can see entire sections hidden on Talk:Libertarianism towards the bottom that say, "Discussion of Topic or Scope during the period 1 October 2010 - 1 April 2011".
3. A bit earlier I wanted to respond to an earlier discussion about what different sources indicated, and I found it to be hidden/closed not for the agreed upon reason, so I had to unhide it before I added my comments. Then Yworo deleted my comments. Is that acceptable?
4. As to the section I hid, is filing an ANI really necessary? When I disagreed with a hide, I just reverted it.
5. I'm disappointed that Yworo escalated to ANI without discussing his concerns with me first,. I suggest Yworo take a break, and then return open to working out differences on our talk pages before escalating to ANI or elsewhere. I'm confident we can work this out, except he unfortunately is apparently in a "battle" frame of mind, as made evident by this wikilawyering trick to accuse me of WP:POINT because of my poor choice of words in an edit summary comment. That is, if I had just commented "hiding per decision about hiding discussions about article scope", there could be no technical complaint.
6. Since we're here, any assistance would be appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made that particular revert (3) because you removed the {{hab}} at the bottom of the collapsed section but not the {{hat}} at the top, hiding the entire rest of the talk page from the {{hat}} down. That's not the disruptive behavior I was talking about, which I very clearly indicated. However, the thread was collapsed for valid reasons and you shouldn't have been adding to it in any case. Still, you seem to be attempting to distract from the focus from my actual complaints. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that you discovered and corrected that problem later (thanks for fixing that, by the way, though I still don't understand what I did wrong because you can see both hat and hab removed in the diff of my change).

Note the reason you gave for the edit summary (at 19:36) for the diff in (3) when you deleted my comments: "Undid revision 388214486 by Born2cycle (talk) discussion was closed)". Seems pretty clear to me.

Your edit to fix something by adding a hab occurred 13 minutes later at 19:49 with edit summary, "by removing the {{hab}} but not the {{hat}}, you collapsed the entire rest of the page, please pay attention to what you are doing".

What are your actual complaints? That I hid a section for discussing article scope in concert with the decision of some others (including you, apparently, because you implemented it too) to hide sections like that (see below)? If that's sufficiently disruptive to warrant an ANI, why not mention that you and Fifelfoo and everyone else who agreed with this is being disruptive too? Or is it because the comment in my edit summary indicated I was complying with the decision in order to make a point? Pardon me for disrupting you with my edit summary comments. How is that disruption? You couldn't instead put a friendly reminder about WP:POINT on my talk page? Is this really worth an ANI? Is this not WP:HARASSMENT?

Though I would not have filed an ANI for it, since we're here, I thought involved admins might want to look at your deleting of other users' comments, your ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions (which is characteristic of WP:TEDIOUS), and refusal to work out disagreements on your talk page as actual disruption, since you're the one raising this ANI, which sure feels like disruptive harassment to me, especially considering the time and effort it takes to defend and explain my behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On 1 October 2010 I boldly instituted a general warning regarding the disruption caused by the continual revisiting of topic and coverage. The warning is in place until 1 April 2011, six months is a reasonable period after which to revisit topic and coverage. Two remedies were provided for: hiding threads to immediately shut down disruption, or taking the matter to AN/I as disruptive user conduct. The article has been through a very large number of RFCs and extensive discussions, all of which have supported the current broad topic and coverage. Attempts to change the topic or to narrow the coverage have been rejected as against the consensus of the article's editors. As "I didn't hear that" revisiting of achieved consensus were continual, and disruptive, I generally warned article editors, so as to allow editing and WEIGHTing discussions on the current article. Feel free to sanity check this, but imho, it shuts down the disruption without preventing editing or content disagreement within the current scope, and six months is a decent time to wait to revisit topic consensus after six months of disputation over what the scope should be. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Born2cycle's point 3 is correct. I boldly hid a large body of text because it appeared to have (imho) descended into battleground mentality. Hiding this text was was not connected with any breaking the warning about topic or scope. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I was also accused (multiple times, not just in this ANI) for "soapboxing", I should also point out that I have no idea what this is about. I've read and reread WP:SOAP (including 2. Opinion pieces) and cannot for the life of me understand how that applies to anything I've ever posted anywhere in Wikipedia, much less "all day long" yesterday at Talk:Libertarianism. I mean, I don't deny having my own views and biases (who doesn't?), but I try very hard to adhere to WP:NPOV, especially with respect to how material is presented in the article, and so take some offense at these accusations. So, if someone can explain this to me, by citing my exact words (should be easy enough since I supposedly did it "all day long") and quoting whatever criteria in WP:SOAP that supposedly corresponds to my allegedly inappropriate behavior, and explaining how it applies, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think we have to conclude that this is just yet another form of WP:HARASSMENT. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You added a comment to a discussion marked closed. Any editor may revert the addition of a comment to a discussion marked closed. Apparently I didn't scroll down enough and missed the second comment outside of a collapsed discussion. My apologies, that was a mistake.

As to your demands for answers, I repeatedly pointed out that I considered the whole scope argument, especially the "just libertarianism" and cat arguments, to be soapboxing. It was soapboxing, and all the threads containing those arguments have been collapsed. I don't have to answer soapboxing. Yet you kept harassing me to answer your soapbox questions after I made clear that I wasn't going to debate the "logic" of your soapboxing.

That soapboxing is major part of the disruption that I intended to report here, which is why I mentioned it first. Even after the agreement not to discuss scope, you brought up your scope argument in the middle of one of my discussions about definitions of libertarianism from sources, in an obvious attempt to disrupt my discussion thread. When you became frustrated that your soapboxing was being collapsed and wasn't achieving the effect you intended, you started to uncollapse threads and post less than civil comments. How is that not a pattern of disruption? Anybody who goes and reads the talk page will be able to identify your voluminous comments as primarily soapboxing. Yworo (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle's edit summary, "Fine, I can play this stupid game too", shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors. He should accept the results of three recent RfCs and stop pushing his own POV about how the article should be written. TFD (talk)

Born2cycle also participated in the POV-fork of Libertarianism created at Libertarian, making these three edits to the forked article: [11], [12], [13]. Of course, primary responsibility for that POV-fork remains with Darkstar1st, who actually replaced the longstanding redirect with the POV-fork [14]. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yworo accuses others of hiding comments, yet he tried to hide an entire section which received 100+ edits in the span of a day http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=388148762&oldid=388148380, including many by yworo. he has also reported me for hiding his 2 word comment "just so" as off topic, yet now that entire section was collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"which received 100+ edits" That's a serious exaggeration. It received between 20 and 25 comments, and it wasn't particularly productive. If you disagree, please summarize the conclusion of the discussion and precisely how it contributed to the content or structure of the article. What was the outcome? Yworo (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your collapse of "just so" was directed at a specific editor (myself) for no reason other than I dared to question your turning Libertarian into a POV-fork of Libertarianism. It had no justification. The later collapse of the whole thread was done based on the agreement not to discuss scope. If you'd collapsed the whole thread for that reason, it might have been justified. Collapsing a single editor's two word comment had no justification and was clearly a disruptive WP:POINT violation, and you edit warred to restore it after I reverted it. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

the whole thread was disruptive, my edit was later restored as well as the rest of the thread being collapsed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't justify your collapsing a single comment of a single editor, replying to an established thread that was active at the time. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

very well, i apologize for removing "just so", being from the ysa, i didn't realize it meant "agree", i assumed it was some kind of taunt of misplaced comment. may wind of a 1000 camels, fill your sails! Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, that one edit summary comment (which is all you mentioned) in a moment of frustration "shows an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors"? I hope one has to demonstrate much more and much worse than one unfortunately worded comment to prove someone has "an unwillingness to work cooperatively with other editors". I suggest almost all, if not all, of my other edits on the talk page and article fall on the other side of that scale, clearly demonstrating I am willing and able to work cooperatively with other editors. As to my edits on the Libertarian article, I went there after someone brought it to my attention on my talk page, and made a couple of edits to try to improve it.

Yes, Yworo, I know it is your opinion that much of what I type is soapboaxing because you disagree with me, which apparently you use to rationalize your ignoring of much of what I'm say and ask you. As a contrast to how discussions with me go when someone else is equally skeptical but willing to cooperate, see this discussion with John K on his talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present a mainstream view of subjects. Obviously your view is fringe, not that there is anything wrong with that, but what is wrong is that you try to inject fringe views into articles. TFD (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for stating this. That's quite the accusation (and is at the root of the harassment, I believe, because everything I post seems to be interpreted through this "he has a fringe view" lens by a few of you, and not taken seriously, and often ignored).

So, please identify, as clearly and specifically as you can, for the sake of others reading this if not for me, the view of mine that you believe is so fringe that it should not be represented in (or "injected into") Wikipedia articles.

Also, please identify enough instances of me doing this (to establish a problematic pattern sufficient to bring to ANI) where you believe I was doing so, and explain how that behavior exemplifies inappropriately injecting this fringe view. Also, if it's an example of me arguing that that the scope of an article should be reduced to be not about a general use of the term in question but about a more specific topic because the more specific use is primary please explain why this is an example of me trying to inject my alleged fringe view rather than applying the Cat specific/general argument (Cat is about the specific commonly used use of the term, domestic cat and not about the general use referring to the family that includes lions and tigers), and how it's not just me upholding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as I consistently have done at WP for over five years, including recently at Talk:Stockman (Australia) (also discussed here). If you are unable or unwilling to do this, I request you withdraw this accusation for being without basis, and agree to not bring it up again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even I can do that, the fringe view that TFD refers to is the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the topic of libertarianism proper, which is contradicted by numerous mainstream sources, as can be seen from the many provided sources on Talk:Libertarianism. When you have abandoned using sources and are reduced to arguing about "just libertarianism" and "cats" to make your point, it becomes clear that you have no sources that explicitly state what you assert. Bringing your "pet" soapbox (pun intended) to AN/I may not have been the smartest move, either. Yworo (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "libertarianism proper", especially in the context of deciding Wikipedia article WP:TITLE and scope, an editorial issue that is almost never determined by what sources "explicitly state". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the specific accusation that the view that left-libertarianism is not part of the "libertarianism proper" (whatever that means), can you identify any prominent individuals or organizations that are associated with left-libertarianism AND are identified as being libertarian? For example, in any of the following WP libertarian categories (including their subcats), which, if any, individual or organization members are also associated with left-libertarianism? Category:Libertarians, Category:Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, Category:Libertarian organizations based in the United States, Category:Libertarian think tanks.

Note: this is typical. Someone makes a claim, I question it with specific questions, and it's ignored, sometimes for being "soapboxing". Accordingly, I don't expect them to address this point either, but would be pleased if they did. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're going to continue with scope discussions, both on the article talk page and here, even though it's been agreed by consensus that there will be no more such discussions until April? How is that not soapboxing? Yworo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At the contentious article, on the issue in contention (inclusion/exclusion of disparate, even opposite philosophies with the word "Libertarian" in them) I happen to agree with Yworo (think we should include) and disaqree with Born2Cycle. However I think that Born2's conduct has been exemplary, and Yworo is using notices like this as methods of warfare. After I saw Yworo go to the user page of an admin who had just blocked another of Yworo's opponents and tell them that my milk-toast middle of the road peacemaker proposal [direction / compromise?] was "soapboxing" [[15]]that view has become reinforced, and I consider reports like the above to be warfare tactics. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, North, but I do slip once in a while and so I can't agree that my conduct has been exemplary. But I sure try, and thank you for recognizing that. I wish certain others would...

And thanks for reminding us that the the accusation of "soapboxing" was also inappropriately leveled at you, which illustrates the "shoot first ask questions later (if at all)" approach which some are employing here. They need to be made to understand that when someone attempts to explain a perspective with which they disagree, that is not soapboxing. Building WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia is all about WP:CIVIL discussion, and trying different arguments per WP:TENDENTIOUS ("bring better arguments"), which is what they keep trying to suppress with their soapboxing and "fringe view" accusations.

Achieving consensus with someone who refuses to give serious consideration to the arguments presented, but is instead focused on the suppression of discussion (deleting comments, hiding comments, refusing to answer questions, requesting comments not be made on their own user talk page, baseless accusations of "soapboxing", harassing filings of ANIs, etc. - evidence for all of which has been provided above with respect to the filer of this ANI), is not possible. If anything needs to be addressed here, it's that. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yworo continues to interpret my posts through a "he has a POV" lens, making snide remarks accordingly, etc., here. All I said was, "that seems [like a] different [use of the term]", and Yworo responded, "Different from what you would like?" What does this have to do with what I would like? What's the point of even saying that? I've asked him before to please stop trying to read between the lines - there is nothing there.

  Please comment on content and not about users, Yworo. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yworo and Fifelfoo are not the only ones trying to suppress genuine WP:CIVIL discussion at Talk:Libertarianism that seeks to improve the article (which many agree is currently a mess) through WP:CONSENSUS. Here is an example from User:Snowded. How can this kind of commentary -- "You really have to stop this you know,...", "desperate attempts" -- be discouraged? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by it. You and a few other editors are refusing to accept a clearly establish position and keep raising the same issue again and again in different forms. it is disruptive and it smacks of desperation. The matter has been discussed to death and a conclusion reached. Your simply don't like it, so continue to attempt to impose your definition of Libertarianism on the article and obviously hope that sooner or later other editors will be worn down by your persistence and give in. Personally I think you need a topic ban from the subject. --Snowded ^TALK 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I second the idea of a topic ban from articles related to libertarianism for Born2cycle. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who disagrees with User:Snowded should be topic banned. That would be a novel way to establish WP:CONSENSUS with regard to how to improve the article. Thanks for establishing that you too have the attitude that "he has a POV different from mine so I can just ignore or discount what he's saying and do everything I can to suppress him" (not that you ever said that, just that you respond to my posts consistent with that view). Note that my follow-up question was ignored and is likely to remain unanswered. It's this attitude that is ultimately responsible for over 5 years of turmoil and no consensus at Libertarianism and Talk:Libertarianism (just count the archives). You can't reach consensus when people refuse to participate in discussion and don't even want to understand what others are trying to say. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So, first User:Snowded escalates his inappropriate and disruptive Just Drop It behavior [16] [17] [18] from engaging in it just himself to enlisting administrative assistance to do it for him with a ban.

And now, User:Yworo, the filer of this ANI who ignored the bold instructions at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.", ignored the sage advice also at the top of this page to see dispute resolution to "get assistance in resolving disputes", and instead filed this frivolous ANI over a trivial and insignificant "incident" (unfortunately worded edit summary comment associated with an unquestioned hiding of a comment in accordance with a previous group decision), also seeks a topic ban. I've really tried to understand what this is all about (still waiting for the actual example of my supposed "soapboaxing" I asked for days ago).

But I can see no reason or justification for any of this nonsense, except to discourage and stifle discussion out of concern that such discussion might cause consensus to move in a direction counter to their POV. I'm running out of patience. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2 (and all) what you think about this idea: Where there is a name for a strand of Libertarianism (anything with with the word "Libertarian(ism)" in it)which RS's establish is significant, we put it in the article, but with wording to explain any large differences? I know that the latter is vague, but it's the best I could do. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Very good. I think the article would be tremendously improved if we were clear about what the terms mean when we use them.

This is a very challenging topic because there is no consistent use of meaning in reliable sources. Tertiary sources fall back on a very general definition, and then tend to invent terms like right and left libertarianism to distinguish among the strands (but even there different tertiary sources mean different things when they refer to, say, propertian Karl Hess as being a left-libertarian while anti-propertian Chomsky is referred to as a left-wing libertarian). But primary and secondary sources tend to just use "libertarian", so you have to read the source and infer what is meant by "libertarian" in each context to understand. There are understandable concerns that doing so is violating WP:OR. Still, WP:OR also recommends, "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. ". Well, that applies to almost everything referring to libertarians or libertarianism considering the disparate uses of those terms, especially considering usage before and after the 1950s, and, to a certain extent, within and outside the U.S., but there are no clean/distinct chronological or geographic lines of usage. This is why this is so difficult and controversial. But it's much worse because many editors of this article don't seem to understand and appreciate this problem.

I can say more, but discussions about the article like this should be occurring at the talk page, not here. But they're not occurring at the talk page because a small but vocal minority keeps trying to suppress discussion by those with whom they apparently perceive to have an ideological disagreement. I'm hoping some very experienced administrator can help us out. Again, this has been going on for more than five years which anyone can see by perusing the archives. To suggest that any single editor is the problem here is completely missing the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example of User:Snowded disruptively discouraging consensus development through discussion: "Guys its time to disengage. This issue has been resolved for some time and indulging a solitary editor who doesn't like it has gone on long enough. ". Thankfully the advice was not followed, and discussion continued, and has been quite fruitful [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] I should add. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see the advise was followed. The discussion is no longer about the exclusion of left libertarianism from the article and the warning on the top of the talk page was followed. Given that you appear finally to have accepted this we might make some progress. --Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was not about the exclusion of left libertarianism from the article when you made that comment, unless you count the mere mention of a split as a possible outcome of the process being discussed as that. That would be really stretching. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Proliferation of Disruptive Comment Hiding/Deleting

Something that is disruptive is the recent proliferation of comment closing and hiding at Talk:Libertarianism. For example, yesterday a previously uninvolved editor, S. Rich, dropped by and left some sage advice, but today nobody can see it, because that section has been hidden. This is but one example of the kind of indiscriminate comment hiding going on. Surely there is a better and less disruptive way. I hope an admin can address this too since it's indicative of the problematic behavior on that page. And, no, I'm not defending the restarting of that RfC, just the way it was closed, and hidden. If this was an isolated case I would just address it there, but since it's only one example, I think the bigger issue needs attention. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet another incident of comment deletion just occurred from the filer of this ANI, User:Yworo, alleging "not a forum". Even if it was a violation, how about warning the anon IP? But it's NOT a violation, and so was properly reverted by Siafu ("restore anon's comment: it IS about the article itself, whether you think it's a good question or not. "Not a forum" does not apply, and we've had quite enough talk page misbehavior here already").

I request that everyone involved with these indiscriminate and disruptive hiding/deleting of comments at Talk:Libertarianism be warned that this practice is intolerable. Given his filing of this ANI against my behavior, I'm probably not the right person to put a warning on Yworo's talk page. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A clearly rhetorical question in all bold also posted to Talk:Sokal affair? You've got to be kidding. You are welcome to respond to it, but I guarantee you that was a drive-by, not a serious attempt to start a discussion related to improving the article. Deleting it was the correct action. Yworo (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." [24] For the record, I object to the deleting or hiding of any talk page comments that are not blatant violations of policy. If this was an isolated incident, that would be another matter.

It's true that WP:FORUM states that "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.", but WP:TPG says nothing about deleting a comment simply because it's a bolded rhetorical question, explicitly or implicitly.

In short, I think a few of you have been trigger happy with the deleting/hiding of others' comments, which is why I started this subsection. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And I think you're developing quite a talent for Wikilawyering. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't file frivolous ANIs. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Several at that article have been violating talk page guidelines by deleting or moving other people's comments while claiming to be implementing the policies that they are violating. Other policies /guidelines refer to TALK PAGE GUIDELINES. And the talk page guidelines roughly say don't delete other people comments, but with a list of exceptions. And the supposed justification for the deletions were not on that list. Just because I claim that what somebody wrote on a talk page violates the wp:notAForum guideline does not mean that I get to delete what they wrote.

(I know that the specific case here involves collapsing vs. deletion)

North8000 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the IP was a sockpuppet and the comment was removed multiple times by admins. So I guess my action was correct and your complaint about it was not. Yworo (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I kept my comment general ("several at that article") and was really commenting on mis-reading of policies/guidelines rather than discussing any particular deletion/collapsing/moving.

This is like getting off for killing someone in the wild west because it turned out that that person was wanted dead or alive, but not knowing that at the time he was shot.

Unless you knew the IP was a sockpuppet when you first deleted the comment, your action was not correct. Trigger-happy just got lucky, this time. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I could tell from the tone of the comment that it was a drive-by. We also have a regular sockpuppet of a banned user from the area of the world the IP was from. I don't have to explain all my reasoning to you every time I make an edit. I made a judgment call based on more data than I mentioned, and I was correct, and it wasn't chance or luck that I was. Yworo (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you're needlessly personalizing the discussion ("I don't have to explain all my reasoning to you every time I make an edit"). Why single out me? I wasn't even the one who reverted your edit.

When you're doing something as serious as deleting someone's comments from an article talk page, you better have a better reason than "not a forum" (all you indicated in the edit summary) if the violation of WP:FORUM is not blatantly obvious (it clearly wasn't in this case), and you need to explain that reason in the edit summary. Not for me, but for everyone involved. That you didn't do that only makes the main point in this section - about how lackadaisical some of you are about removing other people's comments from article talk pages.

Anyway, my goal here is that you're more careful about other user comment deletions in the future; hopefully that has been accomplished. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved review

Unresolved

 – Requesting review by uninvolved admin. This section is not, and will not be a 'section break' for the dispute to just carry on as it has been above. This means you, those who are involved.

