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

More eyes please.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_eyes_please.

I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

Stale, time to archive. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Important Business

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • You need to make those buttons a little larger, as my eyesight ain't what it used to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Not really an incident, though, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• One down. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

=D Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I am forced to Facepalm on behalf of us all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban Jcarleo

Unresolved

Its about time we banned this long time troll. He has caused unending disruption and endless usertalk trolling, and banning him will give us so much more leeway revertin his edits. access_denied (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support without any regret for the ban - enough was enough. Jcarleo has been trolling for years and he was blocked indefinetly in June for his actions. Now due to his trolling and recent sockpuppetry, I can say that serious disruption and trolling will not be tolerated at all, as well as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has also proven that he will not be fit for this site after all. So, this is a necessary end for this user. Wikipedia needs administrators, trusted users (like myself), and bureaucrats, but not trolls and users/IPs who vandalize Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - [1] 20 socks!? We can do without this guy. Jusdafax 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - 20 isn't even close to the actual number of socks he has. Also see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jcarleo, and know that we (actually I) stopped tagging his IPs/accounts after he continuously kept removing them with new socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. For those of us who have never heard of this individual, it might help to provide a few diffs as to why exactly he should be banned? --Elonka 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: months of vandalism, disruption and harassment is enough. I see no constructive edits jcarleo has made nor do I see any in the near future. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Has there been a SPI to link the accounts? There's not one on the main account that I found...

We have to have reasonable information on which to base ban proposals. This one so far is sorely lacking evidence. Please expand with edit history, SPI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One place to start would be to look at the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits"? Someone post some actual evidence and links, please. This is all incredibly opaque. We can't agree to banning someone based on this kind of shaky evidence. Fences&Windows 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just one of many reasons to ban him... access_denied (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's a link to the history, which tells us nothing. Give us some diffs please.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LemonMonday again

LemonMonday (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring with User:Fmph at Belgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph on Climate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.

Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[9]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs [10][11] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE[12] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.

The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[13]). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[14][15][16][17][18][19] LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[20][21][22], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[23]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.

Proposed remedy

I’ve been enforcing the British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Wikipedia policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:

• Community banned from Wikipedia, per WP:BAN.
• Or given a full topic ban from all British Isles, Britain and Ireland topics widely construed and banned from interacting with volunteers who are editing in that topic area, per WP:GS/BI and WP:BAN.

--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion part one

Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil ^talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the 12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on an article he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.

Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.

Number 5 same again.

Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.

Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil ^talk 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation are Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number 3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map of Europe. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 is because his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribs regardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the bottomline. I am not accusing anyone but am stating clearly for non-involved editors the context and what has been going on in this area.

This is the third time Cailil has initiated a banning discussion against someone who was blocked from defending themselves in the British Isles area; myself, Triton Rocker and now LemonMonday. More than "annoying" doing so seem plainly unethical to me. In all three cases, despite the same group of editors being involved in similar behaviour, the proposed sanctions have always been one-sided. "The Community" applying such sanctions rarely goes outside of the same involved characters.

It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others [24] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]

Looking at the edit it would seem an exceptionally petty issue of no great importance or damage to the Wikipedia. Never before has Belgium been so exciting. Reading the source Fmph gave, there is no mention of Belgium in it nor specific geographic definition of it and so surely it was correct to remove it?

Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side. [25] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.

If there is something to be done regarding the British Isles renaming dispute, it should be done fairly and en masse rather than the same admins taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game. It goes without saying that doing so changes the balance of the discussion on British Isles related issues. Coincidentally it is always to advantage one side's while other abuses are ignored.

I have recently suggested that what is really needed is to take the British Isles renaming dispute issue to Arbcom and was accused sorely for doing so by Cailil but, for everyone's sake, we need somewhere where the events will be looked at fairly by uninvolved third parties and moderated. This attempted sanction is just part of a bigger play and should not be allowed on its own. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise reading this and this also to get a flavour of these absurd disputes - absurd on all sides. Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just call the place Lizland (l'island) and be done with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wot, Belgium? Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd call Belgium other names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, LB fails to mention anything about LM following me first to Climate of Ireland, and later to Belgium, articles he had never previously edited. Neither does he explain why any edit to the Belgium article has anything to do with the British Isles (Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't so it's pretty safe to assume that LMs actions were against me, and not against what I was editing). And the bad faith allegations and emotive language against Cailil (talk · contribs) "taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game" is pretty typical of his/her ad hominem attack style. Unreal! Fmph (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fmph ignore this please I have asked LB to strike his ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see we have the usual name calling. The fact is that over the last year High King has played by the rules and has proposed changes on the task force page and accepted community decisions. I sometimes think it might be a good idea for the community to appoint someone to go through the edit histories of the main players and establish some facts so that we could avoid these smoke screens in the future. In contrast to HighKing Lemon and Levin have just been nay sayers, arguing for the insertion of BI whenever they can and objecting to its removal with few if any exceptions. They are both SPAs. And yes, I will continue to say that we have to resolve this issue on a case by case basis using references. The behaviour of both SPAs is not helpful to that, but LemonMonday is constantly breaking WP:AGF and edit wars at the drop of a hat. A topic ban at least I think. --Snowded ^TALK 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanction discussion

What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is either site banned or topic banned from all Britain and Ireland topics and banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating a battleground and revert warring thus disrupting the project to make a point--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Wikipedia won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for block/ban applied to entire BISE crowd. If it takes two to tango, HighKing's British Isle renaming dispute WP:BISE is a Buenos Aires ballroom (and Buenos Aires is neither in the British Isles nor Britain and Ireland, although they have just opened up a Grill in Dublin [26] which I suppose makes Ireland the largest geographic area ... zzzz).

If there is need for any sanctioning or banning, and this case look very petty and one sided, it should involve both parties equally. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Which 'both' parties? The reason that it's 'one-sided' (in your narrow POV), is that only one side is behaving badly. The preferred response would be for 'both' sides to behave properly and then the balance would be restored. So you chivy up 'your' lot to behave properly and I'll talk to 'my' lot. This response smacks of desperation as it looks like you may lose your tag team partner, so your repsonse is to ban everyone on the other side of the argument, who have been behaving themselves. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You and LemonMonday. The dispute in itself if not worth a fig but using it as an excuse to take out a player in the British Isle renaming dispute is. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And what have I done wrong to warrant being banned? Don't you get it? LM broke the rules. I didn't. That's why the proposal is to topic-ban LM. Good grief. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is right! Fmph (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

LevenBOy you have had FULL and fair warning to abide by your editing restriction and stop using wikipedia as a battleground either strike your commentry calling my actions unethical/involved, and your opiniosn about other users or you will be blocked for breaching that restriction (full warning given here)--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months and to be applied just as stringently (and perhaps more swiftly) to other editors who cannot abide by community policies. Enough is enough, it's time to get tough. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

User:Kotniski

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

Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus.[27][28][29][30] Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition.

User:Ludwigs2

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[31][32][33] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[34][35][36] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 did not explain the mass changes and did not gain consensus despite claims to the contrary. See User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 12#Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consensus.

Other editors do share my concern on the talk page. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV without consensus that again altered the core meaning or original intent of ASF. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute where there is none. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF. I see that Kotniski and Ludwigs wanted to rewrite NPOV to be simple. The rewrite is less explicit and vague. They think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow an improvement. The mass rewrite is incoherent and makes little sense. Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV without support from the community. See User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5#NPOV and the most recent discussion at User talk:Kotniski/Archive 6#Mass changes to NPOV without consensus. Kotniski cannot explain how weakening NPOV was an improvement to the page. The section name "Different points of view" was deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#Section name for the discussion of the section name. There was some discussion about the massive change to policy. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 44#Removal of .22Assert facts.22 again. Too many changes were made without substantially improving NPOV policy. The last massive change by Ludwigs2 essentially deleted long established ASF policy originally written by Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The place for this is the talk page of the policy. If people don't share your concerns there, then either abide by that consensus or try a "requests for comment". Nothing here needs admin attention.--Scott Mac 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, you said this is "without consensus" on the talk page and then that others "do share my concern on the talk page". Which is it?--Scott Mac 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a note that I am aware of and following this thread. This is a bit of a head-scratcher, so I'll refrain from commenting for the moment unless someone particularly wants to hear something from me. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • This is core policy, and one of the places where we must certainly avoid making significant changes without very good consensus. This is no place to experiment. Alternative wordings that have any significant implications are fine to propose, but not to adopt without full agreement. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

    Further to DGG, policy, even or especially a major one as NPOV, is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and all such policy rewrites can do is reflect what incremental changes have happened in the application of that policy in practice. Any changes that do not reflect that consensus are worthless. Since disputes over the wording are largely irrelevant to the contributors to Wikipedia, there is nothing that admins here can do it - at least on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs for Kotniski and Ludwigs2 are incredibly old for something to be brought here. The ones I checked (more than half) are from April, May, and October. This is ridiculous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, I suppose I should chime in on this point, just for clarification. these changes were made to the policy page in accordance with a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page between something like 8 or 10 editors. I can recap the rationales for the changes if you like, but suffice it to say that this was not simply unilateral changes made by me and Kotniski. In the subsequent months after the changes, QuackGuru has made frequent complaints about them on the talk page (and on my talk page, and elsewhere). Numerous editors have tried to discuss the matter with QG, but he does not really respond to discussion, he simple repeats the complaint (almost verbatim with the wording he used here). As far as I can see, QuackGuru is the only editor watching the page who objects to the changes, he has had no luck arguing against the editors who respond to him on the NPOV talk page, and so he has come forum shopping over here at ANI.

Anyone who wants to join in the discussion about the changes is obviously welcome to, and I can't see any problem with QG seeking out a wider audience to review them, but this is not really an ANI matter. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you revert RexxS after RexxS objected to the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My feelings are the same as Ludwig's. The modifications were made gradually by several editors and with general consensus, in line with ongoing talk-page discussion; QuackGuru seems to object to certain things, but doesn't seem capable of expressing his objections with sufficient precision to become properly involved in the discussion. While the policy page is now better than it was, I don't think it's entirely satisfactory yet, for many reasons, so I would certainly encourage further discussion (perhaps after a period of reflection) to work on making it better still.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only change to ASF I see is cosmetic. The essential bits are preserved. Of the two example removals provided above, only the "according to" thing isn't really addressed (the in-line dilution is certainly a V thing more than an NPOV thing*), and honestly there are a million ways to present things as (un)controversial when they are(n't), and all of that can be and probably has been forked to any one of dozens of explanatory pages. Until more examples are provided, I don't see any fundamental change to policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC) * Although I can sort-of see how it's related to the cite-stacking^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]} problem. Truth™ by numbers!

Yes, the changes were largely cosmetic. But you're also right about the inline attribution issue, and I think, for QuackGuru that was the key loss. If a non-opinion could be reliably sourced then I believe in QG's reading, it had to be presented as a plain fact in the most direct and assertive way. This made situations where there was, for example an uncontested systematic review in controversial field, an easy situation to navigate, because that finding just had to be stated as a plain fact (i.e. Mars is a planet; Chiropractic is not worth the risk of dying). My reading of the current guidance on assertions is that editors have leeway to determine just how 'plain' a fact is given context and can decide how much inline attribution to use depending on the effect and impression different phrasings have balanced against the usefulness of adding attribution in certain cases. This is a complicated area for sure, but I didn't see any other editors besides QG offering the critique of the changes. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You did see other editors diagreeing with the edits on the talk page but you chose to dismiss others who disagree with you including the comments made by RexxS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology if I forgot about Rexxs. I meant that after the edits were made, there was little to no objection for the past two months except from you. That doesn't make the current version right, but I think it kind of squashes this already pointless thread. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Basically, the presence of a citation can create the impression of a controversy where there is none (or vice-versa)? I'd agree with that. The solution is trivial, too, by defining "fact" and "opinion" (no disagreement in reliable sources & value judgment or contested). Currently, NPOV does a poor job of explaining what is meant by the terms. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone mind if we move this (part of the) discussion over to WT:NPOV, which is where it belongs?--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There were other editors who disagreed with the changes. RexxS reverted the changes and explained on the talk page the disagreement were not an improvement. It is disingenuous to claim the changes were largely cosmetic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not disingenuous, but maybe premature. If you could explain how it was weakened? There are diffs and a few examples, but nothing appears fundamental changed (to me). There really isn't much discussion on WT:NPOV, so anyone who reads up on this is going to be confused (or I'm an idiot - but there are many idiots). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is always a really bad idea for any editor engaged in content disputes where a policy applies, to edit the policy. This always gives the appearance of changing policy to support your own position. Changes to policy - especially core policy - must be discussed if challenged, which this clearly is; WP:RBI covers this, but WP:SELFCONTROL should as well. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary on one of the major changes to policy Kotniski wrote I dare say someone will revert this, but this is my attempt at a true "simple formulation" - if we need more info, couldn't it go in later sections of the policy?). It seems Kotniski knew the edit was controversial because it was unilateral. Kotniski also seem to have known other editors would object to the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I read here, I think the best way forward is to ignore what's written on the policy page (as policy describes what is done, rather than prescribing what must be done), and continue to assert undisputed conclusions from reliable sources with citation, but without attribution. It's a pity that the ASF section has been weakened so that we'll have to have that debate on every talk page with every POV-pusher who wants to discredit a source they don't like, but eventually I expect the policy page will catch up with best practice. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why you think anything's been weakened - this point is still clearly - perhaps even more clearly now - made on the page (basically it's the third bullet point in the first section, which gives the matter at least the prominence that's due to it). But perhaps comments about the wording of the policy and how further to improve it can be made on the policy's own talk page, as I suggested above - that way it's much more likely to lead to genuine improvement (which is undoubtedly possible and desirable).--Kotniski (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't see why I think the policy has been weakened. You prefer your formulation of:

• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

to the previous:

• Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources.