I would appreciate it, as I'm sure others would, if anyone involved in this dispute would stop carrying it on here. ANI is not a venue for you to continue it. Please just give it a rest, and be patient. You've put your arguments there. Everyone can see them, now let others review them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring this, since it was accidentally deleted shortly after I made it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking MickMacNee from AfD boards permanently for PA and UNCIVIL violations

I was wondering if it is possible to bar a user from participating in Articles for Deletion. I was shocked at the level of uncivilty displayed by the user MickMacNee in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wind Jet Flight 243. He was unacceptabally nasty in his responses to anyone that disagreed with his views. While passion is good, taking any dissent as an attack on ones' self is not only bad, but damaging to the project, as it steers the focus off of the issues at hand and onto the user and his own personal dramas.

His decision to badger users who disagreed, and I mean badger, which is distinct and different from offering counterarguments, as well as his name calling and borderline personal attacks on Kafziel demonstrate to me that he should be barred from participating in AfD for a significant amount of time. His continued beheavior after being told he was acting uncivil is a primary motivator for such a harsh proposal.

Please advise, Sven Manguard _Talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I just had the destinct displeasure of reading an exchange between MickMacNee and Kafziel on MickMacNee's talk page. Quite simply, MickMacNee has demonstrated extreme violations of good conduct, launching a series of increasingly angry and illogical personal attacks. I was tempted to slap the upper level personal attack and uncivil warnings on his page, but I doubt it will do any good. He has a long history of blocks and including one explicitly justified as ‎ "attitude not compatible with this project" from January of this year. For posterity, the attacks on the talk page are available here [25] It's time to ban this person for an extended period of time. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that gem awhile ago. Mick feels the need to badger most (all?) of the keep comments. I've seen him do it elsewhere as well. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)) Grsz¹¹ 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Sven brings up a good point. Everybody has the right to reply to comments in AFDs, of course, but his answers are becoming heated and incivil, and yes, badgering; and his replies to Kafziel ("Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness.", "I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh") are unacceptable. He has also received a final warning for incivility. I'm not sure about barring MickMacNee from AFD is the best way to deal with this, but the situation is something that requires attention. That being said, I'm fairly new on the English Wikipedia, so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 03:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have as much right as anyone to speak your mind Clementina. I think that it is high time to permanently block this user. He has had more than enough chances. I'm sure there is precedent for banning perpetually uncivil people, and there certainly is precedent for banning users with personal attack track records of this magnitude. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Changed header title to reflect change in circumstances. Blocking from AfD is not enough, considering that the user takes his attacks beyond AfD. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to ask, where is he being uncivil in the page linked? I only read the first half, but every one i looked at was quite appropriate. To take a random example of a strongly-worded but perfectly civil response:

Arguing that it is both notable right now, and that it should be kept to see if it becomes notable, is not sound reasoning in the slightest. It is positively unsound reasoning infact. You would have more chance of having your vote counted if you didn't just piggy back other people's thoughts, when it's not even clear what policy or guideline is backing up their rather vague and WP:ATA-like opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out logically bereft arguments is the duty of any wikipedian. That's just plain good looking out for the project. Not every opinion is valid, AfD is not a vote. He may have stepped over the line, like i said i only read the first half, but this has been done before with him and afd, and the end result was whining about having to make your afd !votes actually defensible is not productive. -- ۩ Mask 04:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue are with his tone most of the time. He comes off rather stand-off-ish. [26]. As a note, I agree with him that the article in question should be deleted, do not agree that he should be blocked indef, and am just commenting as an observer. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick's tone is not exactly conducive to mature and healthy debate, however, he is right. It would be a travesty if the AfD were closed as keep and nobody so much as challenged the the drive-by "follow the leader" votes. It's not much to ask people to produce some kind of informed rationale for their vote. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think a ban is needed here. He has been blocked often in the past for repeated incivility, but as HJ Mitchell said, MickMacNee's opinion is usually not unreasonable - it's just that the tone in which he expresses them which is troubling. And while "follow the leader" votes may count as less than a personally written vote, yet sometimes a personally written vote is really just be a repetition of what another has more fully commented on, and the voter might feel that a succint endorsement would express his or her opinion just as well. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I thought that I had given a rationale as to why the accident is notable. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Given the OP is now effectively asking for a community ban, I would vote to oppose that remedy. But Mick has been here long enough to know that news stories in popular areas never get deleted, regardless of policy. Fighting that hard against the tide wont win any friends. Sometimes one has to simply accept what is and move onto other battles. Resolute 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict:

You are correct that pointing out bad logic is okay, but the way he does it is by attacking users, specificly saying that users are not entitled to their own opinions because they do not think for themselves. This is what I have the problem with.

Direct cut and paste quotes:

You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? None at all? Are we playing follow the leader here today? MickMacNee (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an Afd. It is not disrespectful or badgering to expect you to have your own opinion on the matter. Given that your only contribution here is to agree with a contradictory rationale, whose actual intention w.r.t. the issue is still open to interpretation, I should think that it is more respectful for you to realise the deficiency of making such a vote, and correct it, rather than implying wrongdoing in others. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Treating it as a game as ever WR. I'm guessing you put as much thought into this Afd as all the others based on the evidence. I am pretty sure that whatever happened in those other debates, the outcomes really had nothing to do with anything you might have said, which is generally not a lot, as you can only seem to manage these sorts of 'per x' votes anyway, and then fall back on this ridiculous grandstanding act of yours. MickMacNee (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of things add nothing to an Afd. This warning was just one of them. You should just concentrate on not making the sort of reading mistakes like you did down below, and let others worry about their knowledge, or lack of, of the contents of CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Each of these are violations of civility policy. Telling people you disagree is okay, telling people that they are not thinking and don't deserve opinions is not okay. These are mostly from the first half of the article. There are other bits and pieces elsewhere, some of them better than these (although the first one is a real gem) but I didn't want to be accused of taking things out of context. Also, read his user talk, in the big blue box, for the reason I moved for a full ban. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that we allow editors to read the AfD for themselves and form their own opinions? Taking quotes out of their original context, while not your intention, I'm sure, has a tendency to alter their meaning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I just did that because I've proven time and again how bad I am at the linking that everyone else seems to do easily. I encourage everyone interested to read the whole thing. My intention is not to distort. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick's tone is unfortunate and I wish he would moderate it. No cause to ban or restrict him though, as far as I can see. --John (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Not to beat a dead horse, but the focus of banning him came up after reading his talk page. Read the section "Wind Jet" on [27] and you will see why I think the user has outstayed his welcome. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything here remotely approaching ban level. In the linked AfD, his comments may be a little more heated than need be, but they are addressing the issue—whether the article should be kept or deleted. He can argue with everyone who comments if he wants to. They're not required to engage with him, and the closing admin will also make the determination on which arguments are most firmly grounded in policy. I would also agree that "Fucking TLDR" is not the most civil thing to say, but responding to someone's argument or comment (as Kafziel did) with "tl;dr" is quite uncivil in itself—it's a dismissive handwave, and is quite rude. So while his response didn't exhibit the best behavior, what he was responding to exhibited rather poor behavior as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that if anyone ought to be banned then it's you Sven, for bringing this nonsense to the punishment board. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Now that comment certainly isn't helpful. Why does this page and its contributors have the terrible habit of creating more drama? Grsz¹¹ 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Now that is harsh. I again point out that this is a ban for a pattern of activity, it wouldn't be his first for incivilty, and the reason I am so concerned, despite what would normally be of little personal interest, is his treatment of Kafziel at "Wind Jet" on his talk page.
    • I'm staggered that you apparently can't see the irony in your question Grsz11. Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The pile-on was not needed. Obviously nothing was going to come of Sven's proposal, but he brough up legit concerns. But stupid counter-comments aren't helpful. Why not just keep your mouth shut and ignore it? Grsz¹¹ 04:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • You've clearly lost the use of your irony muscle Grsz11, or else you wouldn't consider "why not just keep your mouth shut" to be a civil response. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Seraphimblade's assessment in that Kafziel shouldn't have used "tl;dr" in a discussion. It's counterproductive. On the other side, Mick is standoff-ish. I don't think he's at the level of communal ban. I would say open an RFC first, or take it to mediation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? I'm confused here. What just happened, was Malleus being uncivil as an illustration of why we shouldn't tolerate incivility, or am I reading into this poorly? These last few posts have made no sense. Also, I am completely serious about the ban, but everyone is ignoring the talk page, the reason I am asking for the full ban, and focusing only on the AfD, which is now secondary. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You ban him from XfD, and then block on the normal scale for being uncivil. But I'd rather people go through RFC and mediation first. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think even that level of formal dispute resolution is warranted. This whole thread would be better suited to WQA than the drama board, but how many of the people here have taken the time to actually have a serious conversation with Mick about comments you perceive to be uncivil rather than berating him or reaching for the pitchforks at ANI? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. MickMacNee has had, on occasions, civility issues, but his behaviour in this AfD is absolutely fine. I don't see any evidence of incivility, and legitimately questioning weakly (or even well) reasoned opinions is part of consensus-building, it isn't badgering. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that he seems to be doing that to every single opposing opinions, and keeps arguing the same point when it seems that it is addressed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well if people will insist on giving pathetic rationales for keeping such as "per nom" or "per the drive-by voter before me"... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Well what's more repetitive and annoying: comments arguing the same thing, or Mick arguing with the same argument. Grsz¹¹ 05:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • HJ, I want to be sure I'm understanding you here... are you suggesting that any voter at AFD must come up with their own unique reason? If they agree with the nominator (or indeed agree with someone else), what purpose isn't served by them saying per X'?→ ROUX ₪ 05:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk page thread I have been referring to. Please read it.

===Since this is being ignored, I'm just going to transpose it here=== Wind Jet The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hey man, you seem to be getting a little upset at that AfD. While the purpose of AfD is to discuss the articles, you're not going to win any points by a) arguing with everyone who disagrees with you, or b) telling the closing admin what he should or should not pay attention to. Of course, both are within your rights... but that doesn't mean they're good ideas. At this point you can rest assured that every visitor to that page will be well aware of your point of view, and for the sake of your own happiness, you would probably do well just to walk away from it and let it unfold however it will. If the article should be deleted, other editors will take up the cause. If it shouldn't be deleted, there's no use wasting any more time there. Not saying you can't, just saying you shouldn't. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I'd rather you just clarified your rationale than give me advice. The only thing I get upset about is people ignorantly piggy backing on Afd voting rationales that for all the world appear to contradict both policy, and their own logic. MickMacNee (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Isn't it possible that my rationale is quite clear, and that everyone else who is "piggy backing" simply understands and agrees with it? I haven't responded there because I've found that in AfDs it's best to address the issue, not individuals. If something I said was really out of whack, that would be one thing. But since nobody else seems to be confused by what I wrote, and since you have argued with everybody for one reason or another, it's hard to see how a reply would help anything. I've voiced my opinion and I don't feel the need to defend it against all challengers; there are plenty of better things to spend my time on around here. All I did was give you the same advice I follow myself. It works. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Frankly, 'keep, it's notable, and we should wait to see if it becomes notable' really is out of whack. As is your idea that I nominated this because nobody died. A reply would make it clear to everyone, not just the piggybackers, that you really do know what you are on about, and have really attempted to address the deletion rationale. If you don't, then that's a pretty easy angle of attack for me in a DRV, if the closer doesn't bother to engage his brain when reviewing that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I didn't say "we should wait to see if it becomes notable". My meaning—which was apparently clear to everyone else but you—was that it is notable (by virtue of broad, international news coverage) and that we should wait to see what more comes of it. Notability can always increase as time goes by and further analysis comes in, but that doesn't mean it isn't also notable now. The two are not contradictory, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the very argumentative nominator happens to be the only person who claims not to understand that. I'm not worried about your "angle of attack" at DRV, except to say that the fact that you look at this as a battle says a lot about your frame of mind. You're taking this too personally. I am by no means required to address the deletion rationale if I dismiss it out of hand; if I can make a case for why it should be kept (which I did), that's all I need to do. I said what I wanted to say and I'm comfortable with it. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I doubt this was your intention. I think it's pretty obvious from your nomination that you wanted to wait to see if it became notable, hence the 'keep, for now'. If you simply thought it was notable right now, you would have just said so, and not bothered with the rest of your post, as it was completely irrelevant. You can dismiss the deletion rationale all you want and make up whatever case you like, but EVENT is the guideline which was written to combine the GNG for current events, so I think that is a pretty bizarre thing to do in an Afd on an article about a current event. The only remotely relevant part of your keep rationale was where you said "verifiable, has received significant coverage in third-party sources". It's pretty weak, simply a stock statement trotted out parrot like by everybody and anybody, and as such, it does not convince that you've even read the article, let alone are confident that you can actually justify it's exsitence here wrt actual policy wording and theory, by expanding on your rationale in the proper way. You can be comfortable with this approach all you want, you can even believe it's a good way to make a case in an Afd, but it really isn't, according to all our policies and guidelines on the practices and purposes of the venue. And this sort of thing is precisely why DRV exists, to stop lazy admins making the mistake of taking this sort of non-argument as read. It is probably about as far from being all you need to do, as if you had just rocked up and given a basic WP:JN vote. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC) tl;dr I tell you what: You go ahead and rage, and argue with everybody, and file a DRV, and argue some more, and I'll leave what I wrote there, move on to other things, and when this is all over we'll see which of us is happier. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Who gives a fuck about happiness? I'm only concerned with having articles and processes adhere to policy. If that's impossible because people like yourself would rather fool around giving non-arguments and feeling ever so pleased about themselves afterwards, so be it. It definitely won't be me who suffers the consequences in the long run. I really hope you haven't invested a lot of time here writing and defending articles that fail EVENT, because one day they will all be gone, either that, or Wikipedia will be gone. Either way, my happiness is completely irrelevant. Fucking 'TLDR', that just about sums up the issue for me, pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Dude, if you don't enjoy editing here, there's no point. The world is not going to say, "Thank god some heroic soul took a stand to get rid of that accursed Wind Jet article. It had really been rubbing me the wrong way." Nobody cares about you or the work you do here; case in point, I've been here a damn sight longer than you, I've written a good number of articles, taken more than my share of images, and made thousands of edits to the Wikipedia namespace, not to mention all the work I've done as an administrator... and you don't care at all. See? But it doesn't matter that you don't care, because I'm enjoying myself. That's the key. I don't know what "consequences" you think I'm going to suffer... People like me not giving a shit about people like you is what makes the Wiki go 'round. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I am bloody amazed you are an admin tbh. Maybe you've been here so long that you really don't know what you are doing any more, and are just happy to mess around and have fun irregardless, but maybe you haven't kept abreast with what the Wikipedia of 2010 actually is, and how it's basic operations like Afd work now. EVENT was written in 2009 - read it, and get with the programme, and don't pretend that simply giving sub-standard arguments and having fun is what flies here for decent practice anymore. Playtime's over. I don't care about what you've done, and you don't care, or more likely, have no idea, what I've done here. So what, as you say. I'm fine with that. So you're here for happiness, good for you. I think that's pretty sad myself though. I get my happiness in the real world, I come here to get shit done, like, y'know, writing an encyclopoedia that is credible, and not a dumping ground for non-notable worthless junk that will need to be deleted eventually if this site still wants to be called a serious reference work and not a fancruft database. I could give a monkeys if anybody notices me for doing so, as long as they have their own shit in order and are doing good work. It's hilarious that you thought I was talking about consequences for you. Again, that just about sums it up. Now, have your last word, but then kindly just do one, I've had it with you. MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC) tl;dr. Looks angry, though. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You read it. Go and have fun with an article somewhere, and stop wasting my time pretending you have a clue what Wikipedia is actually for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes this is drastic, but as I have kept saying, it is this, not the AfD that is the basis for the block. This is what is out of hand, IMO. Sven Manguard Talk 04:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, Sven. They weren't ignoring your comments - they just thought that it was not unprovoked, and doing like this probably won't help anything. Thinking over it carefully, though Mick's comments were growing quite incivil, I do think WQA is probably preferable in this situation than ANI. → Clementina [ Scribble ] 05:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure many will be aware, this has been going on for months. Please see the RFC that MickMacNee filed about my participation at AfD and the associated talk page for further information. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Disruptive behaviour at AfD where I attempted to gain the community's support in curbing MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD without success. This should not just be about MickMacNee, as there are other editors who indulge in similar behaviour. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

[expletive] You know, on the one hand this guy has pushed a whole lot of boundaries far too often, on the other hand it's 3AM where I am and I need to get some sleep. After seeing your post, I sincerely hope someone just up and bans this menace, but I am formally done with the issue, and unless this explodes onto my userspace, I'm not perusing it tomorrow morning. That being said, if you need anything don't be afraid to call. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolve and move on?

Okay, this has gotten out of hand, and it seems unlikely that there will be any blocks, so can we settle on a harshly worded final warning for incivility and a request that the user takes disagreement less personally, then move on. Either MickMacNee will calm down or he won't, and if he does this again, we can take this up again, but again, this ANI isn't going to end in a block or a section ban, and there continuing serves no purpose. Sven Manguard _Talk 05:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to participate here, but I do think I should at least say that I do not think Mick's comments to me were out of line. We're both adults, we were speaking our minds, and in the end we agreed to disagree. I do think some of his comments at the AfD are pretty bad, which is why (as I said on his talk page) I declined to respond to him there, but it's certainly nothing that's going to get him banned from AfD. So let's just close this and move on to something more productive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Mick is often abrasive, but all I see here is him trying to make a strong case for deletion and to point out invalid arguments and to debunk the straw man arguments advanced for retaining the article. There is fairly terse language on both sides, and it would be unfair to single Mick out for any punishment. Anyhoo, it may be that the OP to this thread genuinely thinks Mick is being exceptionally uncivil, or simply that he may feel threatened by the relentless assault on his own hollow arguments. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted my keep vote after this whole thing began. I doubt that Mick even knows I exist, considering that this entire thing appears to have taken place while he was offline. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, I hear what you're saying, but by doing so, isn't MickMacNee insulting the intelligence of the closing admin/editor? In my experience, regular AfD closers are quite capable of evaluating the arguments for and against deletion, and making a decision on the merits of those arguments. In the rare cases they get it wrong, there is a mechanism for dealing with it. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He may well be, but he hasn't to my mind breached WP:CIVIL (and if he has, he's not the only one), although he may have perhaps overstepped WP:POINT. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• A final warning? He didn't do anything. So no, we can not settle on that. This entire thread has been people saying they dont see what you're upset about. -- ۩ Mask 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  "Didn't do anything" is laying it on a bit thick. But, yes, it's not THAT big a deal. Sven has been editing for all of two weeks, so maybe everyone could give him a break already. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  I actually did not know that, and I do apologize. I just assumed someone who has found ANI has more experience then two weeks. This can be a learning experience for him, and I don't hold it against him at all. No harm, no foul :) -- ۩ Mask 10:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• How about we just give both Mick and Kafziel a trouting for letting their talkpage discussion get a bit overly heated, and all move on with our lives? No harm, no foul on both sides, IMO. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• As a clarification, this began as my objection to Mick's beheavior on ANI, then I saw his warnings and block log and realized that he has a history of these things. That's when I went all out. I admit that it might have gotten out of hand, but I saw him as an aggressor mistreating a half dozen people and stepped in out of what now seems like a misplaced desire to protect others from what I perceived to be a community threat. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the suggestion that this is marked as resolved, I think that we need to hear from MickMacNee before this can be done. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Late to my own party as usual, I miss all the fun around here, although I was having much more fun in RL while this was going on.... As ever, given this is a venue for cluefull independent review against actual policy, from people without horses in the race, I've nothing to add here beyond the very cluefull feedback given by most, except to extend some thanks to this month old editor who, through his attempted banning of me, has brought some much needed independent community input to that Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Given lots of previous discussions with lots of different editors on this very subject, why don't we simply stop kidding ourselves and simply remove WP:CIVIL from being core policy and one of the five pillars. That way, we'll save on soooo much wasted time where innocent editors make complaints only for other editors to say things like "Yeah, that was maybe uncivil, but true and everyone is entitled to their opinion". Why bother with WP:CIVIL at all if its not going to get enforced? --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably not the right place for that discussion; but as "pillars" go, WP:CIVIL is pretty damn crumbly and not acutally supporting the real day to day workings of Wikipedia. There are essay-level admonisions that get applied far more frequently and with greater impact. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough comment that roughly agrees with my own thoughts. I certainly don't mean to divert this discussion away from the community's ongoing battle with Civility. I wonder where a more appropriate place for this discussion might be? --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Civility? --John (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mick loves to spout lots of Wikipedia rules & guidelines at people (WP:NOT, WP:NTEMP, WP:AIRCRASH, WP:GNG and WP:EVENT is this ONE edit alone). But he seems to fail to understand the important of one of the five pillars on which this project is built on, that of Civility. Something will have to be done about this at some stage before it get further out of hand and I get the strong impression from above that people just want to sweep it under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Bjmullan, believe me, I'd love to block MickMacNee for the next thousand years or so for the behaviour brought up here. Unfortunately, I'm way too involved to even click on the block button. This issue will only go away when MickMacNee tones down the rhetoric and stops badgering every editor who holds the opposite view to him in AfDs. Whether that can be done before another block is handed out is down to MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010

• What makes you think he fails to understand civility? This community runs on consensus, and the community consensus reached in this thread is that Mick was above-board on all counts. If you disagree with the community's decision that's one thing, but dark, sweeping pronouncements of future consequences based on failure to heed your words are not only impractical, but a touch more then slightly amusing as well. -- ۩ Mask 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• MickMacNee understands civility all right. Putting it into practice is another matter. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I had meant that as a response to Bjmullen, but touche. This does illustrate a point though. Many of the things said towards MickMackNee in places like this thread, his RfC in regards to you, any of the other ANI threads, are farther over the line then most of the things others complain about him saying. He was called a menace, a cancer before . And yet he doesn't even mention them. He never holds it up as justification, or a shield. Mick, honest to god, doesn't seem that interested in this if others didn't try to stir it up. He's not trolling, looking to get a rise and stir shit up. He's working on making the encyclopedia better. -- ۩ Mask 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• the community consensus reached in this thread is that Mick was above-board on all counts - reading the comments, just about every single editor expressed a negative view on Mick's tone and comments. I'd go so far as to say that Mick is right (a lot) more often than he is wrong, and maybe he is working on making the encyclopedia better, but there is a systematic civility issue here and if Mick refuses to .. adjust, then this topic is going to continue to rear it's head again and again. This isn't the first ANI opened on Mick relating to civility in the last 60 days, and his Talk page is peppered with pleas from editors to tone down his comments. While this isn't the worst example, it doesn't take long to find examples in his contributions. As a community we should ask ourselves, is letting Mick "get on with it" working? Clearly not as evidenced by the drama surrounding him on a daily basis. So what are the options? (Sweeping it under the carpet is not an option). --HighKing (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Besides the OP and mjroots, did any editor comment on the push to ban Mick favorably? Or the plan to restrict him from XfD? No. We are not 'sweeping it under the rug', if you want him punished we have to wait for him to actually do something worth punishing. A lot of people bringing ANI threads with nothing behind them does not dictate that we 'must' do anything. -- ۩ Mask 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I pulled you up on your comment that Mick was above-board on all counts. This is clearly not true. While the community consensus is that Mick does not deserve a block in this instance (and I also agree with that btw), the community has also acknowledged that there's a problem with his tone and his comments (just not quite enough for a block). That is not the same as bringing ANI threads with nothing behind them. If you take a look at Mick's longer-term behaviour, it's clear that there's an ongoing systematic behavioural problem relating to CIVIL policies. But what to do? We can agree that Mick's intentions are good. Waiting for him to do something worth punishing is sticking ones head in the sand, and the block ends up being a punishment. Perhaps a civility probation is in order before we have to resort to blocks or bans might be more productive all round. --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick's view on WPCIVIL and its application to him are clear: Per this diff]: "If you want to chat to people about the theory that demanding civility before you feel the need to justify positions or defend arguments is remotely conducive to taking discussions to a higher intellectual plane or achieving a defensible outcome, then go and have a chat with Giano or one of his hangers-on, they love debunking that sort of tosh." That's quite clear that he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and is further stated in his comments above and below that post. In addition, his constant badgering of other editors is usually accompanined by such incivility. He doens't veiw himself as bound by WPCIVIL in anyway. How is that compatible with WP's policies?