It's a pity that you don't see, in the way that I do, that introducing the unqualified "uncontroversial" allows any POV-pusher to claim a controversy exists - even when there is no RS that says so. Similarly, the phrasings "should normally" and "no need for" are weasel, and give licence for further argument for anyone to claim that the policy does not prohibit attribution. The former wording was concise and clear; your saying that the version you created is clearer does not make it so. --RexxS (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the policy is not supposed to prohibit attribution. (Notice that even QG's personal favoured version, quoted below for some reason, only says that facts can be asserted.) These are just not things that can be laid down as laws like you might wish. Judgment and good faith are required from editors. Anyway, discussion can continue on the policy talk page; I suggest that this thread here be closed. --Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the obvious problem with the old ASF version of the policy. The bald statement assert facts is instantly confusing: it seems to be suggesting that editors should be trying to present material that is *true*, above and beyond what is present in sources. This is, in fact, why QG is so stuck on the wording: it allows him (as he frequently does) to simply assert that material present in medical journals is factually true so that he can make definitive statements that things like chiropractic have failed research standards, and then present those statements without context or attribution. In other words, it's a loophole for for some aggressive synthesis from published sources.

Even setting aside that kind of unsavory use, however, the phrase "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" is confusing and ambiguous. As a number of editors have pointed out to QG, the wording requires so much contingent explanation (to keep editors from thinking they need to determine 'truth', to explain what a 'fact about an opinion' is, to explain that 'not asserting an opinion' does not mean we exclude sourced opinions), that it's no longer a simple formulation at all. Taken at face value it lends itself to a whole lot of POV pushing, and the cognitive overhead of digging through to its real meaning is tremendous. The rewrite is wordier, and maybe not so snappy, but it is actually clearer and simpler than the so-called simple formulation, and it is far harder for the rewrite to get tangled in disputes over "self-evident" facticity. it's just better wording all around. --Ludwigs2 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous wording of 'a simple formulation' for reference.

A simple formulation

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources. For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes any of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet.") and without an inline qualifier (e.g. "According to...", "John Doe believes...", "The book Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine stated...", "A systematic review...").

An "opinion", on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement, or a statement construed as factual that is a matter subject to dispute. There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing or killing animals is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact, but that the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb is a value or opinion.

Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. For instance, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and write: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", including a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool consider the Beatles the greatest band ever", can be made if it can be supported per Wikipedia's verifiability to a particular survey or reliable source. Attribution in the text must accurately reflect the source presented. Do not use terms like "most people" unless a source can be found to substantiate such a claim (See WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL).

There are bound to be borderline cases where careful editorial judgment needs to be exercised – either because a statement is part way between a fact and an opinion, or because it is not clear whether there is a serious dispute – editorial consideration of undue weight will determine whether a particular disagreement between sources is significant enough to be acknowledged.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When a matter is subject to dispute there are competing, contradictory views between reliable sources. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

This is the broad consensus version of ASF that can be worked back into policy in about a couple of seconds from now if you want to keep the original intent of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Resolved

 – Our heads are up (and our crips are lacking a smile...) Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

James Naughtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made a slip of the tongue on Today (BBC Radio 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this morning, a spoonerism of "Jeremy Hunt the culture secretary". It's already led to this: [37]. I semiprotected Jeremy Hunt (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the Naughtie article for 24h, obviously we should not be adding this trivial factoid to biographies until we at least have an indication that it is considered by reliable independent sources to be significant in the context of their entire career. Actually it rises almost to the level of looking up rude words in the dictionary and sniggering. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised the IPs didn't find anything funny about James Naughtie's surname XD --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Naughtie but nice" on twitter just now. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Regretably, it has made it to the reliable media, eg guardian.co.uk. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure any addition on the grounds that it's in the reliable media could easily be rebutted with WP:UNDUE. StrPby (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Easily, moreover in a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I typically consider a "slip of the tongue" in direct relation to this specific spoonerism to be a good thing, clearly, the IP's addition of it throughout the article was both intentional and inappropriate... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, it also made the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Herald Sun of Australia, Reuters Africa, and others. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because it's a rude word. Tomorrow they will be back to Strictly and Justin Bieber. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't happen to mention Ed Balls at any time during this mess, did he? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Being true doesn't make it relevent. Give it a few months. When someone writes an article-length analysis on the use of the naughty word, we may have something. Otherwise, it doesn't rise above the level of triviality for inclusion in any article. --Jayron32 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone says a "Naughtie" word publicly and didn't mean to, it's at best a minor source of humor, not noteworthy for the bio unless it gets broad and continuous coverage. Like the time Shepard Smith on Fox News got his wording mixed up and nearly said "blow job" on the air live and apparently with no built-in delay. The red-faced Smith immediately apologized and said he wouldn't let a slip like that happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

News readers known for single events

• Charlotte Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reading up about this has led me to a biography (possibly one of many — I didn't look at the rest of Template:BBC Radio 4) of a living person where a good two thirds of the article is devoted to the person's professional mistakes. Part of the remaining third is busy telling us that there isn't much else to know. I hope that the editors so keen about James Naughtie will work on fixing this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note; we have an intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Uncle G's wish is my command. However, her 'professional mistakes' make up a substantial part of the coverage about her, and aren't really that negative. Fences&Windows 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but I did come away from reading the older version of the article with the following impression: "Charlotte Green is a newsreader. In a 30 year career she's made two on-air bloopers. Here's an inordinate amount of detail on each. Nothing much else is known about her.". As a reader, I was not informed. Uncle G (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated block evasion by NYScholar sockpuppet

Despite a one week block by Tiptoety for block evasion on 18 September, User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), assumed to be a sock of banned editor NYScholar has resumed their activities[38], re-inserting trivial minutiae which had been carefully pruned from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, since it was 2.1/2 months from their last sanction which indicates the address is stable and is more likely to effect any further attempts to evade their ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further edits in the same pattern by User:66.66.47.134 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) comm,enced immediately after the block on User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See this diff. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for 1 week - we can see if the address is stable by whether the edits continue after the sanction expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir

Moved from WP:AN § Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn.Kathir

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

• idiocy of the...
• i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
• turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
• More idiotic shia misquotes...

S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--Korruski^Talk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [39].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

a western person cant be anti western, the best muslims i have met in terms of hospitality and respect are the shia of iraq so im not anti shia, labeling something as inherently shia [such as thier hatred among other thing for the prophets wife's and companions which is exclusively their belief hence the label] is not anti a community its just stating a fact, and none of what you have said is relevant on this admin board so i dont know what else you are trying to prove. I will concede that the incident played out different in my mind but the time stamps say something else, but as i clearly stated earlier i was reacting to the other users quotes and accusations in which he essentially said Aisha the prophets wife hated her husband and lied about him and then their is this blatant lie in which he claimed the prophet called his own wife "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” i know the full context of the hadith and its explanation by experts in exegesis and it has nothing to do with Aisha, but again this has nothing to do with the admin board.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection of U2

Resolved

 – unprotected, take further comment to its talk DC T•C 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was protected this weekend after a somewhat nasty round of edit warring over inclusion of the term Irish in the lead. There's a consensus on the discussion on its talk to unprotect and include the word, but no one has responded to my request at WP:RFPP DC T•C 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make an {{editprotected}} request? You're more likely to gain a prompt response through that, than requesting unprotection and waiting, just to make a single edit. --Dorsal Axe 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the rule, if any, for determining whether an organization is "Irish" or not? Does U2 itself take any position on the matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

U2 is canny Irish, Dubliner, way, but if the article narrative is to carry that and some editors don't agree, it's gotta be sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been sourced on the talk page by reliable sources and the and itself. DC T•C 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that sources on the talkpage count for something thats a potential WP:BLP violation here. unless there are credible, consensed sources on the actual article space specifically, I dont think that we can call U2 an Irish or anything of that nature, as per WP:Biography of Living Persons and WP:Music User:Smith Jones 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If they call themselves an Irish band and no notable authorities disagree vehemently, then there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article narrative can indeed read that x more or less widely published source has called them X. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland", which is a somewhat weaselly way around the issue; and if they were Americans, it would probably be "U2 is..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

See this. If you scroll through, there is a direct quote from Bono in which he says "We are Irish. Completely and utterly 90s Irish." Further, on the RFC, there was not one claim that either Clayton or the Edge (the two allegedly non-Irish members) have challenged the common perception (or Bono's belief) that the band is Irish. DC T•C 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that can at the very least be cited as a quote from him, though I must say, he may be pushing it, those blokes are 80s through and through. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if they had called themselves "The Irish Band" instead of "U2", and played the Clancy Brothers' songbook instead of rock, there wouldn't be a debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another quote for the discussion: "Bono said it was 'amazing' to think of people in Dublin picking up Time magazine and seeing an Irish band on the cover. 'For so long we were thought of as a British band and that was insulting. To be covered by the international media finally means we've been accepted as Irish.'" <ref>{{title=U2|last=Shirley|first=Jackie|page=46|year=1993|publisher=[[Longmeadow Press]]|location=[[Stamford, Connecticut]]|isbn=0681418753|}}</ref> Maybe this can lay it to rest. Heiro 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they're just a band, so what do they know? Wikipedia editors know THE TRUTH. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Awww, Bugs, you forgot the " " and all caps for that Truth, you know it only applies then, lol. Heiro 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Danke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, truth is holy, but it's not en.WP's gig. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

well, as per WP:MOS, cant we just say that they are from Dublin and alow the reader to determie on their own if this means that they can be labelled as Irish or not. I just dont feel as if its Wikipedias place to decide that U2 is an Irish band for the entrie world or not, especially since people just mention vague, nonspecific sources and refusing to offer actual citations ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF (instead just plastering on them on random places where no one can find them). Its a WP:BLP issue and we should tread carefuly. User:Smith Jones 23:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? Two sources quote the band itself saying they're Irish. Reliable sources use the term Irish to describe the band. Further, there's been no assertion made anywhere in any reliable sources that the band isn't Irish. Nor have the two members of the band born outside of Ireland challenged it anywhere. Plus, there's a consensus on the talkpage that the term is to be included, so this dicussion is moot. DC T•C 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If the group themselves verifiably say they are An Irish Band, then there is no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAME much? – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For sure, but it's still an object lesson in "original research". The ones objecting to "Irish band" are applying original research and original synthesis to define, according to the editors' own personal opinion, what an "Irish band" is, rather than going by proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean

User contributions, User is acting in bad faith and personally attacking other editors over his edits at Softpedia. He is not quite understanding policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and others. He's been warned but it seems he has a disregard for what he has done. Input greatly appreciated. Momo san ^Talk 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am allowed to post here (if not my appologies)...I am posting here my last two posts from the talk page KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Wikipedia can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Wikipedia should stand for.

Just for the sake of discussion (you guys cost me too much time anyway), can I escalate this issue to a higher-up level, supervisor(s), maybe mr Jimbo?

Thanks. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddity on User:Silenzio76

A question for the geeks: I landed more or less by accident on this user page, which displays the Recent changes. When I clicked on "User contributions" my PC almost crashed, for reasons I can't fathom, and I don't want to repeat the experiment (you know, PCs running Windows and all). In the end, my PC froze for a few minutes and now seems to be back to normal, but I thought I'd ask around to see if some devastating script was running. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried it and did not have any problem. One problem I do have is that user has altered the title of his userpage to suggest it is some other page (a "special:" one at that!). That's hella-misleading--cool, but bad to mess with the interface that way. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem here either. The userpage retitling apparently comes from his inclusion of {{Special:Recentchanges/100}}. Not sure what the call is on that. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tarc, my screen froze showing that "Recentchanges/100" thing, and I couldn't figure out what that meant. Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, DMacks, et al: please check out this edit and revert if I overstepped my boundaries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to me. The editor was only active for a few months and not in the past few months, so can always help/advise him further if he returns. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a question regarding this on WP:VPT, see WP:VPT#Weird behaviour when trying to transclude "special:" pages. -- 80.135.1.231 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[40], [41], [42], [43] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[44], [45], [46]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[47] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeh,[48] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti|✉ 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarm^talk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have blocked User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef

I see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret ^account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret ^account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception? AD 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate.

Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard. AD 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret ^account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret ^account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe we should all just calm down and have a civil chat over a nice cup of tea Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• If Pedro does it over and over, and creates a sock to do it also, then your argument will have some merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Kingpin: these comments are insulting to people who have intellectual disabilities, and offensive to people of good will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per SlimVirgin. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talk • contribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per above. Unfortunately. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. Silverseren^C 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 ^talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [49]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• [50] and [51]. Can we agree now that he is just here for the lulz now? I don't care how good of an editor he was two years ago, he doesn't want to be here anymore. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block He's just taking the piss at this point. HalfShadow 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedro blocked and unblocked

Pedro unblocked

Now Geni blocked Pedro for three hours for his language, while this block won't affect him, as he's in England I believe it's still puntative. Unblock Secret account 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I'm in the UK. And having seen the damage late night admining can do you would have a hard time arguing it is not preventative.©Geni 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) No more punitive than the block of TFM. Sometimes I think the "preventive not punitive" mantra is overrated here. Disruption over a long period, as in the case of TFM, is difficult to deal with because people will always say it has to happened right here, right now, otherwise nothing can be done. So the trick is, to troll in small enough doses that aren't really that bad on their own, but altogether present a big problem. Now that Pedro's once clean log has now been marked, maybe he'll be more careful to keep the atmosphere a little less crass. AD 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) According to Pedro's contribs he's surely in bed now. The block was to "set an example". Not sure of the utility of that as cause for a block, but it would be good to just let this one lie and not go drahma-crazy over a three hour block during sleepy time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Agreed, let this block stay. Should hopefully encourage Pedro to stay a bit more calm in future, and not attack other editors like that (regardless of how disruptive they are). Blocking wouldn't have been my choice of action here, but equally, unblocking wouldn't be, if another admin decides a block is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blocks "to set examples" are not directed to a general audience unlikely to take cognisance of them, so must surely be irrelevant. "Pour encourager les autres" does not necessarily work as a lesson here, and never has in historical terms. Meanwhile, the block of Pedro was poorly-argued, especially on the blockee's Talk page. Call me cynical, but if I am being sanctioned, surely I have a right to know the chapter and verse that authorises that, and the particulars supporting the block under those provisions. We do not operate as a legal system here, but some things are both above and beyond that. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Rodhullandemu has now unblocked. Oh well. AD 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Yea lets not wheel war over this Secret account 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I had said 5 to 10 minutes would fit the crime, and it turned out to be 14. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Indef for you are dumb, 14 minutes for 'prick'. Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC) If Fat/BErD had only said it once, maybe he wouldn't have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked for rather more than that.©Geni 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Didn't you know Ceoil, block lengths decrease exponentially with the seriousness of the comment made :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC) There is zero point in blocking any editor for three hours, unless it's a rapidly-redistributed IP address. To do so for an established editor, in the absence of a course of conduct that requires immediate action tends to become beyond preventative, and tends towards punitive. Pedro is a long-time editor here, and is due some respect for that. The best of us occasionally err. However, calling someone a "prick" isn't necessarily that different from referring them to WP:DICK, although it might have been better worded. But that's no reason for blocking, and certainly not without appropriate warnings such as are the entitlement of any editor here. That's why I unblocked, and if you think I'm wrong so to do, your remedy is thisaway. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC) My comment above continues to apply: lets not go drahma-crazy of an unblock of a three hour block while the editor concerned is fast asleep. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I agree. None of this is worth your bits, or an RfC, or an ArbCom asking questions about wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

This discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret ^account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This section was opened less 8 hours ago, and the block has been in place even shorter. Keep it open until it is actually decided. AniMate 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The discussion should continue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• - I disagree with user Dycedarg's comment - this discussion is not to confirm the indef and ergo a ban discussion - this is a discussion to see if there is support or not for the user to be presently indefinitely blocked (this does not mean forever} whilst he considers his recent contributions and the community opines the best way to progress so that he can edit more constructively or at least so as issues like this do not continue to arise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

General observation

As a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt: If I review a situation, and decide a block is not appropriate, can I post that opinion somewhere (the editor's talk page maybe), and then other admins must show deference to my opinion, and gain consensus on ANI before they can override my opinion and block? If so, then I disagree (as it then becomes a race to dispense with fact finding and lock in one's opinion first), but at least it would be consistent. If not, why not?

  An admin should only be blocking people if they think they will have consensus to do so, and the default in the case of a lack of consensus should be an unblock (or, better yet, compromise and negotiation that can lead to a consensus). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Floquenbeam's last sentence seems to sum the answer to the query quite well. I would add that if this seems to lack clarity in the eyes of some, then I'd suggest that this is a good time to get up to speed...this is a piece of cake compared to the disputes and queries that are going to arise in the future, both near and distant. In those cases, I don't think even the most experienced users are going to have any easy answers to assist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is a community-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 ^talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is registered on Wikipedia Review and has not had any involvement with the editor in question, they do not need to disclose all of that exhaustively - your request for disclosure seems to expect all of that, but that info isn't actually necessary: such an editor could say they are uninvolved. This incident has been complicated enough; requiring disclosure about whether or not each editor is registered to another particular website (that doesn't have a CANVASS/MEAT issues that you are actually aware of) is just adding more unnecessary complication. Aka, the undue focus you're putting on Wikipedia Review (or EEML, or any other specific website/mailing list/organisation/etc) is not helpful. So in the future, a more helpful disclosure request would be neutral and broad (eg; "Please state your level of involvement (if any).") instead of unduly focussed on a single website. Do you understand yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The request was aimed at "Wikipedia Review contributors". Implicitly (we'd hope for common sense, but...) that was meant for active contributors who've engaged with Fat Man at WR, or who otherwise have engaged enough at WR to feel some kind of tribal affinity (a phenomenon which isn't overly hard to observe from reading it). The point is of course, as I keep saying, to clarify what you might call "involvement", though I preferred to phrase it in terms of commenting editors not reflecting the wider community view, because "involvement" suggests their views are invalid, irrelevant, or ignorable, and I neither said nor implied any such thing. Rd232 ^talk 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to force users to declare their interest in WR. For example, I have an account at WR (only posted once or twice a year ago), and I haven't read anything since. Does this discount my opinion on my own block? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly.

Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.)

But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him. Anthony (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Anthony. I hope you feel more cheerful soon. Yes, there is value in the way humor boosts morale and reduces stress. Lacking a consensus for the block, how about reducing it to time served and remind the blockee not to carry a good thing too far. Jehochman ^Talk 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

:) Anthony (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• So, I just read through the above discussion - and my first thought is that That's a good 30 minutes of my life that I'm never getting back. If Fat Man agrees not to troll anymore, he should be unblocked with all speed. But not until then. And trouts for the lot of you for carrying on like this. There may be some sort of encyclopedia that needs work, if memory serves... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus for or against this block. Newyorkbrad's question needs answering: in this situation do we default to block or unblock? Defaulting to block smells a bit off to me. Anthony (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way. The manner of the block is off-putting, but the conduct probably justified the block. I note also that TFM has not edited since being blocked - I'm hesitant to unblock until we have a request, all things being equal. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you, Ultraexactzz, but TFM has promised not to troll twice already in the past (see Kingpin's diffs somewhere in here), and has never made good on his promises. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't so much interested in more discussion about the merits of the block. It's pretty clear there's no consensus on that. The question that began this thread was what do we default to when there is no clear consensus? Anthony (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The default position is the one existing immediately before the matter was raised; TFMWNCB being not blocked in this instance. Blocking is a function exercised by an admin on behalf of the community, by means either of a directly expressed consensus or that by which the community entrusted them with the tools. As Brad pondered, once it is evident that no consensus exists for the new status then the old one must be resumed. Oh, and whilst I am pontificating - to Wehwalt: It is the other way round - the admin defers to the community. Every. Single. Time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It seems pretty clear that the answer to Newyorkbrad's question is that we default to unblock, because our default position is that "anybody can edit"; if we default the other way, surely we're modifying that tagline (and the rest of our attitude/positioning) to something other than that. It's similar, i reckon, to the default in an AfD being "keep", because with the lack of consensus the opinion of notability outweighs that of non-notability; here, with no consensus the ability to edit outweighs the other. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In the NFL, when an official rules a play a certain way (i.e. an incomplete pass), the head coaches have the option to challenge the play if they deem it incorrect. The official goes in for a instant replay review, and there has to be indisputable evidence that the call should be reversed. Just a thought, though I doubt Wikipedia is for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The ones who are so keen on unblocking Fat/BErD should be compelled to assume responsibility for constantly monitoring its activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer :) Anthony (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dontcha think that's a bit petty, Bugs? We all monitor; even if he is unblocked, as i think he ought to be, with his record, and assuming and giving benefit of doubt, it won't be long till he trolls again, and is blocked *with* process. Then we'll spend a minute or two picking up the pieces, and moving on. Meantime, i'll help, Anthony. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi

I should clarify that instead of "ones" I should have said "admins". Is it petty? Well, he's got two indef'd socks. How petty is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Bugs; i posted, noticed the time, realised that i was late for an appointment, and left. I also apologise twofold, for perhaps not being clear, and for probably misinterpreting you. I read your post as a sort of sour grapes thing ~ "Well, go ahead and unblock, but i'm not helping" ~ which i'm sure was not your intent. All i meant was that while i agree taht socks and trolling are not petty, because of the circumstances of the block, the large gentleman should be unblocked (according to default, as i see it), until he unambiguously trolls or socks; then Pow! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend taking a look at his recent comments on his talkpage.[52] Seems pretty unambiguous to me, that he is not taking things seriously. --Elonka 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am glad you can all agree that any appearances of trolling or "bad behaviour" shall be a blockable offense. Beware what you ask for. There are more than a couple editors in this thread who could be blocked for trolling, and I don't just mean Pedro. If you allow no tolerance for others' personality quirks, then you should expect none for your own. Personally, I find it highly distasteful to see admins using blocks to force editors to agree with the admin's interpretation of policy, when that interpretation is disputed. Again, beware what you ask for, because if that's the culture you promote, someday, someone will do it to you. (I, for instance, often notice editors repeating misinformation on ANI. I find such behaviour substantially contrary to civil discourse, and I think it should be subject to sanctions.) Finally, let me remind you all that after TFM was unblocked the last time (by me), his edits have been watched (by me), and he has behaved within the constraints of the unblock as far as I have observed. So TFM should not be blocked anew for old behaviour. The recent edit that people seem upset about happened while I was away, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it was the result of a wrong edit by User:TeleComNasSprVen, and TFM refactored prior to the block, so if that's the basis for the block, then it's a pretty thin reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think that in general, in situations where a very recent block is being discussed, or a new block is being proposed, the result of anything less than clear support for the block (whether that be no-consensus or consensus in opposition) the user in question should be unblocked. However, this singular situation is muddied by the fact that some admins have jumped the gun on the block. There may have developed a consensus to block, indeed given the general trend of the situation BEFORE the gun was jumped, it looked to be heading that way. However, once the discussion process was short-circuited, it generated instant sympathy for the blocked user and resulted in a muddying of the waters. Now, it may have arisen, had the discussion been let run for a day or so, that consensus would have led him to not be blocked, or it may have not. But the action of short-circuiting the discussion has led to a muddying of the waters regarding the block. It is unclear which objections are to a) blocking TFM at all b) blocking TFM before the discussion was done c) General anti-admin sentiment. In the future, regardless of how this turns out, this should be a lesson to let the community discussion take its course. If no iminent harm is currently coming to article text (such as edit warring or vandalism), block and ban discussions can afford the proper time for users to deliberate. This did not happen in this case, and we now have megabytes of bullshit because of that. --Jayron32 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown of opinions

Based just on the comments made in the introduction and "Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef" section, here a quick summary of each editors opinion (based on quick skimming by me, please please re-check and update (template at User:Kingpin13/TFM)), some users who commented here are not included, as their opinion was not made clear, or they were apparently neutral:

Extended content

Please note this may not be 100% accurate, instead of relying on it, please read through the discussion yourself. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) Those in support of blocking (first 9 prior to block) Eagles247 Kingpin13 John Baseball Bugs Jayron Conti Netalarm HalfShadow Sandstein Smith Jones Secret Pedro Mkativerata Aiken drum Elonka SarekOfVulcan AniMate Off2riorob Timotheus Canens Nakon Beeblebrox Fastily Jack Merridew Mathsci Wehwalt Dorsal Axe Burpelson AFB Kansan Rd232 Those opposed to blocking (first 1 prior to block) William S. Saturn SandyGeorgia Gwen Gale Ceoil SlimVirgin Kablammo Modernist Craftyminion Anythingyouwant Silver seren Dycedarg Stephan Schulz Dr.K.