As to the assertion "I'd go so far as to say that Mick is right (a lot) more often than he is wrong", pray tell where? The majority of the AFDs that he has participated in have been kept inspite of his lengthy protestations, and most of them were upheld on apeal. So no, he doesn't appear to be right more oftern than his is wrong, but just the opposite.

While he may aguably do good work in contributing to articles, his "contributions' to discussions are far from productive. Perhaps the soultion would e to totally ignore his badgering on AFDs, but editors unfamiliar with him contribute at each new AFD,a nd theire unaware of his behavior, so enforcing that is problematic. Should we ban him from talk pages? That doesn't seem workable either, and his history of edit warring and uncivil edit summaries on articles suggests that would would continue. I don't see another way of handling his incivility other than an outright ban at this point. He's proven he sees no need to change ehavior in anyway. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

his "contributions' to discussions are far from productive. His contributions to the AfD this started in relation to were the only intelligent thing on that page until this thread got more eyes on the discussion in question (eyes that then proceeded to agree with him, I'd like pointed out). Mick doesn't personally attack very often. He comments on contribution (your rationale) and not contributor. Not always, none of us ever do, but the vast majority of the time. WP:CIVIL makes that exact distinction, too. It protects you from assholes, not things you dont want to hear. -- ۩ Mask 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never felt intimidated by the Mick, at AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as an outright ban but perhaps being placed under civility parole (as happened to a couple of disruptive editors at WP:BISE) may be the first step in getting Mick to understand what civility means. Bjmullan (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If such a parole will help prevent Mick from getting banned? then that's a good plan. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Such a parole does not help Mick get banned, all it does is give the people who enjoy causing drama a nice clearly defined line they need to bait him over to get their desired outcome. Holding him to the same standards as everyone else clearly just isnt working because they misjudged where the, you know, actual line is. -- ۩ Mask 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't get him banned. I rather it help prevent that, by saving Mick from himself. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We haven't even gotten that far yet my friend :) I doubt there's consensus to implement any sort of parole. There might be, I just dont believe there is. Might be wrong though. -- ۩ Mask 18:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As previously predicted, here we go again....see below. I believe a civility parole is the only way forward. It was successful at BISE, to be fair. --HighKing (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A civility parole does not lower the standard of what is and is not considered incivility. Nobody neutral is going to start changing their mind about whether these complaints have any merit or not. If they are not actionable now, then they won't be under a parole. Infact, I will put myself under a parole, I will advertise every future Afd here just so I can be put under extra scrutiny. I am more than happy to do that, as the only time any sense has come out of one of those Afd's, is ironically when it came to the attention of the wider community during this frivelous complaint. How I am sure you would hate it if the same phenomenon were to occur at BISE. But as it is, those BISE paroles seem more like process wonkery than anything else. The people who have been dumb enough to be gamed off that page by you through such blocks, would have been blocked for civility with or without a meaningless parole in place, as iirc had already happened anyway. Still, if it keeps you in your bubble of perceived legitimacy over there, while you make such obviously POV pushes like asserting that food is a geopolicital subject, and making such brilliant arguments like 'I've never heard it being used that way in Ireland, so it must not exist', then go right ahead. It made me laugh the other day as you went on and on about how we should be naturally suspicious of editors who are only editting Wikipedia for one purpose. Too funny. Again, unintentional irony seems to be the theme in these complaints. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking this over. It won't surprise MickMacNee to learn that I am in favour of a civility parole. However, any editor baiting MickMacNee to breach such a parole should be dealt with by means of blocks, even for a single instance. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks continue

MickMacNee recieved a final warning for incivility on 2 September. This morning, he called another editor a "basic troll" on the talk page of my RFC. Please, will somebody do something about this continual breach of WP:CIVIL? Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That one is pretty clearly over the line. I defend Mick when he keeps it focused on the content of arguments and their merit. That diff is just straight name calling. Congrats, just when I thought this whole pursuit of Mick was going to play out like Ahab's obsession, you found your white whale. -- ۩ Mask 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AK, I can keep it focused on content all day every day, up to a point, just like anybody else here. And the point was crossed here. The guy is a troll, that's a fact. He stuck his oar in at that section to simply state that I don't "understand anything" and I am "incapable of learning" [28]. I mean seriously, if this is not trollery, what is? Am I supposed to take this utter bollocks as constructive feedback? Am I supposed to happily bend over and take this rather obviously biased 'report' from the most biased and partisan admin I have seen in my goddam life? Here is a selection of previous trollery from this editor towards me: stop making ludicrous arguments again and again. stop being disruptive to the project and find something useful to do...The same lame arguments/excuses were made by both these editors...yet another waste of time by (MickMacNee)...stop these ridiculous AfDs...we will soon know who is clueless here. just wait and see...I highly doubt anybody can have a reasoned argument with you Mick. stop wasting every bodies time...even if I made one (a reasoned argument) you will not be able to comprehend it. trust me on that one...stop your completely non sense rants and do something useful for the project...get the message MMN. nobody wants you and your ability to contribute is marginal at best. Mjroots didn't raise an eyebrow to a single one of these comments, and he sees every single one. It's no coincidence that both think the same way on the disputed Afds, in opposition to me. And my personal favourite, his latest comment in the most recent Afd: there is no way in hell this article will be deleted...I dont think that you get it that nobody cares what your arguments are anymore. this AfD is another fine example. needless waste of time. The outcome? An article Mjroots created and asserted was more than notable, got deleted, and then we have this latest call to block me. I've have had enough of this rahter obvious campaign of intimidation, so I'm making the proposal below of an interaction ban. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't take any action against Wikireader41 is because I generally agree with him. I think that any incivility from him is nowhere near as bad as that MickMacNee has committed. I do think that the constant questioning of every vote, and every reply to every challenge, is not productive or conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6, which MickMacNee had plenty of input on, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise Flight 514, which MickMacNee had no input into whatsoever. Both had the same result - keep. BTW, the Wind Jet Flight 243 article was not deleted, it was merged. I'm OK with that, as it allows easy recreation once the final report is released and we can evaluate the cause, recommendations, any changes made as a result etc. The question remains, is calling an editor a "basic troll" a PA or not. I say it is, and at least one editor agrees with me. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a classic. 'Civility is OK as long as you agree with the editor in the dispute' is what that explanation effectively sounds like to me. This comes from someone who has, without any sense of shame or embarassment, continually declared that he can separate his conduct as an admin and an editor in this dispute, and that he always acts neutrally in either case anyway. Pretty obviously this is not happening, and he has no right to claim he should be considered worthy of being trusted as someone allowed to dispationately and neutraly comment on this dispute, and that people should not treat his reports here as anything other than wholly biased, and certainly not with the respect you would treat any normal admin's comments. I didn't think you would actualy admit you are completely biased in whether you do or do not consider a breach of civility is worth reporting is down to whether the editor is on your side or not, but here it is, in black and white. Unbelievable. As for the rest, as if it were remotely relevant to this report, the Windjet article no longer exists as a separate article, and if you recreate it against the Afd outcome, without attempting at all to show how it meets WP:EVENT, but simply on the basis that the investigation report was published, then I will simply renominate it for deletion, and it will get deleted. I urge everyone to look at both those Afds that were kept, look at the quality of arguments and the people involved in making them, and then look at the Windjet outcome, where the exact same arguments for keeping were made, but this time it got input from the wider community, rather than just the article creators, project editors, and other interested readers, and was examined by a closer who did a bit more than just vote-count, and thus the article was not kept in any practical sense. Mjroots is most certainly unaware of the difference between the significance, relevance, and ultimate legitimacy, of the two keeps, compared to the one delete, and I've given up even trying to explain to him what the difference is. Would Mjroots pass Rfa with this demonstrated level of understanding of WP:AFD, WP:CON and WP:NOT? On recent evidence of SilverSeren's application, I severly doubt it. He's not open to the idea of standing again of course. The only understanding he seems to have of the issue is that if he can have me eliminated as an opponent in this dispute, then there will be more likelyhood that even more Afd's will sail through without any decent arguments being made, and any proper examination from the wider community against our actual inclusion policies and guidelines being done. This is a content dispute, and by rights, I should be completely free of Mjroot's attempts at intimidation and elimination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's try and put it in nice and simple language. Any incivility from Wikireader41 did not cross the line, whereas calling other editors "basic trolls" most certainly does cross the line. What I was trying to show in the two AfDs I referred to, is how much smoother it goes when the nominator gives their rationale for deletion, and then everyone else gives their rationale for retention, deletion, merging or whatever without the constant challenging of every arguement opposite to the nominator's view, followed by the constant challenging of every reply to every challenge which degenerates into a mud-slinging match. As I have said before, most recently only yesterday, my goal is not to "eliminate" MickMacNee as an "opponent", it is to get him to cut down the constant badgering at AfDs and the incivility that goes with it.

As for the Wind Jet Flight 243 AfD discussion, and the participants therein, all editors across Wikipedia have the right to participate in all AfDs. The fact that most of them don't does not mean that the views of those who do participate are invalid. As far as I'm aware, there has been no canvassing for !votes in any recent aircrash AfDs. Relevant WikiProjects have been informed of AfDs by means of neutrally-worded notices, mostly in the form "Foo Airlines Flight 123 has been nominated for deletion". This is completely in accordance with accepted practices. There is no guarantee that a project member, on seeing such a notice, will vote "keep". All editors are encouraged to form their own views and !vote accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the millionth time, your ideas that Afds should be very short, with a nomination, and then a nice neat list of one or two line sentences with no challenges, no discussion, with absolutely no care in the world as to whether people make a strong argument, or a weak one, and that the ignorance of crowds rules all, has been dismissed as an idea of Afd that is completely and utterly devoid of any understanding of the purpose of the exercise. And there has been canvassing, you'e done it yourself and it's linked to above. I did not allege there was any problem with Projects being involved, but there is a clear and obvious difference between the quallity and legitimacy of the Afds you like, and the one's you don't. I'm sorry you don't appear to see it, but it's there, and been observed and commented on by everyone who has investigated them. MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a view being challenged. Once a reply has been given to that challenge, that is where is should stop - the closing editor will evaluate the challenge and response, and consider the merits of each when closing. Where I do have a problem is when the response to a challenge is further challenged, because this is what leads to the mud-slinging matches. So, Mick, how about limiting yourself to just one challenge (per editor), and leaving it there in future, no matter what you think of the answer given (if any). Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is not how Afd works. If you want to change the way it works, pitch it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, but I am not going to operate to some special arrangements at Afd just to accomodate your dislike of debate. MickMacNee (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The constant badgering of any editor with a conflicting view in the AFDs is what is the real issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

No, if you think that's the issue, you want WP:DR. This section is for dealing with an alleged PA. Either you follow DR, or you follow Mjroots' example, and just carry on bitching and moaning about what you think the issue is at every opportunity and at any venue, without ever doing anything about it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Request a reporting/commenting ban of Mjroots

I have just about had it with Mjroots and his biased observation and reporting of my behaviour, and his constant behind the scenes rabble rousing and general slagging of my reputation. Forget about vague notions about not being 'rude', this is what is actually incivil behaviour. And on this issue, he crossed the AGF line years ago. He is knee deep in a content dispute with me, and this latest attempt to get me blocked in the section above, while he conveniently ignores the actions of others, even when it concerns the post being replied to with alleged incivility, is beyond the pale. I would like him to be completely banned from making ANI posts about me, and from generally talking crap about me on other people's talk pages in thinly disguised Afd canvassing attempts, such as this, where he wanders to a friends talk page, casually drops a link to an Afd, and is waffling on about how I am 'at it again'. I can be reasonable. He can nominate a neutral and uninvolved point of contact, where he can go if he sees something that he thinks needs raising, and they can make the call whether to post at ANI, or do something else. But there have been two ANI posts so far about my alleged wrongdoings at Afd over this dispute, and they have resulted in no sanctions at all. Mjroots just refuses to drop the stick. If this interaction ban does not happen, then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Mjroots will be getting some content very soon. I've tried Rfc on his actions, and it got derailed, and he has just ignored it anyway, and continued to resort to just more unactionable and unjustifed general bitching and whining against me. He has not once followed WP:DR over this, not once. He has simply carried on the same behaviour outlined in the Rfc, while claiming that the support of trolls like the one he is defending above, shows he is an excellent admin. He needs to get real. This conduct is simply not acceptable in any admin. This is going beyond simple concern of one editor over another, as he rather ludcirously claims this campaign does not affect his standing as an admin because he hasn't yet been stupid enough to actually block me himself. Time to stop it now, one way or the other, as I'm just about done with this guy. We have 2000 admins here, and I am fine with 1,999 being responsible for looking out for incivility, all forms of it, at Afds in this dispute. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So, MickMacNee is still trying to deflect attention away from his own behaviour. "...there have been two ANI posts so far about my alleged wrongdoings at Afd over this dispute, and they have resulted in no sanctions at all..." - just because no sanctions have resulted does not mean that his behaviour is acceptable. He has been told it is not acceptable numerous times. My RFC was not derailed (except in MickMacNee's view). A number of editors evaluated MickMacNee's outline of the dispute, and my reply to his views. I'm sure a RFC about MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD will generate much more response.

As an admin, shouldn't I be raising issues about MickMacNee's behaviour with other editors and admins where I feel it is warranted. As I said on the talk page of my RFC, there is no requirement to notify MickMacNee that I have raised an issue about his conduct, as those pages are not ANI. He knows I'm too involved to take any administrative action against him. What I'd like to know is why is there no other admin prepared to take action over this issue? Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, unbelievable. You tell me where in WP:DR or WP:CIVIL it is that allows you to wander randomly around the pedia talking crap about other users without telling them, and then claim that this is you doing your admin duty. This is the board you come to if you want immediate admin attention, nowhere else. And you are getting your answer. If you don't know these things about adminship and Wikipedia already, and are still scratching your head as to why nobody but fellow weak keep voters will join you on your bandwagon, then seriously, wtf. I'm not deflecting anything, I'm trying to deal with your conduct in the proper manner, as you've shown absolutely no inkling that you will ever get it, that what you are doing is not only not proper admin conduct, it's barely even proper editor conduct. You won't find me creeping around in the dark corners bitching and moaning and flapping my gums, this is the relevant board, and here I am, seeking a solution to the problem that deals with your abuses, and also very generously still lets you retain your ability to 'raise issues' about me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe you're quoting WP:CIVIL at somebody! LOL  :-)

Seriously though, I don't know why the community has to continue to put up with a seriously abusive editor that refuses to adhere to core policy. Either we tear up WP:CIVIL as being unenforceable, or we, as a community, start to pay attention to it and enforce it. As it is, Mick has his supporters, but he's not bigger than core policy. Nobody is. --HighKing (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What utter self-delusional garbage. CIVIL is enforced everyday here, by neutral observers against editors they have no current dispute with. Which is a category neither you or Mjroots is ever going to fall into w.r.t me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

These comments immediately above are examples of the abusive language and incivility that continues unabated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

My e/c post below applies to you too. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Although as ever, it is always entertaining to see someone spouting off about CIVIL making an unintentionally ironic breach of the policy themselves while they do so. Unless of course HighKing wants to provide diffs for the allegation that I am a "seriously abusive editor that refuses to adhere to core policy". But knowing that he, like Mjroots, has never once follwed WP:DR in their disputes with me, I know he doesn't have any. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DNFTT applies equally. Bzuk (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How is that page relevant exactly? Does DNFTT have a clause that allows incivility as long as are complaining about a breach of civility? Infact, just wtf are you on about generally? Are you trying to contribute to this thread about me allegedly making a PA by calling a troll a troll, by calling me a troll? That's inventive at least, I have to say. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Am I the only user who is thinking that the entire thread might have outlived its usefulness? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, there does not seem to be any use in discussing this any further. See record. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Exaclty. The only thing left happening in this thread is the bitterness, butthurt and jealousy exemplified by this user's pointless contributions to it. Shut it down, and maybe he will do something about the 'real issue' as he sees it, in the right way. Or maybe he is just full of it, and is just one of the people who are apparently so deeply upset that nobody agrees with them that they should be allowed to make poor Afd arguments as and when they please, and think that challenging them is somehow a breach of civility, even though funnily enough, this is only a view held by them, and other hopelessly non-neutral people w.r.t me, like HighKing. Nobody else sees it their way, and they cearly just can't deal with it, and we now see ironic trollery, in a post that was originally about alleged PA from me on a guy who has been nothing but a complete troll, as he went about expressing his concern in those Afds and other pages, over what Bz laughingly calls the 'real issue'. Double standards and hypocrisy over CIVIL etc, is starting to be a general theme in this dispute frankly. Clearly nobody sees an actionable breach of civility here, and if I can't get a comment ban on Mjroots, I guess I will just have to accept that I must stalk him forever to monitor what he is saying about me in various different venues, in his rather bizarre idea of how you go about your adminly duties of being 'concerned' about other users. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting the last word in, doesn't justify anything. FWiW, nor is wikistalking. Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Check your facts. Mjroots thinks himself that this is what I should be doing, as he has made it absolutely clear that he won't be telling me where or when he is going to be informing people I am 'at it again', asking for the hundredth time to the hundredth person for 'advice' on how to deal with this supposed issue that he can't get anyone to block or sanction me over, but won't let that get in his way of trying and trying over and over again using the time-served tactic of general bitching and whining and generally ignoring WP:DR, much like yourself. And apparently this is all OK because this is allowed by WP:ADMIN (which it isn't), and because all of his contributions are publicly trackable. And thank god for that is all I can say. At least you are consistent, and make it known when and where you are making another non-contribution to resolving the dispute. Or have I just missed the places where you've been following WP:DR to get a resolution for your perceived issue? MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Law-enforcement vs. law enforcement

Radiojon has just moved virtually all of our articles whose titles include "law enforcement" (although Law enforcement is one exception, oddly) from "law enforcement" to "law-enforcement". I've reverted some of the moves, and some article contents I've cleaned up, but I have homework to do — could some more admins help with moving these pages back? See his recent contributions (assuming "Jon" = "he"), since about 23:00 on the 4th October, for the pages that need to be moved. In particular, List of law-enforcement agencies in Alabama and parallel articles for all or nearly all other US states need to be moved. A few other pages appear also to have been moved for no apparent reason, such as Charging Data Record to Charging data record, even though the article uses the term as a proper noun.

I bring this up here for two reasons: (1) I've already had to perform one deletion to move a page back to the proper title, so asking non-admins might not work as well. (2) It might help to have a discussion here with Radiojon about these moves; if you look at his talk page, you'll see lots of notes from people telling him that he was moving pages inappropriately. I can't tell whether he's responded on other people's talk pages to these comments, but it's obvious that he's not getting the message. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a query on his talk page a little over an hour ago. He(?) has not been active since about an hour before my note. —EncMstr (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

The use of the hyphen in titles like that of the Alabama list is defensible under WP:HYPHEN, as "law-enforcement" is used as an adjective. Ucucha 02:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you on the grammar front, moving such a large number of articles without discussion is a problem, since the sheer number of articles with the opposite convention tends to indicate that we had a de facto standard already in place. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand the grammar point, but I've never seen this usage before (either on-wiki or off-wiki); perhaps this could be considered one of the zillions of exceptions to English grammar rules. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the hyphen is usually optional in constructions like this, and it indeed doesn't seem to be used much for "law enforcement". Ucucha 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because "law enforcement" is a compound noun, not a noun/verb combination, so no hyphen is needed, or proper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All these moves should be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I've undone all the moves. —EncMstr (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per a new edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the hyphen is dying. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's "seen as messy looking and old-fashioned." ;-) TFOWR 17:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of WP:LE I object to this move :P --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should have been clearer. I objected to the insertion of hyphens. there appears to be no precedent, grammatical or stylistic, for it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which move? The addition of hyphens, or my removal of them? —EncMstr (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Radiojon's behavior

Radiojon's usual response to such an inquiry is to ignore it (and sometimes reinstate the mass page moves, again without discussion).

Previous threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#Radiojon
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Unilateral redefinition / article moves

—David Levy 03:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been pulling this since 2005 with nary a block? Greatest. Troll. Ever. Don't let me interfere further with erudite discussion of the use of the hyphen in English.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "troll" description. Radiojon appears to honestly believe that he's improving the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, he does so by "correcting" articles to comply with his personal views, without regard for anyone else's. —David Levy 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case let's put out a collection jar to pay for his therapist. Either that or a troll, the answer for wikipedia is obvious (though that would get in the way of much hilarity as people rush to their OEDs for guidance on how to handle this, so i suppose contra-indicated (contraindicated!).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again? Because Radiojon's moves consistently attract controversy, he should be required to discuss all moves on the talk page before making them. I seem to recall making this request of him in the past. Does this sound like a reasonable solution? In other words, no moves unless he's first proposed and discussed it on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding wiki-layerish, I'm not sure anyone other than arbcom has the authority to issue a restriction like that (a move ban). --Selket ^Talk 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the community has the authority to do that, if it's needed. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.39 (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick note. (I'm short on time.) He recreated Vintage Hawaiian Treasures. After it was deleted by consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it was deleted by consensus. Only where it was an expired PROD. Was it originally under another name by any chance? --Smashville^talk 13:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

Given Radiojon's long history of making unreasonable moves without consensus, I'd like to propose a topic ban in accordance with Viriditas' suggestion above: that Radiojon be prohibited from moving any page (other than his own userspace) without first proposing the move and gaining consensus from others. One question — I've never before asked for any sort of ban, and I virtually never participate in ban proposals, so I'm not sure — does this proposal go here or at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

AN is the preferred venue, but when ban proposals evolve out of an AN/I thread, they're generally kept here. I suppose it wouldn't be bad to post a pointer on AN to here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made this user an unbeatable offer regarding this bad habit he seems to have acquired. I did this after looking in some detail at his contribs over the past few years; he basically doesn't edit talk pages or user talk and hasn't substantively done so since 2004 or so. This is unacceptable and this user has long since passed the point where the net benefit to the project is negative. My offer is intended to bring about a "win-win" situation; either Radiojon starts making edits that are actually of benefit, or he gets indefinitely blocked. Either would be better than going on as we have been. --John (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Good proposal. For the record, the user is one who has been on my watchlist for a long time after some run-ins over undiscussed page moves that appear to have been made in good faith and with good intentions, but were not well-received. I see that he has not made any contributions in the last 24+ hours. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the way you formulated this. Let's hope it works. Hans Adler 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The only criticism I have of John's "unbeatable offer" is that "The very next time I see you make an undiscussed move of a page, I will block this account indefinitely" should have read "The very next time an Admin sees you make an undiscussed move of a page, he or she will block this account indefinitely". Not to suggest a pile-on here, but let him know he's not playing a game of "whack-a-mole" or "cat-&-mouse" with John. -- llywrch (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the offer; it's well done, although implementing Llywrch's suggestion would have been more useful yet. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice suggestion. I didn't want to presume to speak for the entire admin community but I do appreciate the suggestion and the support. John (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not a formal editing restriction?

While this thread has reached a resolution of sorts, it seems to rely on one single admin who will be standing forever at his post, waiting for Radiojon to resume the actions that people object to. To relieve the pressure on a single admin, and to clarify how Radiojon should work in the future, it may be desirable to place a community editing restriction on him. This could be done by agreeing on the wording to be logged at WP:RESTRICT. How about: "Radiojon is banned from making any page moves for which he has not received consensus in advance." Please reply so we can determine if this wording has the backing of editors in the thread. This restriction would be in addition to whatever remedy has been agreed to above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good proposal. --John (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it's necessary as it doesn't seem to change much, but I agree with the proposal. Hans Adler 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ready to support, except I'd like to see an own userspace exemption: I don't see any good reason to keep him from moving his user subpages around. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel a formal restriction here is overthinking John's solution. Everyone agrees on the goal here, & for the most part agrees with John's solution -- he just needs additional support to enact it. Only further action needed here would be a clarification along the lines of my edit to Radiojon's talk page; & if what I wrote is not precisely tuned to the situation, I hope everyone concerned agrees that WP:IAR allows any Admin to take the appropriate actions. -- llywrch (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AMuseo, Broad Wall & Historicist

Firstly, a declaration, I have have recent negative interactions with Amuseo and do not feel sufficiently dispassionate to act neutrally. I noticed a link on their userpage to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist which reveals that Amuseo is actually a sockpuppet of a user Historicist used to get around a ban from PI articles enacted under ARBPIA.

• Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Broad Wall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AMuseo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AMuseo was created first but appears to have been abandoned in favour of Historicist then resuming after the topic ban was enacted. Broad Wall became active from 1 January and appears to have been created for editing PIA articles as a quick scan of AMuseo's contribs suggests that this account was mostly clean of PI edits after the ban was enacted. Broad Wall was abandoned on 22 July and AMUSEO has been extensively editing PI related articles in breach of their topic ban since then. The relevant wikistalk report is here.

The question is what do we do about this? There is no real evidence of abusive socking except for the flagrant disregard of the topic ban although the absence of recent issues does suggest that behaviour has improved. I do feel that some response is required but, apart for reaffirming the topic ban should we consider a community sanction to restrict AMuseo or one account or is something more direct required. Since I'm too partial to involve myself in the decision I am simply reporting the facts for further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that they should be indef'ed as the accounts have been used to escape detection of the topic ban, and as such are not valid WP:Clean start accounts. Also any pages that they have created in violation of the topic ban (that they are the only significant editors of) should be CSD G5'ed. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether it was created by many editors or just one, Historicist and AMuseo have created dozens of new articles and expanded many others, earning DYK recognition for a substantial number of these articles which have been reviewed by other, unrelated Wikipedia editors. While I understand that there is a rush to delete any articles that are believed to be irretrievably tainted by their association with a particular editor, in this case such deletions will only serve to create greater disruption to the encyclopedia. I am more than willing to review and take editing responsibility for any article created by any of the editors in question here and oppose any effort at mass deletions using CSD G5 as a justification. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well G5 shouldn't be applied on a blanket scale, no; if other editors have made significant contributions since AMuseo's creation of it, and/or it has reached DYK status, then it shouldn't be used. But in cases where neither applies, .e.g Café Hillel bombing, Nava Appelbaum and so on, they should be speedily deleted right now. These are the types of charged, and mostly non-notable, articles that this user has been arguing fervently for for months now, in violation of the topic ban. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was on the fence about this one, never having had a bad interaction with any of the iterations of this editor (and only a few positive ones, all with AMuseo) but the fact that the topic ban was documented by a sitting arbitrator is pretty compelling. I don't think that G5 is appropriate, given that the user had not been "banned" from en.wiki entirely when the edits in violation of the topic ban were made, but I agree that an indef block for socking is the correct response and the appropriate starting place for further discussion. I want to commend the editor in question for being forthright in explaining his intentions, although they do indeed appear to have been a de facto admission of guilt. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc. AMuseo has a long history of creating slanted articles about events in the news that don't merit encyclopedia articles. G5 is appropriate in these instances. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• As a confirmed sockpuppet and topicban breaker, shouldn't AMuseo/Historicist be revoked their special rights visible here and here (but not here), right away by an admins discretion? -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already indef-blocked AMuseo before finding this discussion, and I think the same should clearly be done to Broad Wall. Perhaps it is less clear cut for Historicist, so I shall wait to allow more discussion. However, my own view is that this account too should be indef-blocked. We have here an editor with a long history of troublesome editing, with a string of blocks and bans extending back over almost two years. Three of the editor's previous blocks were for abuse of multiple accounts or topic ban evasion. If an editor with a history of that sort continues to blatantly evade a topic ban by using other accounts, then I think the time has come to decide "enough is enough". There is no sign that the editor intends to stop defying consensus, and the net loss to Wikipedia through the time and effort wasted on continually dealing with this editor's transgressions will far outweigh any gain by letting the editor have yet another chance. (Incidentally, one of the previous blocks was originally indefinite, but reduced to allow the editor another chance.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz is mistaken to say there has been an "absence of recent issues" with regards to Amuseo. The user in question has created a string of problematic articles in recent weeks, all of which were heavily POV, containing numerous misleading statements and even outright flights of fancy, most of which were immediately nominated for AfD and a number of which have already been deleted. I myself had to do a complete rewrite of a couple just to bring them up to a remotely NPOV standard. He did exactly the same kind of thing when he was editing as Historicist.

Amuseo/Historicist is a relentless POV pusher who just wastes huge amounts of other users' time. Certainly his topic ban should remain in place; whether a wider ban should be enacted I will leave to others to judge. Gatoclass (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of removing some material that violates WP:BLPTALK from Amuseo's user page. As can readily be guessed, it related to an individual involved in Israeli-Palestine disputes. This would appear to be another example of the sockpuppet account breaking other guidelines related to the topic ban area, in addition to merely breaking the topic ban itself. I will refrain from making further comments until a little later; I am far from impartial on this since, as a completely new editor, many of my first interactions were with Amuseo, I did my very best to assume good faith, and it is very clear that any such trust placed by me or other members of the community was comprehensively betrayed by this individual. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(AMuseo's user page has now been replaced with an appropriate tag by another user - I'm also fixing the redlink in my previous comment) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A couple of thoughts:

• I haven't interacted with this editor myself, but I remember noticing when he was topic-banned, and thinking that he really hadn't done very much to deserve a topic-ban. (Expressing an opinion of a living person in too-strongly worded language on a talk page; but the editor offered to redact the comment, as I recall. It wouldn't have been obvious to me, either, that it was not allowed to express negative opinions about living people on talk pages).
• Looking at the articles that have been linked to above, Café Hillel bombing and Nava Applebaum, both look notable and well-sourced, although the prose in both could use cleaning up to adhere to WP:NPOV.
• From spot-checking some of the user's recent contributions, they all seem constructive.

The question I have is: will blocking this editor, who seems to be a prolific content contributor, improve the encyclopedia? From what I see, it looks to me that this is a basically constructive editor who has gotten tangled up in the wikibureaucracy surrounding the I/P topic area. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor with a long history of troublesome editing, with a string of blocks and bans extending back over almost two years, three of whose previous blocks were for abuse of multiple accounts or topic ban evasion, and who then continues to blatantly evade a topic ban by using other accounts? An editor who made more than eleven thousand edits with the account on which they were first topic banned, and explained this by saying "it takes a while to learn the system" ?

An editor whose comments on what he had learned about that "system", expressed to a newer editor who was being advised by others that bickering with an admin about being blocked was not the right approach, were that "there are several dedicated bullies who get away with murder by the expedient of always being exquisitely polite and never technically violating a rule" ? An editor who continued to mass-produce POV articles often under dubious WP:COATRACK disguises, to the extent that anyone who wanted to avoid such POV material dominating the topic area and other prominent parts of the encyclopedia, was forced to propose and then re-write some or most of each article (just two examples, but I'm sure there are dozens [29] [30] )

An editor who, when a newbie editor (myself) adds a completely neutral note to an AfD (opened by someone else) referencing one of the many POV articles pushed in that manner, describes that newbie editor as "editors who have little more to offer than Wikipedia:I just don't like it" and accuses them of "manufacturing arguments" ? [31]

An editor who, right up until he was discovered, was using the user page of one of his sock puppet accounts in flagrant violation of the very clear very first sentence of WP:BLP, in fact concerning a living individual in the topic area from which he had already been banned? (Incidentally I'm not sure if your comment "It wouldn't have been obvious to me, either" referred to the instance of that I removed from his user page today, or if he'd already had action taken against him for a previous breach of that policy - in either case, it's outrageous to suggest that a user with over ten thousand edits, including many on this noticeboard itself, would be unaware of the very first sentence of a key policy.)

An editor who still - after all that refuses to admit that he has done anything wrong? But instead warns (threatens?) the community that ""you cannot ban the entire world, not even the entire university" ?

I would say yes, for an editor like that, the encyclopedia would benefit from saying "enough is enough".

I have a question for you in return. For someone like myself who has relatively recently started using Wikipedia, and for whom this is the first other editor with whom I had a serious difference of opinion about content, how do you think it feels to discover that despite my attempts to assume good faith, the other editor was committing a serious breach of trust against the community covering several years? Some of the suggestions made here and elsewhere, leave me feeling that quite a few people really do agree with AMuseo/Historicist's stated view that you can "get away with murder" so long as you never technically violate a rule. People really have actually said his behaviour as AMuseo was somehow "acceptable" and therefore it's all OK. Is it the right message to send to anyone - me or another newbie editor or anyone else - that if your POV doesn't always get top billing, then you should scream and scream until you get warned that you're breaking the rules, then you should break the rules some more until you get blocked, then you should break the rules some more until you get topic banned, then appeal it, then break the rules again, then immediately start up with a sock, then switch socks to another one, and just keep on going? And then when you finally get caught, people will still say "well I think he's a prolific contributor!" If I had a POV I wanted to push on Wikipedia, what this would tell me is that by acting in this disruptive manner, in flagrant breach of multiple policies, I could indeed do that for years and still be defended. Do you think this is acceptable? Do you really think it benefits the encyclopedia?

Sorry this was rather long, but as can probably be seen, I feel very very let down and disappointed - and angry. I have paraphrased JamesBWatson in the first sentence but I hope I'm not being unduly repetitious.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the sake of fairness, his contribution as AMuseo has been praised multiple times in the comments to the Sockpuppet_investigations. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That praise has all come from I-P conflict partisans. I am quite familiar with this user's contributions since I have had to do a great deal of work to try and clean up his submissions to DYK, I could provide examples of his problematic editing chapter and verse but perhaps a couple of examples will suffice:

• Here is an article recently submitted to DYK for front page exposure by Amuseo. The article contains next to no information about its ostensible topic, and is basically just a WP:COATRACK for listing attacks made by Islamic extremists against Gaza's Christian community. The article repeats references to the same attacks to make them look more numerous, conflates attacks by unidentified militants with the governing authority Hamas in several places, fails to mention that Hamas has strongly condemned attacks against Christians, fails to mention that attacks against Christians in Gaza are "rare" and that the Muslim and Christian communities there have always enjoyed good relations, and fails to mention that the Christian leader murdered there in 2007 was the first such religiously motivated killing of a Christian in living memory. By omitting all such details, Amuseo created a false impression of a Christian community in Gaza under siege from Muslim fanatics, led by Hamas. I was forced to completely rewrite this article, you can compare Amuseo's version with my own.

• As another example, here's just one of Amuseo's recent edits that I had to amend. See if you can find the details added by Amuseo in the original source. Amuseo just fabricated most of these details to make the crime appear as heinous as possible, it's simply a piece of fiction, and this is far from the only edit of this type I have found by this user. Gatoclass (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first article you've linked, it's really not bad for a new article. While the omissions that you describe make useful additions to the article, they aren't necessarily obvious facts that an editor would know to include, especially if the editor is reading news articles to learn about the topic (since news articles often lack some relevant context). I also don't see the repetition in the description of attacks that you describe. Your version is a clear improvement, but even the early version seems to be a reasonable article about a bookstore and the attacks on it. In fact, your version gives me more of an impression of a "Christian community under siege" than the original version. (In particular the last sentence, "In the three years since Ayyad's death, the growing Islamization of Gaza, along with a tough Israeli blockade[1] and rising chaos and lawlessness, have placed increasing pressure on Gaza's Christians,[4] and the Christian community there has dwindled from 3,000[2] to barely more than 1,000.)"

Regarding the second diff I agree that misrepresenting sources is one of the most hugely frustrating things that an editor can possibly do, and I'd like to see, in general, editors being more proactive about challenging assertions for which the sourcing does not match the article text. However, the diff you've cited doesn't seem to be an egregious example of this general problem. I can think of some good-faith explanations for the edit, for example that the details not in the source cited were something that the editor read somewhere else. To be honest, I'm not even sure that the added details make the crime sound more heinous. (The sources describe terrorists murdering 4 people and stealing their bodies with the goal of sabotaging peace talks; does the unsourced assertion that they also planned to give the impression that they had kidnapped live victims really make it sound worse?) In any case, I'd like to hear what Amuseo has to say about it.

So, at least from the diffs you've cited, I don't see evidence of unconstructive work from this editor. The first looks like a good start to an article, the second might well be an honest mistake or a missing source. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I find it astonishing that anyone would describe such a POV screed as "a good start to an article". I would be ashamed to load something like that into mainspace, and I think most responsible editors would concur. In any case, this wasn't merely a "start" to an article, this was an article he nominated for frontpage exposure via DYK.