This is mainly because of the claims that there is a very clear case of no consensus, which I don't believe there is necessarily. Of course, strength of arguments should also be considered. Personally I feel the arguments presented for blocking are stronger, but since I myself support a block, I may be bias. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be possible to feel that the arguments favoring a block are stronger than those against one without personally supporting that conclusion (and vice versa of course). If reaching a conclusion makes you biased then the only unbiased people are the ones who don't know which side has the better arguments - and they're not much help either. 87.254.87.2 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, while y'all are talking, someone might want to check out User:Cowl head. No edits, no contributions, yet the account exists and User:Bad edits r dumb (as I understand it a sock of The Fat Man) has taken the time to place a welcome template on its talk page. Possible set up for use as our suspect's next sock? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block.

The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, [53] there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent AN/I complaint from another editor about the talk-page issue (among other things) here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an issue to be dealt with via a well-prepared RfC/U. QuackGuru does deal with a large number of COI-laden fringe editors, so it's no wonder they get into disputes. Fences&Windows 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U would be fine, but I would strongly support a requirement that he/she not delete anything from his talk page in the interim. The latitude given to users in this regard is clearly being abused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a departure from normal Wikipedia practice. It has long been held that deleting any message from one's own talk page is permitted at any time; a user talk page is intended as a tool for communicating with a user, not as a record of warnings, punishments, or scarlet letters. If a user has a history of disruptive conduct then there are appropriate processes for dealing with that (RfC/U, per F&W, falls into this category, as would reports of recurring edit warring to AN/EW), but demanding that he retain a list of transgressions on his talk page for all to see isn't one of them. +TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule that requires either retaining anything in particular on one's talk page (beyond certain notices), nor that the user have an archival process set up. The page's history is effectively the archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that if we particularly wanted a convenient record, someone could create one out of the history (and perhaps someone might choose to, as an illustration, if another RFC is put in place). But while I'm aware of the extra hassle QG's practice imposes on the editors that are communicating with him, I'm not sure that he's really doing anything "wrong" or that this board should be handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that, as you say, talk pages are for communicating, and constantly blanking is hindering that. They're not intended solely for communicating with the editor; it that were the case, we could just use email. There's an assumption of community communication, even if the editor is allowed to control it to a large extent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Way back when, I was told that just zapping stuff from my talk page was extremely impolite, even though not technically against the rules. It seems that that sentiment has slid quite a bit since then, but it still turns up. Maybe there should be some more formal rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The practice used to be (don't know whether it was written down) that you could do what you wanted with your talk page, so long as you weren't removing warnings too quickly that admins might need to see. A point would arrive where that was deemed disruptive, and an admin would arrive to restore them. Over time we've allowed more leeway, but I still think QuackGuru is on the wrong side of wherever the line is, because he effectively has no talk page. You post there, and it disappears, and reconstructing the thing from the history would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been around for about as long as you have, SV, and I don't recall that ever being our usual practice. For as long as I can remember, we've been telling new admins who come to AN/I complaining that their warnings are being erased to quit edit warring on user's talk pages, and accept that the deletion of a message can be considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If an editor doesn't wish to engage in informal dispute resolution on his own talk page, there's no way to compel him to. It's up to the complainant to escalate to a higher level if there are unresolved issues requiring administrator intervention. User talk pages are for communication with that user, not with any hypothetical admins who might happen by in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If user talk pages were only for communication with that user, we wouldn't need them. We could just e-mail instead. The reason people often insist that issues be posted to talk pages, and not privately, is precisely because the community reads and to some extent has a stake in what goes on, which is why we don't delete user talk as a rule. He's not removing his own posts, but other people's. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What, this issue comes again so soon? Not two days ago I said on this page: ...WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. ... PS TenOfAllTrades, if a user talk page is like email, it's not like 1-to-1 email, it's like a discussion list with many viewers, even if the conversation is only between 2 people. Either of those people deleting emails from everyone's inbox because they've been read is about as helpful as deleting talk messages. Rd232 ^talk 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TAIT, you are describing a fairly recent (past few years or so) development. Further back, users were not allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages. That caused enough useless drama that the practice gradually shifted to the idea that if a user removes a warning, that means they saw the warning, so it can be used against them. So practice in that area has been fluid. Obviously in some cases, keeping the conversations visible for a while helps manage ongoing disruption. So now we're seeing a situation (see the thing with Editor182 last night e.g.) where users can remove notices unless they get a formal restriction to leave the conversations up. An alternative way to manage the disruption would be to ban the user completely, so if they prefer that to getting a talkpage restriction, it can probably be worked out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that while QuackGuru may technically be allowed to empty his talkpage and respond in edit summaries, it is part of a greater pattern of edit warring, deliberate misunderstanding of others, and POV pushing. We've now been in discussion for >1 week at vertebral artery dissection about how much weight to lend to isolated reports about deaths from chiropractic. I have provided two arguments (both based on WP:WEIGHT) that there reports are too infrequent. QuackGuru has managed not to address these despite repeated requests, and continues to insert "his content", including unrelated article text that was removed for legitimate reasons[54].

I see a general pattern of WP:POINT, and I'm getting a bit weary (on the VAD article) of having to edit under fire. JFW | T@lk 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

QG has done this for a long time, and it has the effect of "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". Recreating the content of his talk page would be a real pain, IOW he's creating an obstruction to the process of figuring out what he's up to, and that's just plain an abuse of the right to delete content on one's talk page. He may have the "right" to do it, but that doesn't make it "right". The talk page is intended for real communication, but that is made impossible when he only responds in short edit summaries that often don't really address the matter, and are definitely not a real conversation, as is necessary for true collaboration. He's not a collaborative editor but a solo loose canon and often makes edits of controversial material that is under discussion, well knowing the discussion isn't finished (because he is making comments). He makes edits and claims "consensus" in the edit summary when no other editor has even hinted that there is a consensus or that the discussion is finished. It's a pattern that's been going on for years. I often stay away from such discussions because I know he can tie us up for literally months on small details. He'll make comments that show he's playing IDHT and he doesn't really respond to other's concerns in a constructive way. I AGF by assuming he's not taking his medicine. That's the BEST interpretation I can give this matter. His block log speaks for itself. He's given an unusually long leash for some reason and it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree on this - every interaction I've had with QuackGuru has been a pure contest of wills. He has a predefined idea of how things should be, and he doesn't respond to comments made by others: he simply repeats his points with an adamant insistence that they are obvious universal truths, and gets progressively more angry if he can't get his way. If wikipedia is serious about being a consensus system, then something has to be done about editors like QG - consensus discussions are almost impossible where he is active on a page.

I don't know what causes these problems. Sometimes I suspect there's an ESL issue - his language structure (on those relatively rare occasions where he types a full sentence) reminds me of some of the speech patterns I've seen in immigrants from eastern Europe - but other times I think it's an intentional tactic (or at least a very deep resistance to accepting any sort of compromise). If it were up to me, I'd suggest mandatory mentorship, because the only way QG is going to get past this is to have someone sit down and teach him the basics of civil, communicative discourse. Is there anyone who would be willing to do that, and any way to convince QG that he needs to accept it? --Ludwigs2 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the behavioral issues at the mentioned articles are sufficient to justify some sort of administrative action, there's really no need to try to get him on the talk page thing. If it is long-standing policy/practice to let users rule their talk pages as they will, this isn't the forum to try to change that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Only so you know, User_talk:Editor182 has lately been put on a very tight talk page archiving (no blanking) restriction as a condition for unblocking. Admin sanctions like this are ok so long as they can be appealed at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree that there are behavioral issues but I don't agree that there is a need to change talk page requirements here; I think it's downright wrong. If you can't communicate with the editor after more than one attempt, then that's what dispute resolution exists for; it's pure laziness if what is happening is that we're looking for ways to avoid it. If what is being alleged is that an editor is removing the original post and just retaining his reply (which could easily mislead users regarding what was originally said - especially if an editor is pretending to summarise what was said), then that's a separate problem altogether, and it's not permissible under policy to begin with. And hypothetically, for dodgy restrictions, you'd better hope that editors under such restrictions don't appeal. Hypothetically, if those restrictions are still in place, it's purely to encourage a new editor to be more responsive; hypothetically, should they dispute it after behaving, they will get assistance to have it overturned through whatever means necessary - and the outcome won't be a mere 'inconvenience' anymore, especially if particular administrators are trying to find ways to unilaterally impose sanctions in a manner that they have previously been warned about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this is why it's so very important to let such an editor know they can always appeal at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the appeal would not be limited to ANI if this has been an issue before - even more so if it was with the same administrator. It's just a hypothetical caution to administrators who are in that position. That it is allowed on the odd occasion does not mean it is acceptable or going to necessarily be OK in the future. I say necessarily OK because I recognise that there are very rare times where circumstances are100% exactly the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • And to address another point that I missed in my above comment, the reason email is not used for general Wikipedia communication is because we have no access whatsoever to those emails - not because of inconvenience. In the case of Wikipedia, we have access to what an user has said by way of the user talk history (especially for discussions which are not visible via archives). I'm surprised that some experienced administrators still don't get that. If that's too difficult, then it simply means you're either too lazy or need to brush up on your skills. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. Admins are volunteers, and their time is a limited resource, routinely searching laboriously through a user's talk history in case there's something there they should know is impractical. It is not reasonable to allow a handful of editors to both attain lesser scrutiny and inhibit dispute resolution through excessively rapid removal of talk discussions. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to broadly agree with this. If an editor isn't stirring up many warnings and such, I don't think anyone much cares if they blank their talk page, but when there are many warnings and other worries, I think blanking wastes a lot of time and isn't fair to other volunteer editors. In some ways I guess this can also be taken as a civility thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

... and for some periods he couldn't even use the excuse of meaningful edit summaries as responses to the comments he was deleting. See this period, for example. I can see no reason for this, other than being deliberately disruptive. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The priority is in favour of editors having broad leeway about what happens in their userspace; it's not in favour of the handful of administrators who are refusing to take the time to investigate incidents properly. Issues are justified by diffs, not archives, so the history is exactly where you ought to be going to in any event, while editors also have limited time and may not be interested in trusting a bot or spending the time archiving themselves; it is in no way a requirement when registering on Wikipedia. In other words, I don't see any handful of editors attaining less scrutiny; they're exercising a privillege which was afforded to them by the much wider Community. What I see is a handful of administrators who are not doing what they are supposed to do. That a talk page exists for discussion does not mean that you can force them to discuss what you want in the way that you want at the time you want. Your failure, Rd232, to understand this was what led you to harass Bidgee on her talk page (and edit-war over it); you don't have the right to insist that someone talk to you, and that's why your WQA against Bidgee ended up as a boomerang. That there are situations where editors should respond to avoid dispute resolution and involuntary outcomes does not justify what is being pushed for in this venue (or what you were essentially asking for in that WQA). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Many editors routinely delete rather than archive, as history is always available, which is not the case with emails, so SV's argument that we might as well email if we don't archive fails. We do not routinely assume bad faith and say it must be because they wish to avoid scrutiny. It is not "'part of a pattern of disruptive behavior" to do something specifically permitted by policy; I am disturbed that there are people voicing such a view; I suggest the entire question of removing posts be taken out of this discussion; while some may find it a bit more tedious to go through history than to go through archives, it is not in any sense a negative thing to do. I refer you to, for example, User talk:Tony Sidaway "A note about archiving" - are we to broaden this discussion to also castigate Tony and others who routinely remove rather than archive? If so, I suggest the debate belongs on the relevant policy page. If not, then cease mentioning it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• User talk blanking is an issue? Really? The history tab for QG's user talk is pretty easy to click and every warning QG has ever received is in plain sight in that history. If QG prefers a blank his user talk page, what's that to us? If there are perceived issues with the user's edits or personal interactions, that's something to discuss. But trying to control how a Wikipedian choses to organize their communications in user space is not, in my opinion, anything more than a needlessly punitive game. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that many editors routinely delete rather than archive.Users are recommended to archive their user talkpages. A minimal number do not archive and when you combine this users non archiving with his immediate removal of any comment placed there you do have an issue especially when there are warnings being added, it is impossible to discuss anything on his userpage, and discussion and being open to discussion is part of the normal, needed ,everyday workings or the wiki, one place it is not available is this users talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A recommendation is not a command. WP:BLANKING makes it clear in the guideline that users are well-within acceptable practices to remove notices and warnings from their user talk pages. People who have QG in their sights, including you, seem to want to continually approach him on his user talk page with template notices. This is a form of WP:Wikihounding, which is a behavior I have seen you do to me as well (which is why I asked you not to post on my talkpage any more, and I thank you for stopping the problematic behavior). In short, I'd be more willing to accept that this was a problem if someone actually showed some evidence that discussion was necessary on his talkpage. Instead, all I seem to be seeing is people whining about the fact that he doesn't want you guys templating him. If you've got a problem with QG, there are dispute resolution ideas available that include ways to discuss these matters outside of his talkpage. jps (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just read this and I didn't realize what it was about as you didn't provide any links and I didn't recognize you, but its User:ScienceApologist, you changed your name. Here is a link to the issue you are referring to for the log in case anyone wonders in future. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there's been wikihounding of QG, that should also be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been circa 40 messages on QG's talk page since the beginning of November (roughly one a day), on a variety of issues, most by Ocaasi, but all told from 6 or 7 different editors. each message was either a request for discussion, a notification of some proceeding, or a plea to refrain from aggressive editing behavior (e.g. blanket reverts). Each was deleted without comment, or with some dismissive edit summary (he even took to writing his edit summaries upside-down and backwards at one point - neat css trick, I suppose). That does not strike me as wiki-hounding, but rather as fairly desperate attempts to get an editor to communicate and cooperate. please note for comparison that I got over 30 posts to my talk page over a 2-day period around the 25th of October (almost 60 posts over that week), and that was not considered wiki-hounding when I took the matter to ANI.

At any rate, this discussion has gotten sidetracked. I'm tired of QG's behavior, so the proper approach now is to open an RFC/U and settle this issue there. I don't know the procedure for doing that, so if someone wants to point me in the right direction 'll get on it, or if someone starts the proceedings themselves I will second it gladly. leave a note in my talk (I promise not to delete it. ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out, so it doesn't get forgotten, that there was also this recent WQA thread about QuackGuru, that also recommended an RfC/U. As for RfC/U itself, the information on it is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty now is that, because he blanks his talk page after each edit, it'll take some work to reconstruct who's been complaining about what, so that a comprehensive RfC can be posted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

well, I always believe that it's better to start small on things like this - rather than overwhelming people with uber-comprehensive diffs just give a good overview with a small selection of appropriate examples. it can be added to as time goes on, if needed. Let me read up on the process and see if I can get something working later today. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

• Some editing that is normally allowed may be restricted if the editing causes disruption on Wikipedia. We recently had a discussion where a user was restricted from blanking their talk page. I believe such a restriction might be appropriate here. If the blanking is being done to frustrate accountability, to obfuscate evidence of wrongdoing, to antagonize other users, or to dodge blocks by making it hard to see an accumulation of warnings, those may be valid grounds. Rather than holding a long talk-shop RFC on this subject, which is already pretty obvious, could somebody uninvolved in conflicts with the user please check their talk page history and give a summary of what they see? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked nicely here. Let's wait for a response. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Extremely well put, Jehochman. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see the editor reverting all posts, even nice ones. My preliminary look shows that he was previously topic banned from Chiropractic articles and there was some activity in regards to Pseudoscience. The block log speaks for itself. He doesn't seem to like having content disputes discussed in his user talk. Though this has also meant that warnings and concerns (which there are a lot of) have also been reverted. I don't agree that you should be skipping dispute resolution; resolving the allegations of POV pushing are more important than how convenient it is to access talk page records. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple. The editor appears to be behaving disruptively, getting into disputes and refusing to carry on civil discussions. Ignoring warnings. Hiding warnings in an effort to muddy the view. This points to a lengthy or permanent block for disruptive editing, if all else fails. There have been plenty of warnings and prior blocks. WP:BURO. It does not seem that the facts of the matter are in dispute, so I don't see the need for dispute resolution. I see the need for plain talk, possibly backed up with editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (after ec) On the contrary; discussing content disputes should properly be carried out on the appropriate article talk page in preference to user talk; and if he's removing "even nice (posts) its clear its how he cleans up his talk page; if here were "hiding warnings" he'd be leaving the nice ones and removing the warnings, which by the way I have also seen and which is also allowable. None of this is blockworthy or even warning-worthy. If he fails to discuss edits on article talk pages, if he edit wars, those are indeed warning and or block worthy items, but I am deeply distressed to see his method of handling his talk page posts being discussed as a problem when it is so clearly within policy. Again I ask, are you going to issue a long block to Tony Sideaway and others who also remove "all posts, even nice ones"? Is this supported in policy? No, and no. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• KC, I beg to differ. You reveal that you haven't been involved with QG lately and therefore you are speaking from ignorance. Your intentions are good, but in this case are misguided and not really addressing the concerns that have been mentioned. It's nice to speak of hypotheticals and not changing the way we do things, but the realities right now demand an exception be made to stop his disruptions. Topic bans on a number of articles should be made, and a (temporary?) ban against blanking his talk page for a period of time, including complete removal of its history, which he frequently has done. He runs in circles on article talk pages. Discussion there doesn't help because he just makes edits in spite of objections and claims consensus where there is none and uses reverting all the time. Appeals and warnings on his talk page (since nothing works on article talk pages) are deleted with no visible change in his behavior. His block log is huge, but his methods of disruption are so complicated that it's often hard to pin him down to a particularly grossly blockable offense, but his behavior is still very disruptive and his lack of communication removes an important possibility for helping him and dealing with him. I suggest you start editing and discussing on those pages for awhile and you'll see what's happening. THEN you'll be able to speak with more authority. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Two things: I'm worried about a slippery slope, and disagree that we must make an exception - indeed, I find exceptions of convenience are the most dangerous; none of his other actions, which are indeed of concern and of which you may call me as ignorant as you like have any bearing on this trend towards becoming more controlling as regards user talk pages; and Removal of his history? He's not an admin, how was this accomplished? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! It's his user page, not his talk page, that gets the history scrubbed regularly by admins. I'll strike that above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find that collaborating with QG is easier in the classical wiki sense. He makes a lot of edits to article space. Some of these edits get reverted and sometimes he reverts. I have not had a problem getting to a consensus with him when we've disagreed (and normally we get to a consensus with a lot less hemming and hawing than is typical of Wikipedia's interminable discussions — a characteristic of QG's style that I actually find admirable). jps (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• My polite request is still sitting there. Let's see what the response will be. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• A number of users who've been here for long enough seem to take heed of RfC/Us - such users don't pay as much regard to comments made individually at various points in time, but do sometimes pay attention to the Community's calls in DR (aka a RfC/U). It may turn out that he isn't responsive to the concerns, it may turn out that he is; I think this talk page thing is the least serious issue, and when confronted about each of the major issues and the views of the Community, at least we know exactly what has prompted the need for sanctions which are a bit more...final...if it comes to that. It also gives the Community the opportunity to endorse the parts which are respected, OK or constructive contributions, while it gives it the opportunity to specify each of the present issues - his not so constructive contributions at this point in time. It also gives him the ability to supply evidence of hounding if it is ongoing. We're not suggesting process for the sake of process when dispute resolution was enacted, or a process that should be skipped; we're suggesting resolving issues through the means available and if all else fails, involuntary outcomes or arbitration. If an editor has been here for this long and if there are such issues, and a RfC/U has not been filed, then that needs to be addressed - that will be the record. If he doesn't respond in the way you're hoping and then you do something stupid.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion happens to be a part of DR.... Unfortunately a community wide RfC/U would be even more disruptive and timewasting and would only bring even more uninvolved individuals who would make more uninformed comments based on hypotheticals and policies, but not his actual behavior, as we've already seen in this thread. It is the involved editors who know what's going on. All we need is for a courageous admin to take action. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru was back in 2007; it would have to be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru 2. The context of the previous RFC/U was very different, but the overall feel is familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I blank my talk page after I receive a message and I would like to explain why. There are many reasons, actually. First, for context, I hate having a talk page. I recognize that it is a needed feature, but 90% of the messages are just a complete waste of time. Bogus warnings, false accusations, vandalism, or duplication or notifications of article talk discussions that I already have watchlisted. And I particularly hate the intrusive notification of your new message. It is like a ringing telephone - and I have the ringers turned off most of the time at my house. I am not one of Pavlov's dogs. OK more specifically, I blank my talk page

1. so that the messenger will know I saw their message

2. so I won't have to keep looking at it and keep investing energy in something from the past. I am here in an effort to improve the encyclopedia generally and individual articles in particular. The place to discuss things is in article talk pages or wikipedia project pages, unless the subject of the discussion is the editor.

3. To avoid wikidrama. Every message is treated the same - it's reverted. No possibility of drama. Look, I did the whole wikidrama thing and it sucks. My goal now is dispassionate editing.

4. I am not here for social networking. The whole talk page back and forth barnstar social networking side of wikipedia is something that holds no interest for me.

So please, if the editor in question is being disruptive somewhere, sanction for that, but not for blanking his talk page, which is clearly allowed under our current policies. Dlabtot (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue here. Technically it isn't the blanking that's the primary issue, but that the blanking is part of his pattern of disruption, IOW he uses it in a disruptive manner. THAT'S why we even mention it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate, the use of a broom is usually a good thing and allowed, but if it is frequently used as a weapon, the user may be requested or required to stop wielding the broom. That's the problem here. QG is misusing an otherwise neutral right. That's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

While I would generally agree that a user should be allowed to remove material from the user's own talkpage, in this case I agree with others above who argue against blanking without archiving. Sifting through page history and various diffs can be an inordinate burden, not just an inconvenience. Please correct me if I'm wrong: in some responses above there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what User Talk is for, perhaps out of ownership issues arising from common/accepted usage. The guidelines for User talk page describe it well enough as "a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" -- therefore, "it is a mistake to think of user pages as a homepage." Also from User talk page # Blanking: "There is no need to keep [comments, notices, etc] on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." [my emphasis in bold] As it stands now the guideline allows for exception so why not exercise that in this case? -PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsiveness of QuackGuru

Even though SlimVirgin notified QG of this thread, he is demonstrating his lack of willingness to communicate about a problem which he knows is bothering many editors. His silence here, while he has continued to edit elsewhere, speaks volumes. This is quite the very literal demonstration of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

IPA for Robin Thicke

• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Even though I have explained over and over that his IPA for the article Robin Thicke is incorrect, why it is incorrect, and tried to compromise, this user keeps using incorrect IPA. See also our discussion on his talk page. (I'm sorry, but I don't understand how to notice him of this discussion.) Aikclaes (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I can understand your frustration, and I am sure you are acting in good faith, you seem to have breached WP:3RR yourself. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and therefore the correct action is to revert once only with an explanation and then to take the issue to the talk page to get views from other interested editors. This approach is explained in detail at WP:BRD. For now, your best bet is to stop making edits to the page, but to clearly explain your case on the talk page, and see what response you get, both from Kwamikagami and from other users. Once a consensus if formed, the chosen version can be implemented and enforced.--Korruski^Talk 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this. Sorry for using the term vandalism incorrectly. Aikclaes (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B. the user has now been informed of the discussion.--Korruski^Talk 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I came here as we are having an argument for a while me and Kwami, but though Kwami called me or my arguments all sorts of names he did not bully me, which other administrators have done in similar circumstances. This comment is here for what ever it is worth, Aikclaes did he issue threats of blocks, other administrators are prone to do that, Kwami has not done that once to me, you are lucky to have him in the ring, you could have worse opponents, I have not looked at the issue, will you please come up with diffs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aparently others have had a different experience[55].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any basis for administrator intervention here. User talk:Kwamikagami#IPA for Thicke shows that Aikclaes has tried to convince Kwami that their change to the IPA at Robin Thicke is not appropriate, but Kwami has replied very politely and in extreme detail, and the discussion is a model of good technique. I have no opinion on what the correct IPA is, but Kwami spends a lot of time doing this work and in the absence of any reason to believe otherwise, it is likely that Kwami's choice is correct, or at least, not wrong. Presumably somewhere like WT:IPA for English would be the next step, in order to obtain more IPA opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone trying to stir the pot at Colonel Warden's RFCU