When you say the omissions I mention "aren't necessarily obvious facts that an editor would know to include", I can only suppose you didn't read the article sources, because those omissions appear in source after source and could hardly be overlooked. And if you're "not even sure that the added details make the crime sound more heinous", then I must assume you haven't thought about it very hard, because it should be clear to anyone who gave it a moment's thought that the falsehood added by Amuseo makes it appear that Hamas planned to deliberately mislead the families of the victims into believing their loved ones were still alive. It would be hard to excuse such a cavalier misuse of sources even as an isolated incident, but in Amuseo's case there is a consistent pattern of such editing. Gatoclass (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Several articles by Amuseo were nominated for speedy deletion, under WP:Ban#Bans apply to all_editing, good or bad. As that page is talking about site bans, not topic bans, I have declined the speedy on Café Hillel bombing, which just needed some language changed, on Abu Ubaida (Hamas military leader), which was an unexceptional stub, and on Shawarma restaurant bombing, where the speedy certainly does not apply because it had also been edited by a good faith editor who had made the correct edits to remove the improper POV & the article was presently in his good version. I did delete Jihad and Genocide", an article about an extremist book whose notability seems highly doubtful. I know not everyone will agree with me, so if anyone wants to send the articles to AfD, feel free. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• • So your rationale is that G5 only applies to literal blocks/bans, not indefinite topic bans? That's some pretty interesting hair-splitting/wikilawyering, and not one that other admins share, thankfully, i.e. Nava Appelbaum. I think this interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria needs a larger discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would expect such decisions on speedy are part of the discussion here. That would also prevent using hand picket arguments per article-for-speedy, even contradicting in Café Hillel bombing vs Jihad and Genocide. (BTW, CSD-G5 is only available in Speedy, not in AfD). So the topic-ban evading sockpuppet gets their limelight in POV-pushing after all. -DePiep (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My view is that for notable subjects the procedure of first removing the article and then writing another gives the user the attention. Making use of whatever is usable is DENY. The only admin action I've taken here is to delete one article, and if any admin disagrees with that,I have no objection if they revert it. Declining a speedy isn't even an administrative action, since anyone can do it, and the remedy if one disagrees is AfD. Any good reason for deletion is valid at AfD. The alternative course if you like is to speedy delete again, justifying it by IAR--I have other things I need more to work on and I will not challenge it. This does not apply to Swarma, which just plain does not meet the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Making use of whatever is usable is DENY." - indeed, except that only G5 was used as argument in all speedy cases. You applying various arguments to motivate a string of decisions, is more like "whatever is usable" to me (and what Tarc here called "hair-splitting/wikilawyering"). Curiously, the one deletion you made was on "non notable", which (I learned later), is explicitly not a reason for speedy. Since I am not an admin, and I don't want to start speedy-warring with admins discretion, I could wait for AfD. But even there there will not be an outcome on your ban-and-G5 interpretation and motivation, keeping the field of admin's discretion so wide, and so empty when it's about motivating. Because then the admin "ha[s] other things I need more to work on" -- that should be outside of Wikipedia then, because your arguments here are the first thing we need to discuss. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I hasve alreaedy said that amnyone is fullly welcome to reverse any of the actions, & I shall not protest.I do not see hwta more you can want. As I strongly disagree with the prpevailing interpretation here, I shall in the future simply not deal with that particular reason for deletion---there are enough other admins patrolling speedy, As for other things, I have other things to do on wikipedia than do deal with this question of interpretation in an area where I have no particular interest. I decided when I became an admin, & say on my user p., that if anyone is unhapppy with my speedy actions in good faith, that I simply ask any admin to revert them , & just let me know afterwards. As for discussing thegeneral issue of how to handle banned or quasi-banned editors, I think that is better done outside the context of a particular case. I rather think the consensus is somewhat stricter than I think it should be, but changing consensus takes years, and as I said, I think there are many more important things for me to do here than concern myself with our practices with respect to banned or topic-banned editors. I have never beeen much involved in Arbitration enforcemeent or blocking--there are quite enough people who are. De Puip, if you want to quarrel with me it will be somewhat difficult to do so over this, because in something I don;t think involves basic principle, I always leasve the issue alone rather than get into a quarrel. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to quarrel? This is what I wrote (about): I was disappointed that in a serious case like this, admin's discretion allows quite a lot, and the admin can walk away without motivate or discuss their discretionary decisions. An admin can take higher level decisions without even having to explain. I have no such discretion, and I am supposed to discuss and motivate every contested key I touch. And no, a specific case will not change policy, but fleshing out a case is instrumental (necessary and useful) to change policy. Don't call this 'not AGF': it's not testing 'good intentions'. I am looking for a line in leaders/admins decisions. Without that one, the community will disintegrate. I have not seen yet a forum for policy change. Next level is arbcom and so - conflict resolution, not policy change. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• More misbehaviour from Amuseo - an apparent attempt to canvas a sympathetic editor over a recently opened AfD. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AMuseo was blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, debate seemed to be ongoing regarding the status of that block. Also, it seems the Historicist account has yet to be blocked, and I thought that issue had yet to be resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Historicist is topic banned, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#2009 Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but I was referring to the comment made by jamesbwatson above, when he said: I had already indef-blocked AMuseo before finding this discussion, and I think the same should clearly be done to Broad Wall. Perhaps it is less clear cut for Historicist, so I shall wait to allow more discussion. However, my own view is that this account too should be indef-blocked. No-one seems to have actually addressed that question yet. Does Historicist escape further sanction for circumventing his topic ban via sockpuppetry, or do we maintain the status quo? Unless I missed something, that question wasn't resolved yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I guess that needs clarifying. For what it's worth, my view is that editors who use sockpuppets in the area covered by the discretionary sanctions should be banned not blocked unless they explicitly agree to comply with mandatory policies at all times and their edits following the agreement demonstrate that that is consistently the case. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll elaborate on that a bit. There is, in my view, a permissive atmosphere of "the ends justify the means" in the I-P topic area. It's facilitated by editors who don't use sockpuppets but who bat for the same team lending their tacit support to such activity and even praise for the editors who use this strategy and their products. This would not be the case if the sockpuppets were advocating for the 'bad guys'. Those editors would be part of an evil conspiracy to spread lies etc. There would be articles about it in YNet, JPost, INN, etc discussing the terrible corruption of Wikipedia, the dishonesty of the bad guys and their propaganda campaigns. Some of them would probably be written by a long term sockpuppeteer. Oddly, there also seems to be an attitude that people who identify these sockpuppets are doing something wrong. It's been going on for years. We could do with a few more bright line rules in the I-P topic area to help people stay on the rails. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking more at Historicists edits through his AMuseo puppet, he violates his topic ban in this edit, notice that the text he ads: "shootings of Israeli civilians are a legitimate means of conquering all of the land that is now the state of Israel." are nowhere to be found in the source and is completely made up. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The source referenced in the article stating "Al-Zahar said liberating all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is both a moral and religious duty for Muslims and armed resistance (a euphemism for terror attacks) is the way to defeat the occupiers." would appear to be the derivation of the material added. You may disagree with the paraphrase, but the claim that this is "nowhere to be found in the source and is completely made up" appears unjustified. There have been plenty of editors, including myself, who have reviewed and edited articles created by this editor, and there have been dozens of articles that have passed scrutiny for content and sourcing and been included in DYK, representing a broad range of articles that filled holes in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion at DYK does not give an article an award for passing any stringent requirements. Although I have vast enthusiasm for DYK, it should be made clear that the requirements for DYK are little more than that the article can pass AfD, certain requirements about sourcing (not every source needs to be checked for DYK), rules on length, newness and a lack of obvious negativity or controversial content in the hook. DYK does not evaluate articles for whether they have "filled holes in Wikipedia". In my personal opinion, many of AMuseo's recent submissions to DYK have caused holes in Wikipedia by requiring other editors to spend time on "clean up" duty dealing with the POV material that he was trying to push onto the main page (in flagrant and egregious violation of his topic ban) using it. I have already provided an example above of an article he created and then tried to submit to the main page via DYK, where he had simply cherry-picked every single statement that could be made pro-Israeli from all of the sources he cited, and ignored everything else. This is how he was editing - even after his earlier topic ban from that area on a different account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Inclusion at DYK is explicitly intended as an award to recognize creators of new content, and dozens of articles created by Historicist / AMuseo have met that standard as determined by independent reviewers. I have yet to see any of the many editors participating in the I-P who don't have preconceived notions that directly effect the tone and wording as content is created. In such cases, editing by the community has overwhelmingly determined that the articles Historicist / AMuseo created were appropriate for inclusion in DYK on the Wikipedia main page. My objection here is to the overbroad application of CSD:G5 as a justification to delete content that has been scrutinized, as has already happened twice with the article for Nava Applebaum. None of these articles should be speedied without consensus here that the content is not encyclopedic and redeemably updatable by other editors. Alansohn (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that Historicist was explicitly prohibited from using alternate accounts, per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2009. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a key point, and I think what should be considered is if Historicist should suffer no sanctions whatsoever for his use of multiple sock-puppet accounts in breach of that prohibition, or if some action against Historicist should be taken. If no action is taken, then presumably whenever he feels like it (remember he has said that he has not abused anything and that you cannot ban the whole university) he will create yet another sockpuppet and carry on as before. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

See

• 86.157.103.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.194.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.129.199.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.132.250.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.105.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.133.168.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.71.49.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.164.244.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and user talk:JzG/nuxx.

The ISP do not seem to be willing to do anything about this. I don't think we are really up for people IP-hopping in order to make edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Chapman&diff=prev&oldid=388915027 (admins only).

I've also contacted Jimbo and the foundation. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to minimize this, but just the 86.xx addresses there are within a BT /10 net range:

[32]

That's all of 86.128.0.0 - 86.191.255.255

That's a lot larger than we're currently allowed / enabled to do rangeblocks on ( /16s at the most ). We'd have to impose 64 separate /16 rangeblocks for the whole range; the 3 subsets (86.157. ; 86.129 - 86.133 ; 86. 164.) would in no way guarantee they can't get more IPs outside those 3 sub-ranges.

I think the CUs have a tool to evaluate the side effects of rangeblock sizes. I don't know what a safe range is within those groupings to go after, from this point looking inwards.

Semiprotect all the pages they're after indefinitely would be easier. A lot easier. If we have to go after them in a permanent way this is going to be a pain in the arse, as it were...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And the BT dynamic ISP range is at least double that - there's 81.128.0.0/10 as well. That's 8 million IP addresses, and a BT user can access pretty much any one of them - I'm on it myself and I've noticed my address moves all over both ranges. The collateral damage would be horrific - I know someone blocked a BT range to hit a well known serial vandal a while back and the unblock list got deluged. The only option here if BT can't help is to semi the pages. The 82.71. IP, by the way, is a different ISP (Zen Internet). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Christ, what a useless waste of life. I bet his ISP would listen if the Foundation started sending out official complaints. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they probably wouldn't give a shit. I'm only with them myself because I live in an isolated rural backwater where their ADSL is the only thing better than dialup. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I bet they would if a large number of users complained to the ISP about an IP range being blacklisted and they threatened to drop internet service. And if you think dialup is slow, I've heard there are places in the north woods where the only internet access is via smoke signals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the rev-del'd edits. Is there a broader SPI or something related to this editor? I've identified a few long-term (as in a few years) editors making thousands of vandalism edits on a much smaller range and those rangeblocks can't go through because of the collateral effect. The collateral on a /10 block is enormous. So I'm sorry if I'm being naive here, but is this part of a broader pattern from this person? Shadowjams (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BT ranges are virtually not blockable. Too busy, too active, and too dynamic. Semi-protection is your best bet here. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think they're listening, but network engineers ought to keep users within limited IP ranges at least for a few weeks at a time (some do) so that we don't have to eventually resort to /10 blocks, particularly if they're not going to respond to complaints. This isn't that case, but in some instances that may happen. There've been some SPI cases where large swaths of Alabama were blocked for a while (might have been hyperbole...). Shadowjams (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The key difference between Alabama and Britain is that Alabama is a state of under 5 million. England alone has more than 10 times the population of Alabama. Also, BT, if I remember correctly is also Britain's largest ISP provider. Blocking even one /16 will lead to collateral. A lot of these IPs geolocate to London, so we could be blocking a major city. Even though I've only filled 2 abuse report complaints, both were unsuccessful. One was unresponsive, the other there was a response, but it seems like nothing happened because the same IP that got reported abuse their IP again. I do get the feeling sometimes that the ISPs just do not care. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to Wikipedia, I have to wonder, short of breaking the law, why would ISPs care how a user abuses someone's website - especially one the size of BT? Rklawton (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Such abuse is a violation of their customer's usage policy. It also could conceivably help an ISP or law enforcement to track very serious abusers who might be doing other illicit activities.    Thorncrag   23:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz's editing behavior

• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I am currently involved in a dispute with Ronz at Talk:List of Philippine restaurant chains. I have brought this up at a noticeboard and the relevant issue has been talked about on a guideline's talk page. To avoid further deterioration of the conversation I offered that we settle the dispute through mediation to which he replied on my user talk page stating "Mediation is unsuitable for such disputes, as explained at WP:Mediation." I copied the short conversation on my talk page to the disputed article's talk page so that there would be a record of the conversation on one page but he refactored his comments out of the article talk page saying it doesn't belong there. I submitted the dispute for a third opinion (WP:3O) but Ronz removed the submission saying another party was involved. Even if that were so, that should be up for the third opinion editor to determine. I guess another venue I could take this to is RfC but given the behavior displayed and the efforts already expended to resolve the content dispute I think ANI is now appropriate. I am increasingly concerned that his edits along with his actions are taking the form of pettifoggery per WP:Gaming the system, display signs of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, and do not create a welcoming environment for article contributors. Lambanog (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

15:18, 5 October 2010 Lambanog's request for help at WT:Mediation Cabal. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note it was not a formal request for mediation but a general inquiry on the talk page describing a dispute with an unnamed editor and requesting the proper procedure to follow. Note further that Ronz seems to acknowledge that the dispute as described there describes the dispute between us. Lambanog (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This posting is premature. I'm confident that all involved are working in good faith. As a third party that has since been drawn into this dispute, I would suggest that Ronz, Lambanog and I go back to the article talk page, and try to work it out there. I suggest closure of this thread. LK (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this thread from the MedCab post mentioned above. I've added List of Philippine restaurant chains to my watchlist and I'll help out if necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested Lambanog remove this comment from the article talk page [33]. I'll move the comment here if he doesn't respond.

I'm at a loss as how to interact with Lambanog. He appears to have trouble understanding the very discussions, policies, guidelines, etc that he refers to in his comments (as demonstrated in this discussion), and so is unable to defend his position on a matter in a sensible way. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. I agree there are concerns with his latest post. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Maybe he can be directed to WP:EAR and WP:MENTOR? Both would help him a lot. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ronz should take his own advice. He has already been corrected on several points regarding the proper interpretation of guidelines by other editors during the course of this dispute and another dispute we had involving another article [34] [35]. As for this case, it started as a content dispute but due to the behavior shown by Ronz in actively blocking dispute resolution pathways I think it may warrant closer inspection as a behavioral complaint. Please note in my initial statement my concern regarding WP:Gaming the system. If a list of the multiple instances Ronz's edits have drawn criticism is warranted it can easily be produced. For starters I will simply reproduce here the comment that PhilKnight and Ronz mention that I made in response to Lawrencekhoo's thought that ANI or mediation are premature:

"I do not believe ANI is premature. Ronz has been reported at ANI multiple times before, and involved in numerous disputes. In one instance among many, he was seen by third parties as a provocateur in a dispute that ended in a content contributor with over 130000 edits and 1300 articles ultimately being banned. It has been observed that Ronz does not add to content. WP:RS/N has been tried and instead of welcoming outside comments, Ronz's response there discouraged them. WP:3O has been attempted and again Ronz, instead of encouraging the dispute resolution process, blocked it. RfC seems to be his favored venue and for that reason alone I am wary of it, not to mention that I should jump through the hoops that he sets. There is also the technicality that two editors need to sign on or the RfC can be junked within 48 hours. Ronz is most likely aware of this since a previous RfC against him went nowhere due to lack of certification. Lawrence if you are willing to sign, then it becomes an option to be considered." [With edits to include links to forums indicated.]

I will list more instances as required. I also disagree with any move to remove the above comment from the article talk page while the dispute is ongoing. For easy evaluation, they should remain on the pages where outside parties will go to review the case. Taking them out of the talk page will also affect the flow of discussion and may hinder a proper evaluation of statements made there and their context. Lambanog (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone instruct Lambanog on proper civility, dispute resolution, and use of article talk pages please? He now appears to be trying to negotiate terms for his proper behavior [36]. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And a good morning to you too Ronz! I was just about to tell you the news but it seems you got your response in before I could. I've had some time to think about it and a few things dawned on me: (1) This place needs you Ronz. (2) You need it. (3) I shouldn't let something like my being in the right get in the way of that. So guess what? I've decided to withdraw my complaint here at ANI for now. It's not good to be so grumpy early in the day. Cheerio! Lambanog (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Then could you remove all the inappropriate remarks you've made from the article talk page? If not, would you mind if I did? --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but looking at this, no I don't think this should be closed just yet. You can't bring a complaint like this to this board, and from the looks of it to a lot of other locations and then just announce rudely like you did that you want to withdraw the complaint. First, you need to refactor your comments above to remove your assumptions of bad faith against an editor and at any other locations. I think you need to read or reread civility rules and no personal attacks. The dif that Ronz shows above about you wanting to keep your version in until this complaint is over with got a response but it wasn't from Ronz, it was from another editor Qwyrxian, saying that they would revert you and telling you why, which is the same as Ronz was saying. No, this needs to be looked at and Lambanog needs the minimum of a warning about how to behave in a manner that civil and without the personal digs and the baiting. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned twice not to assume good faith, beyond the warnings I've given him. He responded by wanting to negotiate his good faith.

He went back to canvassing for assistance: [37] [38] [39]. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Books are actually not good references"

Per this diff, I think that Roger491127 (talk · contribs) is not interested in working within our community norms. Time for an enforced vacation, perhaps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy that allows for blocking an editor because he expresses his personal opinions on how best to use sources, even if his opinions are not supported by current policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That comment alone, stupid as it is (unless he is trying to refer to self-published sources but doesn't know that phrase), is not grounds for a block. Is it part of a pattern of disruptive behaviour? If so, please point to it...! Ta, ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if he forces his opinion on the community and violates our standards should we take any action. His comments are poorly worded and really do not stand up to reasoning but they are his thoughts. I will also notify him of this discussion. JodyB _talk 18:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Agree, I don't see a blockable offense in that comment. I could sign parts of it, considering that Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Chariots of the Gods? and Worlds in Collision were all published as non-fiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Almost his entire WP career since 2007 has been devoted to trying to correct the historical record on Gustave Whitehead, an aviation pioneer in the early 20th century. If you look at that talkpage, you'll see that he has been posting huge walls of text. Earlier, he complained about holding an WP:RFC about the amount of weight to place on Whitehead's work in the Aviation history article on the article's talkpage because the majority of the editors there were "partial".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For those of us who don't have the time and/or processing power to audit "his entire WP career since 2007" could you perhaps provide some diffs? ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go to his contribs and select the "500" option, then go to "earliest" and see his earliest 500, you may detect a pattern in his topics of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or even easier, check the last week's edit history on Aviation history, with particular note to the edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or start an RfC/U? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RfC/U might be appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so that explains his familiarity with the concept of an "agenda". In general, a user can theorize whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't necessarily start putting those theories into practice, such as reverting entries that are sourced to printed works instead of the internet (as we all know, the internet is much more reliable than the printed word.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just read over Talk:Aviation history (for the first time ever) and agree with Sarek that there is a disturbing pattern to Roger's edits. He has repeatedly posted giant walls of text on this subject (Whitehead's possible 1901 flight) that center on his own original research (interpretations of primary sources), with a distinct disregard for scholarly works. As one example, of the most recent posts, citing what appears (to my limited knowledge) to be primary sources and drawing an opinion: [40]. I'll leave a note on his talk page about proper sourcing and weight, but I doubt it will do any good. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Message describing key policies here. Karanacs (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the editor, but books cannot be presumed to be 'good references' in the same way that peer-reviewed journal articles can. Each book has to be considered separately on its own merits. In isolation, that statement is not a blockable or bannable action. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the same can go for journal articles, unfortunately. There's always the odd one that isn't a good reference. And some publishers, eg major university publishers, have the same status as peer-reviewed journals (IMHO of course). Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regents, you are absolutely right on this matter, but in general you're not helping the cause: there seems to be a distinct lack of calls of "admin abuse" these days. What made you all so careful these days? ANI is getting boring. Go block someone! Invent a reason! Block Sarek! Drmies (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right as usual. Though I could block you for not making personal attacks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No, don't block me, the good folks over at Wikipedia Review would enjoy that far too much. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You could always block yourself...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

From a purely historical sense, he's got a point - secondary sources that interpret may interpret wrong ...

From an encyclopedia sense - What he's doing is new historical research, not encyclopedic, and he shouldn't do it here. He needs a publisher or a website. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Years ago, we had wording in the No Original Research policy stressing the fact that one should look for books authored by experts writing in their fields of expertise, such as, say, academic books published by university presses. I haven't checked to see whether that recommendation survived the drastic rewrites that were done to the content policies since. But the point is a good one.

It's not quite the point that Roger491127 is making, note. Perhaps a trip to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is in order. Uncle G (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this Whitehead guy did create a working airplane by 1901, how come nobody knew about it? It had about the same level of cultural impact as Brendon the Bold's discovery of America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

how come nobody knew about it?!!! Obviously, it was a cover-up, a vast conspiracy. (Freemasonry? Illuminati? Trilateral Commission? We may never know.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the current writeup is to be believed, there were occasional newspaper reports about his alleged exploits with his alleged airplanes. Curiously, no one seems to have found it necessary to photograph these important events or to promote them or to repeat them publicly - everyone was just supposed to take his word for it, as contrasted with the Wright Brothers, who took it public as soon as they could, and they photographed it. As far as the paper reporting them, keep in mind that papers in those days often reported on things with a "straight face" that they might think would evoke a laugh from their readers, like stories about people seeing elves and fairies and so on (or UFOs and Bigfoot and Mother Mary's image in a grilled cheese sandwich, nowadays). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. Good thing no respectable news outlet these days would do anything remotely like that. (Bites on end of finger and strikes a coy pose.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention the frequent sightings of the face of Satan in clouds of smoke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, there are two issues here. The first is how to treat the frequent situation where there are competing, yet less-familiar, claims of having done achievement first -- which is what appears to be happening here. (And there are others: for example, I encountered, in a peer-reviewed journal nonetheless, a claim by an American sailor that he, not Sir Richard Burton, was the first Westerner to visit the East African city of Harar. The authors of the article simply note that due to various reasons his claim never was well-publicized, but there are plausible reasons to think he might have been first.) The proper way to handle these competing claims is to simply repeat the information (primary sources are perfectly fine for collaboration of facts which need no interpretation), & point out why the claim is not widely accepted. (In Whitehead's case, according to this version, he announced his achievement in 1935 -- which would lead any objective reader to question its veracity.) The second issue here is whether Roger491127 (talk · contribs) is actually working within our policies. If he simply wants to include a mention of Whitehead, & after having experienced resistance to this desire he's overreacted & now wants Whitehead to receive credit for being the first, he shouldn't be severely sanctioned. On the other hand, if giving Whitehead this credit has been his only goal from the beginning, then he does deserve, to quote Sarek, "an enforced vacation". -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

User:UltimaRatio has engaged in edit-warring as a means of repeatedly removing a relevant image from the Battle of France article [41] [42] [43]. Apparently the famous war photograph of German soldiers marching past the Arc de Triomphe is simply not acceptable to the user. He has removed it altogether from the article on numerous occasions and refuses to stop in spite of explanations and warnings [44] [45].