Resolved

 – Obvious troll is obvious, indeed

• Boomtube (talk · contribs)

Can someone bag and tag the obvious troll/sock? Whoever this is made an amusingly clumsy attempt to get me into trouble, see User talk:Tarc#mail received and the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden to see a comment that I took the liberty of blanking. You could probly get some mileage by running a CU on this guy and one of both of Overturn deletion to censure Tarc! (talk · contribs) & Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs), if so inclined. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Yes, might be worth opening an SPI. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  The latter two are stale, and CU wouldn't help, so it would have to rely upon behavioural editing; that said, the usernames do not fill me with confidence as to good faith. Nuke them. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Only a bit over 3 months old; I thought CU went a bit further back than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Even if the others are stale (and I agree that they might not be), a CU might well flush out something fishy ;) Can anyone think of a friend of CW's who's socked or skated close to canvasing issues? Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Now now, Jack, I'm sure it's Nobody we know. Reyk _YO! 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  It would have to be someone who didn't realize that their disruption would drive traffic to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Of course it could be a detractor of CW's, but I'm the only known sock who's commented critically in his direction... and *I* supported the notion of a CU. And it's not me; I've not socked in longer than most editors have been on this project. Cheers, Moby Dick 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Of course, it could be someone who has found from experience that RFCs are completely ineffectual and has a major bug up their ass about Tarc. So yeah... We'll see when and if the CU results come in. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps it was something I said. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Tonyeason is possibly the same person as Boomtube. Definitely someone's sock anyway. Reyk _YO! 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Great... I guess it's only a matter of time before Steve Grogan pops up as well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

At least Grogan would pop up after a hit, and not go turtle at the sight of a D. Yes, I'm still bitter about Super bowl XX. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes.... it was 0 for 6 before they pulled him wasn't it? Poor Tony. I guess the 46 would have scared me back then too, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no other socks associated with Boomtube, and the other accounts are  Stale. –MuZemike 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging

{{discussion top|Closing this now as [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]]. This is a duplicate discussion of an existing one at [[WP:VPP]]. If you have something to add, please comment there and not here. There's no need to bifurcate the discussion into two areas, one discussion on the same topic is fine, thanks. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)}}

• Issue: - There is a conflict of opinions brewing hereon my talk page about how many and which wikiprojects have the right to tag an article as being within their scope.
• Background: - I was planning on doing a content drive with US related articles and was tagging the FA articles (I was going to follow that with A class and GA) in an effort to identify which articles fall under the US scope and then I was going to try and advertise to the 200+ projects and 2000+ users that we should all try and build up that number. User:Imzadi1979 accused me of Cherry picking articles before I was done. In the ensuing conversation I was told by User:Rschen7754 that I could not put the WPUS banner on any WP:USRD articles and then warned me about my use of AWB for these types of conentious edits as well as the rate at which I was doing them. I have in the past tried to work with this project but they want zero interferance or input from other projects and any suggestions are met with disdain and contempt. Any effort to edit one of "their" articles is met with almost instant comment. In the past they clearly voiced their opinion that the projects were seperate and there was no connection and as such the USRD banner and the WPUS banner are mutually exclusive. It is my understanding that a project cannot claim this type of ownership over articles and tell another project that they cannot tag "their" articles. And, since the projects are mutually exclusive except that they both pertain to US topics they shouldn't be allowed to run off other projects or edits (they have a history of both). They feel as though any project or editor that treads on their turf is just trying to push them out and take over.
• Determination needed: - Can someone clarify which of our viewpoints is correct (or if maybe where both wrong) before this escalates? --Kumioko (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried early-stage dispute resolution? This doesn't seem like it needs to be on AN/I. access_denied (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Given the history I doubt that would do much good. It was going to end up here eventually so I figured we may as well get it overwith. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? You should always remember to assume good faith with other editors and assume that communcation will be successful. I still think you should try WQA first. access_denied (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether Kumioko's proceeding to tag articles with WP:AWB is controversial. --Rschen7754 05:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:AWB: "Don't do anything controversial with it. " People have clearly expressed opposition to this, making his actions controversial. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the articles should be tagged, Kumiko cannot use AWB to tag the articles until the dispute is resolved. AWB is not to be used to further your side of the dispute. --Rschen7754 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Two editors had a problem, you and Imzadi and both regarding USRD projects. There was some conversation a while ago about multiple US related projects tagging the same projects but since then it has been repeatedly clarified that aside from being related to US they are all mutually exclusive and operate independently of one another. The Barack Obama article is a prime example. There are piles of projects and all have a right to help in maintaining and improving the article. Who am I to say that one project shouldn't tag it because a similar but unrelated project has a tag on it. And just because one or 2 editors say its contreversial doesn't make it so. Add a WikiProject banner to an article is not controversial. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is because people have expressed objections to what you are doing. --Rschen7754 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And that still doesn't make it contentious. I could say I don't want people adding infoboxes to the Biographys in my watchlist but that wouldn't make it right. Just because 1 or 2 editors don't want another project to touch their articles doesn't mean they should or can. --Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But you're not doing it with WP:AWB. AWB should not be used to edit war. --Rschen7754 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the orange box above this page when you edit: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." you have only informed Rschen that hes being discussed, why not Imzadi? --Admrboltz (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder but its there. --Kumioko (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Four minutes after I posted this message. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I hit save and was typing replys here so I think my computer got stuck and took a minute to save. Do you have any opinion about the discussion? --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI isnt the correct location for this discussion for one, but I do believe you are cherry picking. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the Cherry picking thing. That problem is easily solved, I will just tag them all since they do fall in the scope of US. It unfortunately does pretty much eliminate being able to do any kind of content drive for a very long time since the articles are scattered across over 200 projects but Ill work on that. Just for future info where should an incident of a project enforcing unallowed "ownership" of articles to a point were they revert other editors and projects actions on the grounds that it is already tagged by their project? As well as statements that any editor can instantly stop AWB from being used by saying any edit is controversial? Both of the latter questions seem like this would be the place but I admit I don't completely know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this matter belongs here. Since it is here, I'll just offer a few comments. I have the USRD FAs on my watchlist in addition to the articles I actively edit. I saw Kumioko tag the article California State Route 78 saying he was adding the WPUS banner and tagging it as a county, using AWB. A little while later, I saw Capitol Loop similarly tagged. I looked at his contributions because I was curious about the situation given the incorrect edit summary. He hadn't edited in about 20 minutes at that point, and all of the articles were just Featured Articles . I asked him on his talk page about this. The reason being he had previously invited USRD to collaborate with WPUS. As a result of that discussion, he said that WPUS wouldn't be tagging the USRD articles. His reply earlier today was that he was only tagging FA, A and GA articles, which is cherry-picking in my opinion. Honestly, I don't care what Kumioko does with WPUS. I don't agree with projects tagging upper-tier articles that they don't actually work with. That's claiming credit and padding the project's stats in my mind. Others might see it differently, and that's fine. I don't see a reason for this project to tag the aricles that it's tagging, but that's not my concern. I do see a reason for Kumioko to to disengage in dealing with USRD since his actions have caused controversy with members of the project and have not been welcomed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I completely think this issue should be here because it pertains to a project enforcing ownership over articles to a degree that no outside editors are allowed. Ok the reason I stopped was because I was driving home. I do admit though that I forgot to take off the bit about US counties from the summery and that was an acccidental mistake. Other than that the edit summery is correct. I stated above the reason I was tagging those was so I could do a content collaboration to build up more GA and better articles relating to US topics. I'm not trying to claim credit or padding anything. WPUS was basically dead for a couple years and I just catching up for lost time. Plus right now in order to determine what articles fall in US scope (FA class for example) one needs to mine through over 200 projects. I am trying to give visibility of those at a single level. As far as the Cherry picking thing perhaps that's what it could be called but I did this partially so I wouldn't agrivate the USRD project because of their rather unfriendly dealings with outsiders. I wish I could completely disengage from the project but the problem is that we have large overlaps in scope so we need to work to get along. If USRD doesn't want to collaborate with WPUS and the other projects thats fine but they don't have the power to tell the other projects they can't touch their articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict, take 4) By definition though USRD is the nexus of WPUS (the US part) and WP:HWY (highways, the roads in the name is a historical accident). One edit to the USRD banner and the articles can be sent into your project's assessment categories. There would be no need to add addition project banners, but WPUS would inherit the USRD classifications (which are stricter for assessing quality than most wikiprojects) and/or importance levels. If that would appease you, I can have one of the appropriate admin members of the project edit the banner template and have at it. USRD doesn't WP:OWN the articles, anyone is free to edit them, but it is the project that is the most active in doing so. If you will, USRD's reputation is built on the quality of the articles it edits, so we take some pride in that. What I don't like is the implication that your actions in all of this new tagging is to create statistics on the quality of the articles when the project has not been active in dealing with them. Tagging only the FA/A/GAs as you said you were going to do inflates your numbers in those categories.
      On another note, your edit count numbers seem abnormally high for an account without a bot flag. I suggest that before it gets you into trouble, consider creating a bot account and having it approved for the banner tagging. I'm not accusing you of breaking policy, I'm saying that as a gut instinct as I don't know what the policy on that is exactly. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that a WikiProject may tag whatever articles they wish to include under their purview. That's all it means and it doesn't mean that they are "claiming credit" for the article in any way. Yworo (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate or acceptable if I were to put a message stating something to the effect that that articles are tagged to allow a complete picture of the articles in US scope and that the project didn't get most of them to that status? --Kumioko (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflit, take four) It does mean something when the Project then brags about how many FAs it has, and it tagged the article after it went through FAC and was shepherded through that rigorous process by editors from another project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the nub of the matter, clearly. WikiProjects can tag what they like; it isn't WP:OWN or credit-taking. Even FAs need maintenance, and any projects tagging them after successful FAC may potentially help with that. What's bad is appearing to take credit for work a project hasn't done. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was inappropriately closed. The conversation in the village pump is completely different. --Kumioko (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}}

What administrative action is needed here? This is better discussed at the village pump, whether that's in the existing thread or a new one. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia has actual, written advice on how to deal with exactly this situation. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. It says, "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner."

If that's not plain enough for you, then leave a note at the guideline's talk page or at WT:COUNCIL, and we'll talk about ways to re-write it so that it cannot possibly be misunderstood, even by people who are trying really, really hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Foolish editor?

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a couple of past blocks for edit-warring on contentious areas. He arguably could do with a block for continuing to revert in a controversial ethnic category at our article on the UK Leader of the Opposition. Certainly more uninvolved eyes are needed here, as a group of editors is in danger of making their own interpretation of WP:BLP on a high-profile article without seeking the wider input of the community. For now I am mainly concerned with the personal attack in the edit summary here. Could someone please have a word with him? --John (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Word had. This is fairly mild as they go. I'm looking into the other things now.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize for the intemperate reference to John as a "foolish editor". However, John has just reverted 3 different editors in under 12 hours without a single Talk: page comment. This is, at a minimum, not appropriate behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:BLP and is more important even than WP:3RR. Obviously as I have said above we need more editors' eyes on this to decide what to do. Reverting in controversial ethnic information about living people is much worse than reverting it out though. --John (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

John, the rest of what you bring here is not actionable. The BLP argument is happening now, and the article was apparently in that category for some time, so we can not revert-war over it while discussion is ongoing. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverting 3+ times in 24h "per BLP" when there exists a clear consensus that there is not an actionable BLP issue is cause for 3RR blocking. It would be better if it didn't come to that, but the BLP defense to 3RR demands a reasonable belief that 3RR actually applied. When multiple editors are reverting and telling you that it does not, pushing the issue is not helpful. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The BLP argument has been ongoing for a good while without reaching a strong consensus for inclusion, Chaser. Meantime I do not think the article should carry this tag. Jclemens, there are factual inaccuracies in your statement above which I invite you to correct. --John (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Generally with BLP we err on the side of removing contentious content until all policy has been met and consensus is made. It *would* be nice to have a couple of admins check the policy and kill the categories in the interim (although there doesn't seem a major BLP issue it is of concern) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If wikipedians are being so unduly cautious about British politicians, why are they not paying similar attention to MPs or ex-MPs like Michael Howard, Gerald Kaufman, Nigel Lawson, Edwina Curry, Clement Freud (deceased), Leon Brittan, Greville Janner, Malcolm Rifkind, ... or the new MP in my constituency, Julian Huppert, for that matter? Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, some of those are bad example; Gerald Kaufman obviously passes BLPCAT with a trivial (30s) check, for example. As to the rest; thanks, I will look into them. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I mentioned these politicians because I assumed that, except for the last, they were household names in the UK. As for Julian - the addition of the category there looks like WP:SYNTH from the BLP of his father Herbert Huppert. Herbert appears on List of British Jewish scientists along with another Cambridge colleague Thomas Körner. He was added in 2007 by an IP [56]. The wikipedia articles of his parents were used as sources. Is that historically the way these wikipedia lists have been written? If that is the case, I would suggest getting rid of this kind of list. Note that the same IP attempted to make this edit to Körner's BLP [57] which was reverted almost immediately. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
          • These ethnic categories are a nightmare. Entries need to be aggressively policed and unverifiable ones removed, especially on BLP articles. --John (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request due to change of circumstances

Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely back in July. Regardless of whether that block was correct, circumstances have changed, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will take a look. The blocking admin is still a bit active, though retired, and is not eager to revisit the matter.