He is joined in this by User:Frania Wisniewska from frWiki [46] [47]. The whole thing frankly looks like a co-ordinated attempt to censor the photograph out of the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're both at/exceeding WP:3RR. Don't continually war over it, leave it at whichever state it is in until discussion or a WP:RFC or WP:3O is filed. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did stop, but this user is removing the image from the article entirely without any relevant rationale whatsoever, and very obviously due to his own (barely disguised) POV. This is imho very obvious POV content blanking. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1) In various article, generally in inappropriated places (nazis in Paris in the 21st century???) and without any form of consensus, Direktor replaced longstanding pictures by a picture representing Nazis parading in Paris.

2)I revert his edits, telling him that a consensus should be reached for that kind of changes.

3)Direktor replaced his version of the article, calling me a French nationalist… [48] [49]

4)As I don’t think this is a fair debate, I reverted his edit, asking for discussion [50]

5)Direktor replaced is version, threatening to report me for blanking the picture… So, here we are

Isn’t it hypocrite to accuse me to "censore" his picture while I was just reverting his blanking edits ?

During this week, the methods and the intolerable behaviour of Direktor, on the French related articles, were pointed out by many editors who tried to calm him down (see by example : [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], etc.)

Direktor's behaviour is disruptive for the encyclopedia. He doesn't respect Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Consensus12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio (talk • contribs)

The user called the iconic, widely-circulated photo "Nazi propaganda", as if he had beamed down from 1940. Removing it from the article was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

On 26SEP10, within 6 minutes, DIREKTOR put the photograph of nazis marching by the Arc de Triomphe in prominence in three articles:

• Battle of France
• Arc de Triomphe
• Paris

(1) Previous to this edit[56] by DIREKTOR on 26SEP10, there was no warring about this picture which has been in article "Battle of France" for many months.

A picture representing nazi soldiers marching by the Arc de Triomphe on 14 June 1940 does not belong as first picture of the article titled "Battle of France"; it belongs to the end of it, as the "Battle of France" did not begin with naz marching through Paris.

There are plenty of pictures available illustrating a "battle", not a march to end the show. For instance, photographs similar to those[57] [58]

Also, please note that out of 15 pictures (last count),

• 11 show Germans & German actions, including 2 of Germans marching in Paris with view of Arc de Triomphe;
• 4 represent:

1. English prisoners,
2. French General Gamelin,
3. French troops embarking on an British ship,
4. one crying Frenchman.

(2) Furthermore, on the discussion page of the Légion d'honneur article he has proposed to move to a translated title in English, Mr. DIREKTOR has, on several occasions, used outrageous terms against French participants, which prompted me to create section "Enough"[59].

--Frania W. (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Going back one year in the article, I see both images in the article. Please explain, Frania Wisniewska, why you repeatedly removed the second of these long-standing images one two times from that article. Uncle G (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

May I respectfully point out to you that the second image was not in the article at the date to which you directed me[[60].

It was added[61] on 30SEP10, exactly one week ago, by contributor Portillo.

I searched for it at an earlier date and, if it was there before, I have failed to see it.

The picture was out of place in the article & its caption totally wrong, which I mentioned in the edit summary. That picture is available in two Wikimedia Common files, one[62] with wrong caption, used by Portillo, the other correct, here[63], not used in article.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Both pictures that are the subject of your edit warring are there in the article, one year ago. The picture added by Portillo is not the long-standing picture that you removed in those diffs and were edit warring over. The issue of competence appears to be rearing its head, here. If you are unaware of what your use of the undo tool is actually doing, you really should not be using it. If you are not properly aware of what changes to the article you are actually making in your edit war, you really should not be making them without applying more thought. You certainly should not be edit warring without thinking about what changes you are making, and merely using the undo tool reflexively and unthinkingly, as you apparently have been. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

I am at a loss as to your mention of "competence" and my lack thereof in the use of the undo tool, and fail to see the fairness in accusing me of edit warring, when the following should apply to DIREKTOR "If you are not properly aware of what changes to the article you are actually making in your edit war, you really should not be making them without applying more thought.", as DIREKTOR is the one who made the first drastic change, here[64], on 26SEP10. Also, when I reverted DIREKTOR on 01OCT10, the picture did not come back in the article because it had been removed previously and several other edits had been made in the meantime.

I am quite aware of the fact that both pictures - the English POWs & the Arc de Triomphe – with the English prisoners as main picture & the Arc de Triomphe toward the end of the article, have been in the article for a long time. However, may I point out to you that the "warring" was ignited on 26SEP10, when DIREKTOR replaced the English prisoners by the Arc de Triomphe as lead picture, with no consensus of any kind, no previous notice on the Battle of France talk page, not a word.

As I mentioned earlier, within 6 minutes on 26SEP10, DIREKTOR had put that photograph in prominence in three articles, and this was interpreted as provocation by several contributors, myself included, consequently, the Battle of France affair at hand cannot be separated from what has been going on at the Arc de Triomphe, Paris and the Légion d’honneur discussion page. Please refer to the first instance of DIREKTOR’s provocation on the Légion d’honneur page with this "nationalist POV" comment on 290CT10 [65], comment (either "nationalist" or "nationalistic") which has been repeated times & times again with other niceties.

Please, have a look at this on the Arc de Triomphe article:

• 30SPE10 [66]: removal by DIREKTOR of two pictures pertaining to the history of the Arc de Triomphe: the AdT itself, and the picture of aviator Charles Godefroy flying through it on 7 August 1919, then relegating the AdF with the French flag to the Details section, after the end of the article.
• 01OCT10: my reaction [67] with edit summary:"You simply cannot have the Arc with French flag+Tomb of the Unknown Soldier under marching naz : If this was an article on the United States, nobody would relegate Old Glory at bottom". Unfortunately, in my outrage I forgot to put Charles Godefroy back.
• 01OCT10: DIREKTOR's revert[68] with antagonistic comment "Deal with it".
• 01OCT10: a few minutes later, I reverted DIREKTOR [69] with curt "Yes, dealing with it".

In view of this, I find it rather unfair that I should be on the receiving end here for my supposed lack of competence, when DIREKTOR was the one to initiate a change he could not ignore would be controversial: the picture of the Arc de Triomphe with marching nazis having never been the lead image in any article, and the two in question having never changed place in the history of the editing of the article.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• DIREKTOR's so-called "drastic change" was to simply swap the positions of two pictures that had been in the article for at least a year. That's a rather skewed definition of "drastic" considering that your and UltimaRatio's edits were outright removal of one of those two images, repeatedly, a far more "drastic change" to the article content. Your edit warring removals are these: one two UltimaRatio's edit warring removals are these: one two three. (I note, especially, the edit summary of UltimaRatio's third edit, there.) That you are trying to pass this off as competent use of the undo tool to restore the status quo ante on both of your parts, when it is clearly not any such thing, is exactly why your competence with editing tools is in question. You and UltimaRatio should not be edit warring, and you certainly should not be edit warring without even any thought as to what your edits actually involve. If you cannot competently reverse the simple place-swapping of two images, you definitely should not be edit warring with the undo tool. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Another point is that the complainant is mistaken when he argues that the infobox photo should somehow depict the beginning of the event. That photo is intended to be a good representative or defining moment in the event as a whole. Using the complainant's theory, the infoboxes for all the articles on world leaders would feature their baby pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but at least people would know they were cute at least once in their lives :o) mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

In all this brouhaha, it seems that my main fault consists in not having reestablished the photograph of the marching nazis when I reverted DIREKTOR. So ‘’mea culpa’’ for my incompetence.

Yes, what a cardinal sin compared to DIREKTOR’s activities at pages mentioned earlier, where he added that same picture without consensus, or at least a notification on the respective talk pages, and where he removed telling photographs at the Arc de Triomphe article. Then there is his incessant accusative needling of French contributors on the Légion d’honneur talk page, which has been totally ignored by Wikipedia administration which, I am more than certain, has monitoring teams overseeing the direction discussions are taking.

I am beginning to realize that I missed the boat when I did not report DIREKTOR days ago when he began on the path of irony & insults against French contributors. That is where my fault lies.

Regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom amendment case

This concerns the specific case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Race_and_intelligence. The amendment was filed about one month ago. Unfortunately during this period there has been very little input from the arbiters. It is possible that there may be a backlog of cases or some other circumstances that have kept the Arbiters from addressing the matter. However in the absence of a decision, the uncertainty over the matter is increasing the tension between editors and the atmosphere is turning ugly. It is for this reason only that I have decided to take the unusual step of bringing an open arbcom case to the attention of the broader community. In the absence of an Arbcom decision, maybe the community can reach a preliminary consensus over the case. Furthermore Arbcom has authorized administrative discretion for this particular dispute Briefly, the details of the dispute are as follows. User:Captain Occam received a topic ban on Race and intelligence matters. Effectively the day the topic ban was issued, an account known to Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin (apparently his live-in girlfriend) declared interest in editing the articles Captain Occam was banned from, and within a few days started to do so in manner similar to that of Captain Occam. An SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam/Archive was filed and it was closed with the recommendation that WP:SHARE applied. An Arbcom enforcement request was filed, but the request was deferred back to Arbcom for an ammendment. Since no decision has been reached, some users believe that Captain Occam is evading his editing restrictions by proxy editing whereas Ferahgo the Assassin suggests that such suggestions are without merit. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to ask Arbcom to speed up their deliberations? → ROUX ₪ 00:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the Arb's word on the matter is that Ferahgo should not be editing on that topic. There did not seem to be a point in making any sort of formal motion on the matter given that the case is fairly clear. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have given Ferahgo the customary notice.[70] ArbCom really seems to be between a rock and a hard place here. Note that an administrator has already told Ferahgo to back off from those articles[71] but she is continuing to insert passages[72] that misrepresent published sources[73] into articles within the scope of the topic ban. Her approach to writing Wikipedia article text shoves an extra load of fact-checking and reference-checking onto the backs of all the Wikipedians who are trying to clean up the mess after the ArbCom case. If one meat puppet can chew up so much of the time of administrators and conscientious editors even after an ArbCom case is decided, what hope does ArbCom have of ever catching up with its caseload? It was my understanding that ArbCom set discretionary sanctions in the case decision precisely so that any administrator could wield the mop and clean up the mess. I think it best respects ArbCom's role in the dispute-resolution processes of Wikipedia to respond to this situation according to the discretionary sanctions already decided after a lengthy ArbCom case that included statements by the involved Wikipedian here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• User formally topic banned: [74] NW (Talk) 01:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• He/she should be blocked for violating the topic ban "live-in-girlfriend" doubt it. Secret ^account 01:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows nobody on Wikipedia has a girlfriend → ROUX ₪ 01:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have one but my wife would kill me mark nutley (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you dare to write that while editing under your real name proves that you don't actually have a wife.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have boyfriends, though. <wink> Horologium (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive topic ban for User:Captain Occam Jr? Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously this "girl-friend" is interested in every topic that the "boyfriend" has, it's a clear cut case of sockpuppetry by looking at the contribs. Secret ^account 01:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That’s simply false. Compare her editing history to mine. There isn’t even any overlap between her and my ten most edited articles.

The SPI about me and Ferahgo reached the conclusion that she isn’t a sockpuppet, but that she and I are closely-related accounts per the definition of WP:SHARE. Extending my topic ban to her based on this policy is somewhat reasonable—we’ve always been aware that this was a possibility—but a block based on actual sockpuppetry isn’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's meatpuppetry then, just as violating, why would you tell your girlfriend to edit these articles even though you are topic banned. That's common sense. Secret ^account 02:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think you’re bringing up anything here that hasn’t been discussed to death already? If you had read the amendment thread, you would know what the reason was for her involvement there, and that it has very little to do with me. She also doesn’t fit the definition of a meatpuppet, which is “A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose.” Ferahgo has been registered at Wikipedia since 2006, neither of us became involved in race-related articles until 2009, and the majority of her contributions were and are outside this topic area.

The only policy that’s relevant here is WP:SHARE. Any claim that policies other than this are involved contradicts every previous discussion that’s been had about this issue. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason to re-enact the Arbcom case here. Anyone disagree?→ ROUX ₪ 02:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no reason as well, though I see a block for meatpuppetry as a stern warning. Secret ^account 02:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • What I meant was, admins can either do something (unlikely, probably a bad idea and bad precedent) or do nothing and punt it back to ArbCom (likely, good idea, right thing to do). Rehashing the case here is less than pointless. → ROUX ₪ 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How many times is Wapondaponda going to file these, I am sorry, but regardless of merits (or not) this looks and smells like something personal. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba and Roux - this is a bad precedent. In effect we have one editor tryng to speed up/override an arbcom process by going through ANI. It doesn't work, and its not how it should work. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'm curious about one thing though. Would defending the right of an editor to edit articles on race and intelligence violate the 'broadly construed' part of Captain Occam's ban? --RegentsPark (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside of commenting in ArbCom cases in which he is a party? I would say yes. → ROUX ₪ 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:BAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans, one of the exceptions listed to topic bans is "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum", and one of the specific examples listed of this is "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." Since the question here is about whether my topic ban applies to Ferahgo also, I think this clearly falls into the category described there. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the legitimate questions exception refers to the scope of the ban as it applies to you as the affected party. I don't see why it should apply to the banned party questioning the scope as applied to other editors. IMO, it looks as if you're trying to have some say over the direction of the article, which would violate the 'broadly construed' tenet. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was being accused of sockpuppetry, and both of my comments were in response to Secret’s argument that I should be blocked because of this. Considering I’m already topic banned, how is it “trying to have some say over the direction of the article” for me to respond to the claim that I should be blocked as a sockpuppeteer? --Captain Occam (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on!! Enuff wikilawyering minutia!! Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and Wapondaponda are all pulled here because the dispute resolution process leaves too many trying to intuit what decisions say or mean and who has authority to enforce them. Nobody's to blame for this wikiwonkery, certainly they aren't. For heaven's sake, if a dispute has been decided somebody announce what's what with one authoritative oomph behind it so the people involved don't have to guess where things stand? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, Vecrumba and Maunus have all stated they think it's a bad idea to use AN/I to short-circuit the resolution to an issue being dealt with by arbcom, especially when the reason is just impatience at arbcom's response time. I agree with this, obviously, but for a different reason - as I stated in NuclearWarfare’s user talk, the issue under consideration from arbcom involves more than just me, and the amendment thread involves a proposal for a topic ban of another user also. [75] If AN/I is being used to circumvent arbcom's examination of the issue, the other issues related to these articles will not get examined at all. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

{eyeroll}...Long and short of it is, cryptic dispute resolutions are not really resolutions--they open doors to an infinitude of future wikilawyering. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Captain Occam's editing restrictions did not constitute the "end of the world" when it comes to his involvement in race articles. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Review_of_topic-bans, Captain Occam would have been able to appeal the editing restrictions in six months, and the restriction would be lifted if he had demonstrated his "commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and his ability to work constructively with other editors". I would like to believe that this does not include mechanical edits to other articles just for the sake of proving that the restrictions have faithfully observed. IMO six months can fly by quite quickly these days. But seeing that Occam chose not to take this offer then it would be nice to know what the current timelines are. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Enforcement_of_topic-bans_by_block,

Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block.

Wapondaponda (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When did I ever indicate that I was choosing not to take this offer? Thus far I have not been blocked for violating my editing restrictions, and there are several articles outside this topic area that I still intend to edit and would like to be editing. The only reason I haven’t been devoting much time to them is because almost perpetually for the past month I’ve been having to deal with your accusations that I’m violating my editing restrictions, and this makes it almost impossible for me to focus on editing in other areas. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NW has just rejected my appeal of his topic ban. His reason for this was that he considers the arbitrators to have already "informally decided" in the amendment thread that I was topic banned. [76] I don't think this is fair. Arbcom hasn't yet made a clear decision about my topic ban, and not all of the arbitrators who've commented agree a topic ban is appropriate. Especially in light of the newest comments from editors over the past week or so, it isn't yet clear what the outcome of the thread is going to be. In this situation a single admin should not have the authority to preempt a decision that's in the process of being made by arbcom, based only on his interpretation of the views expressed by the individual arbitrators so far.

This sanction also doesn't appear to have been implemented in a way that's consistent with how discretionary sanctions work, or any other type of sanction for that matter. The policy page for discretionary sanctions states that before being sanctioned under this policy, a user needs to have been warned in their user talk that their behavior will lead to a sanction under the discretionary sanctions if it continues, which hasn’t been done in my case. There also isn't anything close to a consensus in this thread for me to be topic banned - at least half of the users expressing an opinion about this agree that this question should be left for arbcom to decide. I didn't even have the chance to comment here before NW implemented the topic ban, a decision that was made only ten minutes after I was notified of this thread's existence.

On the basis of the problems I and others have pointed out about NW's decision in this thread, I would like admins to review whether his decision was appropriate, or whether the outcome of the arbitration amendment thread should be left up to arbcom. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NW's action does seem pre-emptive. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Another arbitrator has now commented at the amendment request page. This means that a majority (five out of eight) of active and non-recused arbitrators have commented. The strong consensus is that WP:SHARE applies in this instance. On the technical issue of the warning, the request was active for about a month, which is warning enough. The topic-ban was properly applied under discretionary sanctions and there is no reason to suppose that it was is irregular.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if we could not regard this decision as having been made until a majority of active arbitrators are actually supporting my topic ban. Right now, four are supporting it with one opposing it, and five are required for a majority. However, I do agree the likely outcome of the amendment thread is pretty clear now, so I'll regard Occam's topic ban covering me under WP:SHARE unless the thread ends up producing an unexpected result. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read Roger's comment, a majority have already commented which is the standard used. Your topic ban stands as should have been crystal clear already given you've gotten the same answer in every venue. Shell ^babelfish 19:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Five arbitrators have commented, but only four are supporting a topic ban. The fifth, Kirill, is opposing it. Sorry if I'm not understanding how this works. Is the only thing that matters that a majority of arbitrators comment in general, even if there isn't a majority supporting the decision? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A majority of the currently active and non-recused arbiters have commented, which is necessary to close any request. Of those who commented, the majority felt that a topic ban was appropriate. Further, a topic ban by any administrator is standard under discretionary sanctions and there is no compelling reason to overturn that decision. Shell ^babelfish 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your explanation. Up until now I didn't think this decision was being made by anyone with the authority to decide it, but it looks like I have a clear answer now. Unless the consensus among arbitrators ends up changing, I'll be content to edit in other areas while Occam's topic ban is in place. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Phichimed

Initial Statements of Principals

I blocked Phichimed (talk · contribs) as the edits showed that the account is named after an organisation.

They have made requests for unblock, and these were declined by 3 other admins.

I have explained fairly fully why I feel that their edits are problematic, indicating an CoI. They had then agreed that they would use reliable sources for their future edits if unblocked and renamed. However, another admin declined their unblock request as they were editing while blocked, so I suggested that the editor re-requests an unblock in a week.

They are now accusing me of abusing my power as an admin. Although some of their points (about not being told of problems with their edits) have substance, the main reason for the block is the user name alongside the edits which show a clear CoI.

I am now going to withdraw from this case, but would appreciate some non-involved admin eyes on the case.

I am notifying the editor of this thread - although they are blocked, they can read it, and if they leave a message on their talk page which they want to be placed here, I am willing to copy it over.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Involved admin: This editor has issues comprehending many policies, and comes up with unique interpretations of them. I have been involved in trying to help them to get to a point where they could become unblocked. I also was responsible for blocking their IP due to WP:EVADE. What we have asked of Phichimed is no different from what we ask of any other COI editors with names contrary to WP:U. I can picture perhaps unblocking with a topic ban and significant mentoring right now, but so far the block is good, as are the declines. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Involved Editor: I wrote him email offering to help by adding *referenced* material to the articles. Part of the issue is that secondary sources on these fraternities are rare (and mostly consist of editions of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities) and that even though the sources are secondary, they weren't made yesterday. The account has been a Single Purpose Account, which also contributes to the issues, though if that were the only concern, it would be OK. therefore, my honest guess is is that a Topic ban would be unacceptable to him. I'm willing to Mentor, as I'm in a fairly similar situation (I'm on the National History and Archives Committee for my Fraternity and for example actually added a Fraternity magazine from the 1890s as a reference for an article on another Fraternity) and have become a more rounded editor. It is welcomely surprising that WP:NPOV doesn't appear to be that much of an issue, his contributions seem to be done in a fairly neutral tone.Naraht (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked editor (copied from talk page): I appreciate PhantomSteve taking this issue to ANI and wish to convey my POV on this block.
  

I was blocked because of two reasons 1) my username and 2) my COI. According to the Wikipedia guidelines outlined in the Username, COI and Validity articles which the admins are references as justifications behind my blocking all state that the admins should have started a discussion with me over these issues and warn me first. This was NEVER done and I was blocked from the start. Your admins also do not seem to read previous posts or the articles to which they reference and repeatedly make these mistakes even when I have asked them to please check their references.

1) To address the username issue:

I agree that my username violates the username policy, a policy I did not know existed before this. Because of this I have no issues with changing the username. I was never asked about my username and was never “warned” about the name as outlined in wiki’s guidelines. I have stated this from the very beginning of the block and so far have not been allowed to change the username despite multiple requests. The blocking admin and those that refuse to unblock my account keep bringing this up even though I have repeatedly stated I would change it.