In a nutshell, the issue involved what "tag" to slap on an uploaded image. Zsero wanted to use Tag A rather than Tag B, but consensus was that Tag B seemed more appropriate. Zsero objected to Tag B, because it said that the image was copyrighted whereas Tag A did not make that claim. Anyway, the changed circumstances are that (1) after Zsero was blocked Tag A was deleted and is therefore no longer available, and (2) today Tag B was changed at my request so that it no longer says that the image is copyrighted but rather clarifies that we may be merely assuming that copyright exists.[58]

So, in view of these two changed circumstances, the reason for a continuation of the block is removed in my opinion, and I think a lifetime ban would be punitive for this reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this user wants to return and would know they were unblocked? Have you been in contact with them? Grandmasterka 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I emailed him and asked him to post to his talk page if he is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia.--Chaser (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not at all involved in this case previously, but have reviewed the block in question. I should note that Zsero was not blocked for having an opinion about the status of the image or the tags in question. He was blocked for being disruptive. All editors at Wikipedia have opinions, and no one is blocked for having them, nor is anyone blocked for expressing the opinions. What they are blocked for is acting disruptively, which is what Zsero did. Regardless of whether or not the specific tags in question have been changed, what concerns me is that, in the case of future differences of opinion, if Zsero would act similarly to how he acted during his LAST difference of opinion. I would oppose unblocking unless the user in question can clearly show that he understands why his behavior led to his block, and how he plans to change his behavior if unblocked. --Jayron32 07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the question above, I doubt that the user will want to immediately jump back into Wikipedia, but the opportunity should be open in my opinion, and after awhile I wouldn't be surprised to see the user jump back in. The controversy that led to his block is now totally moot and cannot recur. I might add that until today Wikipedia was falsely claiming that various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that; this is why Zsero removed the tag, not because of any pattern of disruption AFAIK (the user's blocks during the year 2010 were all in relation to these tags). I don't see that a confession or even a desire to edit Wikipedia is necessary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on where exactly Wikipedia has been "falsely claiming hat various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that"? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That was Zsero's contention at his talk page, and my contention here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock until/unless the user is ready/available to talk on-wiki. (I am uninvolved and have also reviewed some of the circumstances here.) That said, I don't agree with Jayron32's last sentence; I think such a requirement is too high in these circumstances. Copyright is a sensitive matter and I don't think it's fair to just put it down to a mere disruptive way of having different opinion. The user made some valid points during his block; it's that I am a bit uneasy about just granting an unblock in this case. Rather than expecting the user to file the appeal by himself in a way that is going to satisfy these concerns, I think what's needed is for him to edit so that we can ask him questions on his user talk and assist him with understanding how Wikipedia works. No amount of help pages are going to help in this case; what is needed is discussion with the blocked user. Should the user not return by the end of this ANI discussion, or should this request not be successful, then a link to this discussion (from the archives) should be added to the user's talk so that others know that this has been looked into already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock User talk:Fastily#Unblock request. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zsero was disruptive on a variety of other issues, too, ranging from Chabad to gaffa tape. Jack Merridew 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - wait until Zsero asks to be unblocked. The reason for the block was how Zsero behaved. If he wants to be unblocked, he should show penitence, and ask to be unblocked. The unblock request here is the complete opposite; it is not made by him, and it by implication suggests that the circumstances of the ban were at fault, not Zsero.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as per what Toddy1 says. If the user himself asks for an unblock, then it could be considered. In general, I don't think it's a good practice to unblock someone who hasn't asked to be unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Baseball Bugs. WAYNESLAM 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Let sleeping editors be. If he's unblocked and happens to discover it, he could surmise his behavior was okay after all, that we're arbitrary in blocking and unblocking. He needs to initiate the process himself. - KrakatoaKatie 04:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I think User:Hertz1888 has violated the one-revert rule in the article Jerusalem.[59][60] Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. I'd like to see whether there's consensus that this has been indeed a violation. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. As it says in the template on the talk page: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." FYI - you need to make sure you notify any user who is under discussion on this noticeboard. I have notified User:Hertz1888 for you on this occasion.--Korruski^Talk 10:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He was completely within the standards set by admins. I actually kind of disagree with it still since IPs should have a voice but the IP also disregarded WP:WORDS and it is a little hard to assume any good faith sometimes. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. That page is a failure for the most part but your opinion should be appreciated. Also, admins have previously requested that violations of 1/rr in the topic area go to WP:AN/EW to request enforcement.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the IP used a patently false edit summary "Wording is per consensus, extensive discussions on talk page & in its archives" it's a bit hard to take him seriously. He has a point npov-wise but this point has been gone over endlessly. I would have done the same as Hertz1888 so I'm interested in opinions here too (although 3RR or Arbitration Enforcement are the right places for these things apparently). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism and the IP's edits are indeed more NPoV. However, given the background on the article and the sanctions, edit warring over the wording isn't the way to handle it. I don't think it's fair that any IP edit can be reverted outside of 1rr but I understand how it could have gotten there. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 70.127 edit warring and using personal attacks at Mercy11 on Oscar López Rivera

can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me.

http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

--70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Mercy has again reverted without explanation, here, I've made sure that s/he is aware of this thread and asked for participation either at the article's talk page or here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

THE ANONYMOUS user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This matter is not about when clemency was or was not granted, but about uncivility by the anonymous user. An encyclopedia cannot be built if you are dealing with uncivil people, as the anonymouns user has demonstrated to be. The sockpuppet anonymous user (first anonymous at 72.186.98.71 and then annonymous at 70.127.202.197) violated Wikipedia WP:CIVILITY policy. My reverts violated no policy.

The history of violations by this annonymous user (who may quite well be a sockpuppet of a real registered user as well) goes like this:

72.186.98.71 at "White Eagle (robbery)":

"You're a moron" --- HERE

"You're an idiot" --- HERE

"You're an idiot", again --- HERE

72.186.98.71, then showed up as 70.127.202.197 (locations 12 mi away from each other) at "Oscar López Rivera" as follows:

"I already did[,] you moronic radical twit" --- HHERE

"Here's your sources, you radical nutcase" --- HHERE

"Not gonna happen, retard." --- HHERE

"You are a major retard." --- HHERE

The anonymous user continued the offensive, personal attacks even after I contacted user at the anonymous page in question HERE. The user changed IP addresses immediately after this to the 70.127.202.197 address and has not abandoned that IP address since.

If we check the dates and times of the above edits, the offenses and personal attacks had no other intention than to disrupt the harmonious building of the encyclopedia. The attacks were deliberate, premeditated, repeated and, to this moment, unremorseful. They harmed the building of the encyclopedia by being disruptive as they were also intended to garnish moments of glory and delight for the offending user at the expense of the intention of producing personal harm. This anonymous user should not be allowed such significant levels of disruption to the encyclopedia.

The user should not only be blocked at the 2 IP addresses, but the 2 articles in question should be locked until such time as civil editors can look into the validity of the anonymous user's alleged corrections of fact. A 30-day lock should be granted given the current and upcoming holidays.

Again, the anonyoums user is trying to play fool with the rest of us here: This is not a matter of the article having an error of fact on the date of the presidential clemency; this is about uncivility by the anonymous user, and we should not lket the user fool us into thinking this is about anything else but that. An encyclopedia cannot be built if anonymous users are holding a gun to your head while arguing about an alleged matter of fact. The actions of the anonymous user are a violation of policy, and it should be dealt with accordingly: and prevent further changes to the article by anyone who is not a registered user.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Die4Dixie requesting to return

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested that his community ban be lifted and he be allowed to return under the terms of the standard offer. Would anybody care to express an opinion on the subject? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In their request, D4D says: "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision." Given the nature of the behavior, I don't think that's sufficient. I'd like to see some acknowledgement from this editor that they understand why the community found their behavior repugnant, and that they agree with that assessment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More information needed. The user should first explain in some detail what topics they are going to edit and what improvements they can make to our articles. Should they then regress to any prior problems, they would be swiftly reblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I opposed the ban, as you may recall. However, I agree with Ken. More info needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - This editor's history shows a well-established tendency to engage in not just tendentious editing and edit warring, but also ventures well into the realm of antisemitism or some kind of anti-Jewish paranoia where he thinks Jewish wikipedians are conspiring against him. This is well-documented in his banning discussion and the last thing we need are more agenda pushers and tendentious editors, least of all those who believe in Jewish conspiracies. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Ken normally I treat all people who tread the fine line between general prattishness and abhorrent racial agenda with equal disdain, but I would like to see if Dixie knows what the problem is. "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision" sounds a bit like "I sincerely regret that your son/husband/father/other was killed/wounded/reported missing in action." Acknowledge it a bit. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any point in considering whether to replace the block with a ban on editing in the area that got them in trouble (race/ethnicity)? A good test of whether or not an editor is an incorrigible miscreant or wayward encyclopedian might be whether they can edit productively on bridges or barbie dolls for a time. Skomorokh 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let's do a live fire test on this one. If he screws up, we might as well know it early. It is his burden to show he can contribute productively to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(threadjack) As a means of judging character, I am all for personal responsibility, but from a project perspective I wonder if such live fire tests accomplish much other than editors in body bags. A lot of editors have push-button issues around which they find it very difficult to stay cool and within socially accepted norms of behaviour, and not all have the self-control to avoid them; this does not imply their contributions can be of no use for the project. Skomorokh 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should have said that we have limited supervisory resources for repentant editors. We do sometimes go to great lengths to rehabilitate useful editors, but Die4Dixie, despite his notoriety, has yet to show he can so much for us that it is worth spending our limited time and resources on a topic ban (which must be enforced), a mentor perhaps. Our greatest resource is the time people expend here. D4D has to show he's worth it, or leave us again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting around the clock surveillance and dedicated mentors, just a promise from D4D to avoid fringe politics/race which we could stick at WP:SANCTIONLOG and at the top of his user talk page. If the promise is broken to any significant extent someone is likely to notice. I only bring it up because he mentions on his talkpage "I hope to...work in translations from Spanish to English, little "c" Latin American issues, and linguistics. I would avoid the Holocaust, since I lack any finesse to deal with it." To which, in light of his reasonable attitude since being banned I'd respond "sure, have some WP:ROPE". Skomorokh 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, that's fine then.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not per Burpelson AFB. --John (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've been in frequent communication with D4D, and I'll take the responsibility of mentoring, including slapping him with fish, or, if necessary, two by fours, if he gets out of line. (He's agreed to this as well.) I'd like him to have one more chance; I think he's a good content contributor and (when he can keep his temper in check) a net positive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  It is indeed better to let the editor return under watch than to have them socking and causing further troubles. What sorts of articles would the editor like to contribute to? What are they interested in editing? Hopefully things not related to race and religion, such as hobbies, geography, culture, sports. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Added at 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) for clarity.