2) To address the COI issue:

a) The blocking of my account began after I disclosed my COI on my user page. According to the wiki guideline on COI, I should disclose these potential COIs and such a disclosure should not be used against the editor. My attempt to become more inline with Wikipedia’s suggested guidelines is being used against me. Although I am not required to disclose a COI, I was doing so believing it was in the best interest of everyone. I had never looked up anything on COI before this and did not realize there were articles about this topic.

b) I was later informed that I was blocked because of poorly referenced edits and a concern they weren’t verifiable. This was the first time I had ever been informed of this concern and it wasn’t even introduced during the initial block notice but as an “add-on” later. I was also never approached about this issue or warned about it as outlined in wiki’s guidelines. Under the wiki verifiability article, it is best to have a 3rd party (which I have done but agree it needs some work) but you can also use "self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".

c) I have been told I am too close to the subject to edit the pages. Once again, I was also never approached about this issue or warned about it as outlined in wiki’s guidelines. Also, according to your COI article: you can edit if it is in the best interest of wiki, maintain a neutral POV, verifiability (already addressed), disclose interest (already addressed and this is what caused the issues and is being used against me)) and finally, per your own article, “closeness to a subject does not mean you’re incapable of being neutral.”

d) I was also accused of not being neutral and being biased. According to your own POV article, all editors have bias but you can still create a neutral article as long as all content presented are facts, not opinions, another neutral individual would agree with the edit, and it is verifiable (already discussed). And if an admin has a concern they should approach the editor about the issue, per your own guidelines, which never happened.

e) Finally, according to your own guidelines on edits, the other users and admin should assume good faith in edits. Something that the admins have not been doing.

As for SPA, I would agree that this would describe my account but even in light of this, wiki guidelines state that doesn’t mean I can’t still edit and that these concerns should be DISCUSSED with the editor which was never done.

I would suggest that in the future, if an admin is looking to block an individual, they should pay attention to the guidelines they are trying to reference and that they are trying to represent. I realize individual make mistakes but admins such as PhantomSteve have refused to recognize their errors and editors such as BWilkins have now jumped in repeatedly misquoting the very guidelines they claim to enforce. He believes I have issues comprehending many policies, I would suggest that the admin take a look in the mirror. Other admins seem to have put in their input/denied unblock requests without actually looking at the issues being raised. Wikipedia should put into place some kind of guidelines for their admin, if there isn’t one already, so that issues such as this don’t pop up again. Admins should be sanctioned for repeatedly abusing their powers be it through being monitored or limiting the areas they can patrol.--Phi Chi (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional

There have also been issues of WP:EVADE. I show edits to related pages by 68.61.113.212 (talk · contribs) and 71.197.25.62 (talk · contribs) that are likely to have been by the same user occuring on the pages originally edited by Phichimed (talk · contribs). However, the last of these on an article was about 4PM on October 3.

I believe the the situation can be divided in half.

1) Is the fact that these articles were edited by this person under this name a problem?

• Yes. There are issues of Promotional User name, Single Purpose Account and later IP address evasion.

2) Are there any of the edits to the articles that would be objectionable if they had been made by someone else?

• No. I haven't found any of his article edits that are specifically objectionable. Some of them lacked references, but most of his later edits were to add references. I think pretty much all of the articles could be improved with information from version of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities more recent than 1915, but I'm personally working on that.Naraht (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed the articles and they seem fairly dire puffy promotional pieces chock full of weasel words - I suggest you take a chainsaw to them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I took a look at Phi Chi Medical Fraternity which is probably the article around which his contributions feed out from. The only line that jumps out at me as being promotional is "Phi Chi is one of the oldest and largest international medical fraternities of its kind in the world." for which the oldest probably could be referenced to Baird's, but largest would be more difficult (and probably should be removed). Beyond that, the article may go into too much detail, though being formed from a merger like that, both groups should be referenced (whether Phi Chi Society should be a separate page is a different issue). Some of the Notabilities could be made 'Drier' but not much. I think there is definitely the heart of a good page.

I show the following 7 pages (excluding re-directs, images and categories) created by him : Phi Chi Medical Fraternity, Pi Mu Honor Society, Phi Alpha Gamma, List of Phi Chi Medical Fraternity Chapters , Phi Chi Society, Omega_Upsilon_Phi, and Phi_Beta_Pi. All seem similar to me, more history than you'd expect, but rather dry.Naraht (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is User:Routerone/notes an attack page?

This started when I was asked about User:Routerone/Why its true. I told the editor asking me that if he thought it was against our userpage policy he could take it to MfD. Another editor did so, and it is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Routerone/Why its true. Routerone (talk · contribs) has now redirected it to a new page, which he apparently thinks is within our guidelines. I don't think it is. Rather than simply speedy it or nominate it for speedy deletion, I'm bringing it here for comment by others. I'll notify Routerone. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Creating a subpage like that and griping about general issues is one thing. Griping about specific editors in the way he's doing it is another - it's usually a step or two towards the exit door. In short, YES, it's an attack page. The right way to do things would be to start an RFC/U about whoever he's having issues with. I wouldn't bet the family jewels on its success, and probably neither would he. Using a page like this is essentially an unchallenged RFC/U and is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Put broadly, such a page will more often than not be taken as an attack, though Ro likely didn't mean it as such. Content like this might be more helpful in dispute resolution, where any named editors can give their own outlooks (if they want) and wider input can be gathered from others. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• The page was not redirected. It was renamed whilst the MFD discussion was on-going (which is fine as long as the link to the on-going deletion discussion is maintained) and then blanked to remove the MFD notice in order to "prevent the deletion" (which is not). The MFD notice is quite clear that this should not be done. I have restored the notice and updated the link between the page being discussed and the on-going deletion discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, but when you click on it you get " (Redirected from User:Routerone/Why its true)" which is why I said redirected, although as you say, it was renamed/moved. Sorry to have caused confusion. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this business of including a link in his signature that says "Hear this!" or some such, and takes you that page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Someone who could provide Routerone with a voice of experience in that matter, and possibly some wise words, is Redvers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Xe could certainly point out that this particular issue is rarely a matter that MFD is the venue for. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Routerone is obviously an editor with some grievances--some probably legitimate, some probably not. Is there a neutral admin willing to look into his complaints beyond discussing where such complaints belong? I'm aware of ongoing conflict between Routerone and a couple of other editors involving long-term problematic behavior, but I am not personally in a position to intervene much. (It's also not clear where long-term conflicts like this should be addressed--not much community input has taken place so arbitration seems premature, but it doesn't seem to be a single-user RfC situation since Routerone is not the only editor whose behavior is of concern. Any thoughts?) alanyst ^/talk/ 13:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes: Don't skip over what's right at the top of this very page. ☺ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts deals in this very thing, and allows discussions to proceed for far longer than here. Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that, as a result of the MFD, the page is now deleted. So it's somewhat difficult for anyone new to contribute to this discussion, since they can no longer inspect the page. A related subpage, however, which does appear a bit more like an "attack page", is User:Routerone/A paradise of skepticism. I didn't send this one through MFD since it was more directly pertinent to Wikipedia than. I notice that various users are telling Routerone what he should do, and conflicting opinions amongst these various users ends up making Routerone look bad for trying to amend the situation in any way. I would advise all concerned to take a step back and try to communicate before passing judgement. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That page should likewise be nominated for deletion, as its purposes are to (1) push Mormonism (which by itself does not warrant deletion); (2) badmouth Wikipedia for not kissing up to Mormonism (no encyclopedic value there); and (3) continue removing the NOINDEX parameter so that hopefully Google will pick up on it. Those factors together, along with the similar rants and personal attacks on users on the now-deleted page, were/are useful in one way: They tell us everything we need to know about the user in question, as to the probability of the user's taking a neutral point of view on Mormon-related articles. The photo of the Temple is nice, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Slipknot (band)

Can anyone help sortout the archving and history at

and the higher up pages. It's a bit beyond me. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Seems that these two edits (4 counting Sinebot's) were placed above ClueBotIII's archiving info, causing the bot to swallow it's own archive, considering it a discussion topic. Now that archivenav is down in the bowels of the talk pages, replicating itself. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's done now, just need to speedy tag the malformed sub-pages. Is there something that needs to be added to the bot script to watch out for this? Tarc (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Coo. Never seen one go like that before! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MFD close needed

Resolved

Hi. An uninvolved admin is needed to close here, please. → ROUX ₪ 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 05:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

British Isles TfD sanity check requested

Okay, I admit that my current mood towards Wikipedia doesn't make me the best judge of this matter, but does anyone else see this ongoing template deletion nomination as anything more than an act of disruption? I can't tell whether this is intended to be an argumentum ad absurdum against, or a consolidation after, some bizarre agreement made over that tedious "what should we call the British Isles" controversy. (And if I'm wrong, I'll eagerly strike out all of my comments in this discussion & exit from it; at this point in time, the less stuff concerning Wikipedia I have to worry about the happier I'll be.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looks like a war over the content of an article-space template (which is much the same as an edit war over an article) has spilled into a war over whether it should exist at all; not necessarily deliberate disruption, but probably the wrong venue for the argument. (Yes, it's called "Templates for discussion", but it's designed for discussions about things that need admin rights...) --ais523 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. It was all quite simple, or so I thought, but the levels of wrong end of the stick getting over that nomination reached epic proportions. So for the benefit of anyone still interested, even though this post has seemingly got the thing shut down anyway, here it is, in the simplest terms possible that I can explain it.

1. The template recently got changed so that on certain Irish articles, the title displays differently, so as not to display the supposedly offensive term 'British Isles'
2. This is quite obviously a total violation of NPOV, not to mention completely non-standard template practice
3. It is never going to be changed back without someone frog marching the small band of Irish dispute regulars who unsurprisingly supported the change (and especially the one who has a habit of ignoring half a discussion and implementing BOLD changes as 'consensus' backed solutions), to someone who knows NPOV (I suggested Jimbo), and forcing them to ask that person to give feedback on their actual understanding of NPOV over this issue. Preferably this person/s would have been an experience adjudicator of NPOV, but the issue is so obvious imho any old veteran with no horse in the BI dispute would have done the job, but no, all you get is the 'I cant hear/see this part of the discussion' treatment.
4. Violating NPOV is one of the officially mandated reasons to delete a template, and it is also of course one of the 5 pillars.
5. So I nominated it on those grounds.
6. This post was made here, and the discussion has been duly shut down, with the rather ambigous conclusion that I may be right, or wrong, but either way, somehow the template gets kept, because Tfd apparently isn't the venue, even though as said, violating NPOV is one of the mandated reasons for deletion (and due to the crazy misunderstandings in that discussion, I challenge anyone to actually discern a consensus in that discussion that no, the implemented appearance morphing code is not an NPOV violation).

So there you go. Quite how people looked at that nomination, and somehow came to the conclusion that I was wanting to rename the template, or was myself supporting the use of alternate terms instead of BI, is completely beyond me. But you live and learn. Maybe I need to log some training hours at Simple Wikipedia before I attempt something like this again. MickMacNee (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that debate, I think you were onto something. The notion of having variable names for things, just to be PC for a few editors, seems to violate something here - I'm just not sure exactly what. But it does sound like some brand of censorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think so (as I said here) I do not think the nomination was an act of disruption, I see it it as an attempt to bring the issue to the attention of a wider community. The issue now, is what next ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick's mostly right. The template has had, for many years, a parameter which allows the template's name ("British Isles") to be replaced by "something else" if desired. What's happened recently is that editors who object to that (i.e. object to replacing "British Isles") have raised the issue, and as result a compromise-of-sorts has been reached whereby additional items are added to the template to clarify the situation when the template's name isn't used. I think it's a bloody silly compromise, and my preference for any compromise would be to use the template's name and any alternative name - i.e. pass "British Isles - also known as X when Y applies" instead of merely "X". In some ways the situation is actually better than it was - at least a reader clicking on a template apparently named "X" doesn't arrive at a template named "British Isles" and is left scratching their head - but I still feel it's less than ideal. TFOWR 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your solution. Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus is reached there, to change it all back to British Isles? that's fine by me. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've raised it as a an Rfc on the NPOV noticeboard. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of sock account to attempt to gain access to view deleted revisions

Use of sock account to attempt to gain access to view deleted revisions

• A NRM Researcher (talk · contribs) is a sock of Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs), now using account ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs). [77], [78], [79], [80]

1. A NRM Researcher (talk · contribs) = requests access to "researcher" userrights group, which would allow the account to view deleted revisions just like an administrator or oversighter could [81].
2. At the account's "User:A NRM Researcher/Wikipedia Cult Wars" subpage, A NRM Researcher acknowledges the Weaponbb7 account is an involved party to its "research", labeling it as a "Important Wikipedians in The Wikipedia Cult Wars - Minor" [82].
3. In email to Wikimedia Foundation, (self-disclosed by the user on-wikipedia [83]) - the account failed to acknowledge the existence of sock accounts.
4. The sock account A NRM Researcher (talk · contribs), therefore acknowledges it is a party, an "Important Wikipedian", to what it refers to as "Wikipedia Cult Wars", and yet has failed to disclose this in the request for access to view deleted revisions under the "researcher" userrights group. This is a very serious sock violation, and also a significant concern regarding breach of Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt Really can we not centralize this at the SPI Which I am giving a full account of all this there?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I consulted with a checkuser who recommended that I file a separate report to ANI regarding the specific matter of the use of a sock account to attempt to gain access to view deleted revisions. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and refer anyone there for evidence and responses, as too lines of conversation is a little ridiculous. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This email self disclosed on Wikipedia by ResidentAnthropologist, failed to disclose the existence of any of the multiple sock accounts, to the Wikimedia Foundation, when requesting access to view deleted revisions. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The motives for Weaponbb7's actions are suspect, to say the least. For example, it appears that multiple accounts – under your control, as per your admission at the SPI – were used to edit or discuss the Twelve Tribes communities article in a manner that seems to be a WP:SOCK violation. In addition, the user failed to reveal in his private OTRS correspondence the identity of his alternate account. I believe that simply wasn't an oversight on Weaponbb7's part. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No Action was ever done, Examine the log of Contributors Article Article Talk page The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I take that back paritally I uploaded This Gallery to Commons then here are the two diffs in which I altered them from a deleted file here to the one on Commons [84][85].

As a general statement, I would expect that anyone making a researcher access request would fully disclose all accounts under which he or she has ever edited, and all uses to which the privileged access would or might be put. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance" Is It unreasonable to want to keep my academic research separate from General editing. If asked I would have disclosed it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment, by Checkuser Nishkid64. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad on general principles. Access to deleted revisions is generally a userright given only to admins. Anyone not disclosing alternate accounts at RfA risks summary desysopping should it be found out. I fail to see why applying to the Foundation directly should be any different. one hopes the request has been denied. Nishkid's comments above are concerning. → ROUX ₪ 21:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes mistake on my part, however given no guideline on specific way to go about Reaseacher Permissions. I wanted to keep my acdemic account seperate from any actions conudcted researching. There are not multiple edit on Twelve Tribes communities page that are not simply forgetting to log out of the other account. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the smallest application of common sense would have told you that you should disclose. If it were okay not to disclose, what would prevent blocked users, other socks, users in bad standing who have created socks, whoever, from simply creating a new account and asking for such permissions? Nothing. That gap in basic common sense and having a clue makes me hope you have not been, and will not be, granted the ability to see deleted material--which is often grossly inflammatory, revealing of personal information, etc. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Error In judgement I fully admit, my intent was to have two separate account for two separate purposes, one for academic research one for general editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@Roux: Shockingly, it appears the user was already granted access to view deleted material, see [86]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in out of chrono) - Cirt, please rephrase - the user was not granted access to view deleted material, they were provided with a limited amount of deleted material by an administrator. These are two very different things. –xeno^talk 13:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes shockingly.

No evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, just a strange witch hunt launched by Cirt for unclear reasons. I agree that anyone requestiong access to deleted stuff for academic purposes should be required at the foundation level to provide bona fides, and disclose all accounts. Anthropologist screwed up on that last one. He has now confirmed all of his accounts and the rest appears to be between him and the foundation. I suspect if Cirt had evidence of anything nefarious going on here he would have informed us by now. Does anyone think something nefarious is going on here? It's not like it's that a big deal; so many incompetent teenage admins etc... have access to deleted material, it's not like the keys to fort knox have been given away.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)~~

Yes, old mediation pages and deleted articles with scientology. Not interested in anything beyond thatThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You've provided your name, academic affiliation, perhaps an advisor/dept. head? (I'm assuming yes). That means you've disclosed far more than Cirt (as far as i know, and certainly far more than most admins who wield a lot more in the tool department), have at least theoretic academic reputation risk if you get up to no good (that is, theoretical real world accountability), and will constrain your behavior accordingly. If you didn't know, Cirt has had a rather deep interest in scientology himself on Wikipedia. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I Have provided those (though not Department head), I know Cirt's interest in scientology, I intended him when I was ready to do the qualitative portion. I also intended to disclose to them my WBB7/RA account so they could choose in full knowledge and Consent to who they were talking to. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting)

I am not finding any policy discussion on enwiki other than Wikipedia talk:Research#RFC: Researcher permission which seems to have concluded with a (poorly discussed / advertised) consensus to let the Foundation handle it. We don't seem to have imposed any local restrictions or policy.

I see where those saying "should be predisclosed" are coming from - I think I agree with that - but we didn't get that written down anywhere or consensus agreed anywhere. We should probably reopen the discussion with the Foundation about that.

RA seems to have made no effort to hide connections between the accounts, and to some extent already have disclosed them explicitly or implicitly before this started.

I think I agree with Cirt that this was worthy calling attention to and reviewing; my reaction, given Weaponbb7's history (until his account was hijacked, at least, which we aren't holding against him to my knowledge) is that between RL identification, use of "role accounts" to set the research activity and permissions off from his ongoing normal editing, and open admission of all the connections once asked, this as disclosed now doesn't worry me.

Where would be the appropriate place to start a discussion on disclosure policy now that we're aware we need one? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a clear application of Hanlon's razor to me. I can't see any evidence of malice or intent to disrupt or decieve, just of forgetfulness. Since this has now been fully disclosed, I am of a mind to resolve the thread. Anyone have a reason not to? --Jayron32 05:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a potential for malice. I have concerns regarding the multiple accounts. If one is applying for extra privileges how is one to determine their eligibility if they are not able to easily follow the edit history. Allowing editors to compartmentalize what they do into different accounts will decrease Wikipedia's transparency below its currently low level and thus not a good thing. I would advice returning to one account and developing the communities trust with that one account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns are very valid, I did not intend to confuse, I was attempting as part of my reaseach to create and Index of NRM activity on the site. Thats where 99% of the edit involved that page. I made the intent and of the account and my reasons for the account right on the user page of said account up front and everything. [87]The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked the account.

This all lies on my shoulders. The account holder contacted Jimmy Wales, who forwarded it to OTRS. I got in touch with the account holder, who presented a legitimate case for access after requesting several deleted page content (which, if not out of scope, may be provided). The requests were innocuous and provided material for Indian cultural involvement. At no time did he disclose that he had other accounts. It is my feeling, based on communication with the account holder and what he was requesting to see, there was no malicious intent. I was unfamiliar with the strict permission of researcher, and I erred in granting it to this account. My apologies to the community. The account is blocked, and I will be in touch with the account holder. Keegan (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup: Phew. I did not give him researcher. I didn't know what that was when mentioned, and didn't strike a bell, so that's all good. I denied the user the request for two deleted pages, provided one reasonable one, and just the header from a medcab case. Keegan (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion about the researcher bit at Wikipedia talk:Research#baseline requirements for researcher permission. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I Intended No malice nor harm to anyone or to deceiving one beyond what I felt was proper to keep my real life identity Separate from my normal editing. I requested Temporary access to the privilege,(I specified a month Apparently i did not state a timed duration but that was the intent) as I stated in my letter of intent. I had no intention of keeping that privilege any longer than i needed. OTRS Volunteer Keegan offered instead to email copies of deleted pages (always under his discretion) which achieved the same goal as wanted the privilege for. I apologize to the community and especially you Keegan it was merely my intent to keep my Work separate from my normal free time activity under my usual account. I apologize for any breach of trust of trust between myself and the community. I restrict myself to one account as usual and apologize for this whole debacle. (Though I'll keep the one with my publishing name for what I upload on commons so i can be properly attributed) I have cooperated entirely with both ANI and the SPI, and hope those in the community will be willing to forgive me (at least to a degree) based on that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• - This is a strange story all round, the weaponbb7 account was allegedly as reported by the user:Weaponbb7 had his account compromised and allegedly as reported by weaponbb7 had sex toys attempt purchase with his credit card and weaponbb7 was one of the extremely vocal users against David Appletree, demanding his blocking and such like and weaponbb7 is an affiliate of the fundamentalist group twelve tribes and an investigator into people like David Appletree and David Appletree mentioned to be that was worried his location would be compromised through his contribution to wikipedia and then weapons new account User:ResidentAnthropologist asks to see hidden content and deleted content. I am glad he was not given the right and he never should be given it given his edit history and affiliation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting administrator on disrupting anon editor

Resolved

 – IP warned; if the user continues after a final warning file a report at WP:AIV GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an anon editor out there who is doing nothing but putting unconstructive edits on every single article he touches. I had to revert every single thing he does. Being a non-administrator though, I feel that his actions will get unnoticed and ultimately unpunished, leaving this editor to continue with his disruptive ways. The editor in question is 72.154.218.79 (talk). Administrative help would be greatly appreciated. Fourviz (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User was warned by Soap (talk · contribs), if it continues please take it to WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks at an AFD

Resolved

 – SPAs have been marked on the AfD; little more to be done without starting an SPI GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Last night, I nominated Alex Lambert for deletion. Today, at the AfD discussion, there are a couple anons and an account with only 3 edits. This looks highly suspicious to me. Could a checkuser run a CU on them and see, or an admin look for behavioral signatures. Something is up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be taken to WP:SPI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've done a SPA-run (marked all the SPAs) at the AfD and it seems the only non-SPAs in the AfD so far are Neutralhomer and Starblind. It's likely that all the others are sock accounts/IPs of each other. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I had thought about going to SPI, but wanted it taken care of quickly before the AFD became a mess (more than it already is). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could just as easily be meat puppet coming from a American Idol fan forum, we have marked them with SPA tags not much else to do IMO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing new about that; sock/meat puppet activity at an AFD page is so common you can practically set your watch by it. HalfShadow 00:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, pretty much. Which is kinda sad. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Insulting image

Resolved

 – Its gone The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would somebody familiar with image deletions and Commons see that the image at File:Screenshot20101007at826.png is deleted? It's basically an attack page in image format. Given the recent spate of high-profile cyber-bullying incidents, I think this needs to go away as quickly as possible. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no power or jurisdiction over images or other media hosted at Commons. You have to go there to have it deleted. (And yes, it's awful.) → ROUX ₪ 00:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a commons ANI note on it. But yes, for future reference, commons complaints have to go straight there; en.wikipedia admins have no inherent authority there (though a few are also commons admins). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not being familiar with Commons, I decided to post it here rather than try to figure out what to do over there. Thanks for the quick action. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• POVPosse (talk · contribs)'s name also suggests a vandalism/troll account, so perhaps a cork could be stuffed in him. HalfShadow 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this users contributions is sickening can some one see about blocking the underlying IP? Check user might also be appropriate as the first edit was to a template which suggests familiarity with the system. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone Rodhullandemu 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formal site ban for Kagome 85 #2 Cont

Resolved

 – If either user comes back to harass the other, they will likely be blocked and forgotten.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Original side of harassment dispute blocked indef for harassment of other side. Any socks of either side will be blocked on sight once reported for block evasion. Initiating side had their chance to contribute constructively, but instead chose to harass the other. Wikipedia is not a battleground, much less for off-wiki disputes. Good day. My good faith is out.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What was the IP for FelipeJoaoSalaoCastenada (talk) and SubversiveUser (talk · contribs) ? It couldn't have been me (Moukity) cause I never would of been able to think up a name like that heh. My IP Address usually is always 142.163 and also I prefer simple user-name not one I would forget. Moukity, Blackmagic1234 very simple and basic 142.163.149.123 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My good faith is just about out with you. When you came here originally with your harassment problem, I took your side. I told you to get a clean start, but instead of creating a new account, and editing in places other than the articles your original account did, you decided to harass your ex in turn, posting her real name in several diffs in the very articles I told you to stay away from. WP:CLEANSTART means, as I told you, you go somewhere else, and don't leave anything to link your new account to your old.

Just drop this, and take your dispute elsewhere. Wikipedia is not your battleground.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yo admins

Resolved

Please have a quick look at Talia Boullion and the note I left on the talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt took care of it; thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps simply leaving the speedy tag on the article would have been sufficient? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean doing nothing besides tagging it? Yes, maybe, but this had the air of being a serious BLP violation, as I tried to indicate on the talk page, and I wanted speed. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how quickly {{db-g10}}-tagged articles are deleted. As a newpage patroller I regularly tag articles under most of the criteria, and G10s generally disappear in about 10% of the time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

db-g10s appear as a "big red thing" on {{admin dashboard/header}}. I think most admins will deal with "big red things" before scrolling any further. Most other CSDs I'm in no hurry to delete - I'd like to see the page creators' given some time to fix issues - but g10s can die quickly and horribly. TFOWR 09:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Big red thing" made me LOL. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, a shiny admin-links toy. what's the best way to use that admin dashboard? I can't make it look right on my talk page. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it to my list-o-links at the top of the page. :-) Script is at Template talk:Admin dashboard#Comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A alone man impersonating me on a talk page.

This user seems to be impersonating me. They've left a note[88] on another users talk page continuing a discussion I had a few weeks go. It's not me, and could somebody have a look at it for me please?

Thanks.

User informed.

a_man_alone (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, I would report the user to WP:AIV and hopefully they will take swift action. Impersonation is obviously a gross violation of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Should we investigate whose sock this is? --Tikiwont (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing to hide. From the tone of the post I suspect it's somebody who feels they have an axe to grind with the user, and saw my last post as an opportunity to get a free jab in. Cheers for the quick action, btw. a_man_alone (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was not you then I would like you or someone else to find out who it was that posted those comments because I have had enough of people taking their anger out on me without justifiable cause. I will admit to not being the most liked editor but I have now had enough of editors "stalking" me to continuously have a go at me. I demand and end be put to it as it is a form of harassment. I would also like the comments removed from my talk page history as I have had enough of malicious ediotrs posting abuse aimed at me on my talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Insert comment) I've reached the limit of my investigative tools by alerting ANI, and reporting to AIV. I have no way of further identifying the blocked user, and although I don't personally demand anything, I also would be interested in the results of a checkuser to see who the guilty party really is. In this respect both Lucy-Marie and I have been equally singled out. a_man_alone (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you requested semi-protection for your talk page at WP:RFPP? That would at least keep the IP's and red-links at bay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it fits the strict criteria for redaction. At first sight your talk page does not even seem to be edited frequently, but maybe you can clarify at RFPP what malicious activity you see. We can ask for checkuser but I'm having the feeling that this won't tell us much because foreseeable. But then one never knows. Some people do this stuff to draw scrutiny to them.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruptive behavior and personal attacks by BsBsBs

Having had weeks of personal attacks from BsBsBs, I turn to ANI as a final step. The full argument is presented below, but its key points are:

• User BsBsBs is engaging in a long campaign of personal attacks direct at me and at other users, in breach of WP:NPA
• His personal attacks seem to be escalating, as in this latest one [89]
• User BsBsBs is also in breach of WP:OWN, having stated several times that he will refuse to even discuss the article he created with certain users, myself included.
• User BsBsBs has twice been warned by Retro00064 that his uncivil behavior might lead to ANI. It has only resulted in even more abuse.

A few weeks ago, I nominated the article World's largest municipalities by population for AfD [90]. The nomination is not the reason for now turning to ANI, so suffice to say was that I argued that the article is a POV-fork of List of cities proper by population; users interested in the whole argument are welcome to read the AfD. I thought it proper to inform the creator of the nominated article of the nomination and did so [91]. I expected BsBsBs to defend the merits of the article, but most of his "defense" turned out to directed at me personally and at previous editors he had been in dispute with. Admitting that the nominated article was created due to a dispute at List of cities proper by population. This dispute was an edit war between BsBsBs and other users, of which BsBsBs in the AfD-discussion say that "some editors of List of cities proper by population resorted to blatant forgery" [92], "After the most egregious acts of fraud had been exposed". I cannot comment on whether that is the case, but I find it a rather strong accusation. As for me, BsBsBs claimed that "The requester is aware of the compromise, he does not mention the compromise in an attempt to mislead other editors." [93]. I find it insulting, to say the least, to be accused of attempting to mislead others. I might add that I was not aware of this "compromise", more about it below. BsBsBs also said that a full discussion would "expose the true motivation behind the nomination"[94], again claiming that I has some hidden motive. He went on to claim that I "left a few not very enlightened tags and suddenly recommended the article for deletion"[95]. It is true that I twice tagged the article for what I perceive to be factual errors, I explained my reasons for doing so on the talk page. Both times BsBsBs deleted the tags [96], [97]. At this point other editors stepped in and recommended a more civil tone and a focus on the matter at hand. BsBsBs reply was that "Unless someone has reading comprehension issues, it will quickly become evident that the list is not the same." [98]. I responded to BsBsBs that I understand his frustration over "his" article being nominated, but asked him to stop the personal attacks and focus on discussing the article [99]. In reply, he did present his arguments for the article to remain, but also took the time to attack my honesty and my motives again with claims such as "A fact which you are trying to hide" and "Apparently, this is what you are trying to prevent with your AFD" [100]. I again commented on starting to be fed up with his continued insinuations about me [101]. BsBsBs argued that the AfD should be thrown out as it was "frivolous" [102]. At this point another editor stepped in and warned BsBsBs to stop his attacks on me, otherwise his behavior could end up here at ANI. [103]. As for the "consensus" BsBsBs kept talking about, I found a discussion but no consensus on the talk page of List of cities proper by population and if there were a consensus to merge two months ago, it's strange that nothing has happened

The result of the AfD was "merge and redirect", with the closing Admin saying that "How much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page". [104]. At the talk page BsBsBs started a new discussion, still largely focused on me [105]. I asked him once again to stop talking about me (I'm really not that interesting) and in order to try to build on the AfD-decision of merge and redirect, I asked him to focus on how to continue, and asked him what parts of the article he thought he should be merged before redirecting [106]. His reply consisted only of more abuse and personal attacks "Thin skinned editors, especially those who don't have their facts together, better refrain from AFD requests." and " If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." [107]. He also made it clear that he will refuse to discuss the merger with me "I have little motivation to discuss this with an uninvolved, antagonizing editor who wanted the article to die." [108] I find it rather bizarre that nominating an article for AfD should exclude an editor from discussing the future of the article... Once again another editor stepped in, told BsBsBs to stop his continued personal attacks at me, warned him that he is violating WP:OWN and also warned him again that he might end up at ANI [109]. BsBsBs response was simply that he will refuse to discuss with that editor as well [110]. He also took the time to heap even more abuse at me, as in "I am at a serious loss about what to think about a person who mounts one of the most aggressive, albeit unprepared, attacks, and when running into opposition, he complains about being attacked and makes thinly veiled ANI threats. If you can't stand up for yourself, don't attack other people and then run to Mami" [111]. For the record, it was another user who had talked about ANI, but that hardly makes a big difference. He also made it clear what he thinks of my intelligence "this sometimes complicated and counter-intuitive subject-matter seems to be beyond your horizon of understanding." [112]

In short:

• After an edit-war at List of cities proper by population, BsBsBs created his own article. I thought it to be a POV-fork, but that is of course up to everyone to judge for themselves, and nominated it for deletion.
• When I nominated the article created be BsBsBs for deletion, he started a continuing campaign of smearing directed at me, as can be seen from the many diffs and quotes above.
• BsBsBs has repeatedly been told by other editors to stop his personal attacks, with no result. He has twice been warned of ANI, which has only resulted in even more personal attacks.
• At the article he created, BsBsBs has repeatedly removed fact tags and he has made it very clear that he refuses to even discuss the future article with me or with the only other editor who has entered into discussion. I find it strange that an editor should think it is his right to decide with whom he wants to co-operate on Wikipedia and refuse to discuss with those who do not share his view.
• BsBsBs is, in my view, clearly in breach of both WP:NPA and WP:OWN. I find him to be an uncivil and disruptive editor who seems unable to co-operate with other users.

Jeppiz (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

the AfD was closed by User:Atmoz who is not an administrator. I think it was a perfectly correct non-admin closer--I would have closed in the same way, using, probably the exact same words. There was in my opinion, pretty good agreement that some (probably small) portion of the article should be merged, but that most of it was duplicative. AfD is a perfectly good place to discuss whether to merge or delete a problematic article. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WritersCramp ban evasion

WritersCramp (talk · contribs) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Sub-Comittee ([113], [114]). The terms of his unblock included "The user is topic banned from any article relating to fighting dogs and/or attack dogs and/or the associated dog breeds, broadly defined." He has returned to these topics - and is, in fact, engaging in the exact same disruptive behavior that earned his initial ban - including

• [115] - calling long-term valuable users socks, and inserting misinformation,
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yomangani - starting disruptive wiki-lawering incipd sock investigations against people that disagree with him.
• [116] turning articles into non-encyclopedic story-book quotes.

However, regardless of all of this, he is violating the terms of his ban by editing Lion-baiting and Monkey-baiting, articles "relating to fighting dogs." Please help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is less than 2 weeks after his last block was over. I think a better approach than this discussion is to ask John Vandenberg to deal with him as appropriate. This may mean that he gets another mile of rope or two, but even then it won't be long until that is used up. Nothing to see here.

Oh, I see you have already contacted John Vandenberg. Just lean back and wait. Hans Adler 14:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just to clarify the long and sorted story, I exposed Hipocrite as a sock puppet a year or two ago and he then posted AFD +tags on most of the Baiting articles that I started out of spite. He continues to delete cited information from the articles and cries when I put the cited information back. I advised Hipo where the citations are located as they are at the bottom of the articles, yet he continues to vandalize the articles. Time to block this editors account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• WritersCramp blocked for 1 month on topic ban violation and NPA grounds. NW (Talk) 14:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating his unblock request. What I don't understand is, the unblock/topic ban (and one account restriction!) applied to Green Squares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). How is this account related to WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?  Sandstein  16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Second diff at top explains that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarek addresses the issue about account relation. WritersCramp says in his unblock request "I was asked not to edit baiting articles, such as monkey-baiting and lion-baiting for six-months and I agreed to those terms. The six-months has not gone by and I am allowed to edit any article I want at Wikipedia." I see nothing about six months in [117]. The ban instead looks like it is an indefinite one. The unblock request also completely fails to mention the violation of our civility policy. NW (Talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the topic ban did not provide for a time limit. The block is correct (indeed, the original, conditionally lifted indefinite block could probably have been reinstated) and the unblock request is declined.  Sandstein  16:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note that there is also this edit by WritersCramp. It is very unfortunate that nobody replied on-wiki, one way or the other. I expect John Vandenberg or Roger Davies will clarify the situation. Meanwhile there is no damage if he stays blocked, since his battling behaviour and open display of scurrilous bad faith assumptions so soon after his 2-week block clearly deserve a longish block anyway. Hans Adler 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban is indefinite, though in email the user asked me in email when we were discussing terms how long it was for (he asked whether it was for three months). I replied: "I suggest you request the topic ban is lifted after say six months. If everything has gone smoothly, it shouldn't be a problem." However, no actual request has been made to lift it so it remains in force. I'm sorry I didn't notice his 12 Feb message: it would have been far better to have clarified on-wiki.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can any administrator kindly undertake a peer review of a block I did?

Hi guys. Can anybody kindly peer review a block of User:Jnsculpture I undertook a few moments ago? The user has added a link to the jnsculpture website, which I was notified about through edit filter 149. If the block is wrong, kindly do unblock and also kindly do leave a note out here. Thanks and sincerely. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been spamming his book. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprised this wasn't picked up before as he says on his user page that it's a promotional username. No problem with block message, but he might also have a problem with COI. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I CSD'd the userpage also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys... Elen, I think the article where he placed the link was of a character or some stuff like that, which he created. So the coi. Thanks again and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely sock of blocked user:Ledenierhomme

user:95.170.220.173 appears to be a sock IP of user:Ledenierhomme as the IP is making the very same disruptive edits to the Rights of Englishmen article as Ledenierhomme was before being blocked. 88.106.137.218 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked one week per WP:DUCK. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LucyLondon -- repeated promotional edits

LucyLondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- repeatedly performing this edit on London College of Communication. Very likely she is part of their PR/marketing office. No reply to warnings. It's not 3rr -- she doesn't show up often enough. But I suggest banning as a promotional-only account. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur - SPA only editing this article in a problematic way. Exxolon (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

I've never done this before, so correct me or direct me if this is not the appropriate forum.

I appear to have been functionally banned by one editor from editing a page, and I wish to know, not whether an editor without administrative rights can do this, but how this is to be classified, and where can I make an appeal to overrule the diktat.

The page in question is the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which happens to be related to a subject I have long worked on (the Shakespeare Authorship Question). This is a WP:FRINGE area which I, and a few others, am endeavouring to source to academic works, rather than a mishmash of popular amateur books, or marginal websites.

While looking over the page today, I noticed a good many of the problems associated with the original Shakespeare Authorship page, poor referencing to unreliable popular books where quality academic sources abound, numerous errors, a link to an article originally published in the New York Times, and freely available, sourced to a fringe theory site, an abundance of text that was both unsourced, and consisted of editorializing and clear WP:OR violations. I took the trouble [118] from the outset to begin explaining in depth the reasons behind my edits.

All I got was a series of comprehensive blankings of my edits here, here and here, with edit summaries justifying the blanking and reverts as the removal of a POV. Here , the editor User:Smatprt actually restores the new bibliographical items I had used to justify my introduction of fresh material, which he had elided earlier, together with the material they refer to. I.e., he found my new material unacceptable, but thought the bibliography useful, and so retained it, with the effect that the text is lacking, but its supporting sources are conserved, though nothing in the article refers to them.

I reverted this here because nothing in the edit summaries explained what was wrong with any of my specific editing suggestions, and then explained in concrete detail that his reverts were restoring patently false information, independently of any other consideration. This was again subject to a blanket revert, and User:Smatprt then finally explained his reasons for refusing to allow me to edit that page, and for therefore systematically reverting anything I added to it here.

As the last diff shows, Smatprt blanks me on the grounds that (a) I am an POV warrior. This is sufficient to say (b) he will refuse to answer the problematical points I raised on the talk page (c) that the biography written by the world's ranking academic authority on Edward de Vere, Stanford's Alan Nelson, cannot be used because the scholar is a 'muckraker' (WP:BLP violation, as well as an improper assessment by a mere wiki editor of who does and who does not count in academia); (d) that my behaviour is congenitally vandalistic.

I don't think this is a content dispute. It's a behavioural problem. Perhaps I am part of it, in some eyes? The objection to my behaviour is that I insist articles be written according to the best academic authorities under university or major press imprints, which few of these articles are. I should like input, not on the content, but on the specific instance of behaviour here. It seems to me that a co-editor has effectively put me under an administrative site-ban by refusing to judge my work edit by edit, by adducing a generic label of POV warrior to justify expunging everything I do there, by refusing to even listen to my reasons for making each edit, and characterizing me as a vandal to be chased off that page at sight. WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT seem to also be part of the problem.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact a content dispute. Wikipedia policy doesn't provide any way of resolving problems like this other than appealing for help at the relevant noticeboards, which in this case are WP:FTN or WP:RSN (whichever is most suitable, but not both). If you can't get help there, you aren't going to get it here, and the only thing you can do is to try to negotiate a solution with the editor you're having problems with. Looie496 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a content dispute? I have been given a very clear warning that one other editor will revert whatever I post on that page, merely on his a priori perception that I am a POV warrior (WP:AGF violation by the way). That edict means I cannot edit there without suffering a revert on generic grounds, and appears to me to be trumping administrative rights in site-banning me, which is what sight-deletion amounts to. Of course, I could edit-war on content but I don't want to be sucked into that. It's seems rather extraordinary to me that I am given no option by a co-editor than disappearing from the page, or edit-warring, since he refuses to answer any question I might put, or consider any edit I may make. That is behavioural, not an issue of content, surely? Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, neither WP:FTN nor WP:RSN are relevant, since it has already been classified as Pseudohistory, a branch of WP:Fringe, with regard to extensive arguments in the former, and, with regard to WP:RSN every source he elides is by definition RS, since they are articles and books by tenured academics in academic mainstream journals or under imprint from major presses, university or otherwise. User:Smatprt appears to refuse to accept wiki rulings on both of those venues, and that in turn is a behavioural problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This may require outside assistance. Dispute resolution will only work if both parties agree to work together. Since Smatprt has variously said "you are a POV warrior", "I am not going to engage with you" and "you have basically turned into a vandal in my eyes" and suggested ARBCOM I don't see how this can be resolved without outside intervention. Exxolon (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with some of the outside commentors who have posted so far. I have never been involved with Shakespeare related articles, but from looking over the history of the page and especially of the last two days, I think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia if Smatprt were topic banned. So, proposal: Smatprt is topic-banned from editing pages relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed. NW (Talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

IP spam

The IP, 87.114.85.253 has been going around seemingly seeking out all the Northern Irish Unionist lsupporting users and all leaving the following message on their talk page under the title, RIRA:

You may be interested in the obstructive reverts by pro IRA sympathisers at RIRA -- It appears that it is an attempt by O Fenian to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Wikipedia policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given.

Now allthough I have had my disputes with O Fenian on the site many times, I have had 0 input into the page he is referring me to. The reason I'm complaining is because Mabuska has told me I'm not the only one he's sent this to and apparently he's sent this to 5 others (his contributions suggest more) So can something be done about this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blocking the IP for block evasion by a de facto banned user, which has already been done. I can't see anything else to do here.  Sandstein  21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)