• Support (with mentoring) - I've locked horns with D4D in the past, but one year is a long time and the standard offer seems appropriate. The offer of mentoring by Jpgordon removes any doubts I might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Oh dear. The email to Jehochman has immediately restored those niggling doubts I had. With careful mentoring from Jpgordon, it is possible that D4D can be productive; however, I no longer have enough faith to actively support this return to the community. Perhaps more time in the sin bin is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support (with mentoring). Offer by a very capable admin dispels doubts for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Very weak support - on the back of jpgordon's mentoring offer and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per jpgordon's mentoring offer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral per the email he sent to Jehochman. Not impressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Doubting - I just received an unimpressive email from Die4Dixie. This person is not ready to be involved in an online collaborative project. Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Please read this entire discussion before posting a vote. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've posted a response to the email. Let's see how D4D responds. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I would oppose this request vehemently in other circumstances (not only because of aforementioned mail to Jehochman) but jpgordon is both capable and experienced enough that I trust their judgment in this case. But even with such an offer, it's a really close call and I can really understand anyone opposing this request. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I was willing to give this editor a second chance, until he sent me a message that assumed bad faith. To be clear, it was not an inappropriate message, just an unimpressive one. A big part of the original problem with this editor was that he launched an unfounded attack on Slrubenstein. We don't need users who assume that editors with Jewish sounding names are out to get them. Of course if this editor returns, I am going to watch to make sure they don't repeat what got them blocked and banned in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe it's just me, but things are still not clear to me. If what D4D posted is accurate, it seems there's a bit of stress and paranoia, but it doesn't have much to do with how your name sounds or whether one is Jewish or not. Instead, it seems it has to do with so-called accusations of socking you made and the validity of those accusations; what about it is 'unimpressive'? I'm not seeing the actual assumption of bad faith.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  What Ncmvocalist said. My interpretation of that email (if it was the same as posted on their talk page) was that it resulted from things you have said, not that you might be and unless you have some other evidence that this interpretation that Ncm and I have is incorrect, I will assume my interpretation as in dubio pro reo. I would not tolerate any racist or antisemitic remarks if they are made but if it's unclear, I will AGF that they were not made or at least not intended to be interpreted that way. Regards SoWhy 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am aware of the concerns that led to this user's community ban, and I supported that ban 100%. If this were a simple appeal for a second chance, I'd be extremely hesitant, based on how things went last time around. However, I'm confident that jpgordon isn't going to stand for any nonsense, and he's agreed to take responsibility for his mentoring. If someone's been banned for quite some time, expresses a desire to start editing again, and an established, upstanding editor is willing to take responsibility for monitoring his return to Wikipedia, then I'm OK with that. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm all for believing that people can learn and change for the better, but I just can't see this ending well. Nevertheless, if jpgordon is willing to bear the cross of giving it a go, I'm not opposed. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I would be strongly against this were it not for jpgordon's willingness to mentor. However, I very much trust jpgordon's judgment, so I'll support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see what's wrong with the email; I think it's pretty clear that it was a misunderstanding of what Jehochman was talking about, and D4D is a bit paranoid thinking that Jeh meant actual hobbies, geography, etc. (personal details) rather than what sort of articles. Given that I've seen some of the positive results from Jpgordon's mentoring in the past, I'm inclined to support. I'm going to hold off in case I've missed anything though in regards to the email etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it was a bit like seeing the future unveiling and shooting himself in the foot...I am extremely doubtful about Jpgordon's offer, but if he is prepared to make it then, good luck to him, I get the feeling he is going to need it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor has strong views on various issues, and his return would probably lead to more conflict. TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  At most once, for what it's worth. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with TFD. Not worth it. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  Switching to tentative support (per email from d4d and baseball bugs' tentative support below). --RegentsPark (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Tentative support Several good admins here have indicated they will keep an eagle eye on this guy (who has been blocked for a year now) and send him back to his cell if he returns to his previous approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the honeypot articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. Jehochman ^Talk 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea, although I would think someone in his situation would welcome constant monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I reminded myself of the discussion linked by Jehochman in which I was involved. It concerned baiting Slrubenstein with a a lurid discussion about whether one of the corpses in a horrific image from a concentration camp was circumcised or not. I agree with MastCell that it would be hard to find a better mentor than Jpgordon. As others have said, he would have to be constantly monitored. But is wikipedia really some kind of reform school? Mathsci (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• reply - it might not be a dreform school but its not a death camp either. people dont "necessarily" have to be exiled for life for every minor infraciton. if the community decides to giv ehim a second chance, thats not necessarily a bad idea. personally, i dont think its worth the effort, but if a respected user like jpgordon or jehochman are willing to work with this guy to rehablilitate him as an editor then having him here fighting the good fight can be definitely worth the small effort of restoring him. User:Smith Jones 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that this was a "minor infraction"; and it's probably best not to talk about "death camps" in this particular context. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• There could be a practical reason for the concentration camp images, which would be to address the question of whether the victims were Jewish or not. Even assuming totally good faith (which may well not be the case), that would amount to "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Moot now since, from what has been written below, D4D has withdrawn this request. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - at the risk of sounding draconian, why on earth would we want him back? He's caused enough problems, he offers nothing substantial - he does not, for example, write even as well as your average editor; he's shown no particular ability to locate and vet sources, he's certainly shown no desire or skill at resolving disputes; in short, he's all negative and no positive. His last visit here was filled with strife, drama, and NPA violations. I don't see that we should consider allowing him back without extensive assurances of a changed heart. If opinion is otherwise, however, I suggest mentoring and swift judgment if he has not, indeed, changed his approach. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. KC offers a good précis, just above. D4D made a fair number of appalling antisemitic comments. Off-the cuff I recall D4D urging editors to zoom in on images of corpses to examine them for signs of foreskins, which I called trolling 101. I remain convinced that this user is primarily intent on being a troll. Also, I don't support WP:OFFER absent significant work on another WMF project. Too many see it as a get-out-of-jail-free card after six months of waiting for the community to forget the details. nb: I would support a brief unblock solely for the purpose of unifying their account: sulutil:Die4Dixie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've received an email from D4D re my above comment. He indicates an intent to work on another WMF project for the next six months and that, by 'acknowledging' his email, I may comment that he's withdrawing his request. He should post that himself to his talk.

  I see that WP:OFFER is at MfD; the offer is a good concept, but it is often inappropriatly sought. I've notified Durova (the author) and added a bit about this to the offer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The murderous puppy above sums up my feelings nicely, and like Jack I'd like to see work on another Wikimedia Foundation project. AniMate 19:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jehochman's indications that the email sent to him does not indicate that he intends to work well with others. I am normally quite lenient on allowing blocked users to return, given that they show adequate understanding of the problems they caused and intent to change their behavior. The gist that Jehochman has indicated of his communications with the user in question does not instill confidence in me that this would get any better if he were unblocked. --Jayron32 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I believe in second chances.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - that was about a year ago, let's give em' another chance, People do change. ya know? - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed mentorship is certainly a good thing, but D4D has done nothing to suggest that he understands the very good reasons he was banned in the first place. I'm not suggesting he don sackcloth and ashes, just that he says something like, "I said this, and I was wrong, and I won't do it again." PhGustaf (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The contents of his e-mail to Jehochman do not exactly inspire confidence, although it might just be a clumsy way of asking for an interaction ban. But my "tentative support" is getting more and more tentative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Becoming practically eleventative at this point? HalfShadow 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Or even twelvetive. If it gets to thirteentive, SELL! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • 13tative sounds like bad luck to me. PhGustaf (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe in second chances too, but I doubt if an editor capable of this is able to reform. (Translation: "In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation (context: to kill leftists in Latin America) was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting conversation. It's pity that your mother was not one of the disappeared"). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If that translation is correct, and there are no remarkable extenuating circumstances, a reasonable response to his request might be, "Fuck him, and throw him to the wolves." PhGustaf (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Que se joda, y echarlo a los lobos? HalfShadow 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Well. there is clearly no consensus to unblock and I have seen this a fair bit recently, IMO we should be more honest with users that are indefinitely blocked/banned and delete the WP:Standard offer as it is not well supported and gives them pointless hope and results in them all to often being publicly hauled over the coals and rejected again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Standard Offer still applies to this user, and will always apply. I for one, and I suspect many (but not all) users above are more interested in evidence of his behavior going forward than in his past problems. I have, and would again, support unblocking users who display evidence, in their requests to be unblocked and in their behavior while they are blocked, that they are capable of playing by the rules, and behaving appropriately to the standards of this project. The fact is that this user, is right now, displaying behavior (as evidenced by his communications with Jehochman) which is problematic, and is also lacking any evidence that he will change. Show me this user again in a few months, with new evidence of an intent to change to proper behaviors, and I would support their return. --Jayron32 00:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • You suggest he comes back in another few months for another public humiliation on the highest profile noticeboard on the wikipedia. Standard offer is not supported and it is doing nothing but giving him false hope and encouraging him to think he has any chance at all, and all he gets it his history displayed again here, the essay is not supported in reality as I have seen it in action over the last year and it just serves to embarrass and demean blocked and banned users that continue to want to contribute, better to be honest with them. MFD here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Standard_offer - Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I sometimes say that a user could demonstrate some good faith by writing some editing suggestions on his talk page, and let other editors judge their merit and (if appropriate) add them to an article. That sounds a bit like "editing by proxy" except it's out in the open, and no one is compelled to do anything with the proposed edits. But it could be a good barometer of a user's current mindset about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Jayron32, seeing you seem to think there is behavior problems from D4D's communication, would you care to elaborate? You can't keep pushing it onto Jonathon to explain when he's not responding and the alleged problematic email has been posted on-wiki, and both Jehochman and Die4Dixie appear to have resolved their misunderstanding in the same venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As a procedural point (responding mostly to Off2riorob), banned or long-term blocked editors who would prefer not to have their editing history detailed on ANI have an alternative route to review of the bans by e-mailed request to the Arbitration Committee. (I'm not commenting on the request in this case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you Brad, that is perhaps the route we should be directing them towards in their best interests. An independent review board. At least we shouldn't be giving them the idea and false hope that six months with no socking and a good faith request is going to result in anything apart from review of your blocking reasons and further rejection on the highest profile most publicized noticeboard on Wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Off2riorob. we get tehse unblock requests frequently and in most cases, regardles sof th e outcome, they basically have to relive all of their past mistakes in humiliating detail and are basically demonzied repeatedly as Nazis, racists, pedophiles, whatever insults anyone can make up to throw at them, and then their request is denied in such a way that makes it seem as if it was not only a bad idea but a deliberate attempt at distruption. User:Smith Jones 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also note that some of the past editing history has to be brought up because not everyone involved in the discussion was paying attention to user XYZ when he or she got banned in the first place. Otherwise the discussion would consist of comments like "well I can't support an unblock but I'm not at liberty to say why" and "well I don't remember or care to look up why they were blocked so oppose/support". As bad as unblock discussions can get, that kind of discussion is worse. Another point to make is that most of the time editors do not get community banned for being saints. We do in fact get people whose past deeds are not exactly good and for whom a retelling of the deeds would seem like an unpleasant experience. In my opinion, that's tough ducks. They caused the original problems and they don't get to ignore them when an unblock request comes up. Protonk (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose- I remember the discussion that got him banned, and I don't believe blatant racism can be cured in a year. The community is better off without him. Heiro 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think Die4Dixie should be allowed to edit again. But I hope she understands that her behavior is under a microscope; it'll be one strike and you're out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportBeing a blatant racist should not prevent someone from editing. As long as they follow the standards in place it might even be a good thing. A good amount of time off for being disruptive might equal a good lesson so try it out.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose An editor, who makes antisemitic comments or any racist comments for that matter should not edit wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless and until he understands why we don't look down on n*****s, k***s, w**s, and g******s, he should not be allowed to return. Racism of any sort is by its very nature incompatible with a project that is edited by those of various racial backgrounds. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, that line started in Catch-22: "It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop or spic".

The world isn't exactly short of bigots, and it's not bloody likely that there aren't a great many of them who contribute to Wikipedia, but keep their mouths shut about it. Fine. But the party in question has not only asked us to let his bigotry slide but told another editor he wishes his momma was dead. Moot point at the moment; update in six months or so. PhGustaf (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the first comment above, Beyond My Ken noted that D4D has done no more than say they won't engage in certain behavior, with no indication that they understand what that behavior is. Also, there is no indication of what D4D would like to do (why would an unblock help Wikipedia?). Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

The Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family was the program ran by U.S. Army LTG James M. Gavin as Chief of Research & Development that created the M113 armored personnel carrier. See Simon Dunstan's book The M113 Series, page 5, Osprey Publishing, London, 1983.

This fact is being censored by a group of vandals as proven by their bulletin board discussion below:

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=19719

Request that the fact of the M113's LTG Gavin origin be included into its Wiki page and these vandals be identified and blocked from making Wiki page edits. Also request the M113 Gavin Wiki page be protected.

98.88.212.229 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The last posting on the forum you've linked was dated 20 May 2010. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin matter here; this is the continuation of a lengthy campaign to get a very unofficial nickname for the M113 recognized. IP: if you make further comments like you did here, which violate civility you're likely to have problems. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting very old and tiring. See This old discussion at ANI that resulted in the page in question being semi-protected. The OP is likely the same person who started that last discussion. If Mr. 98.88.212.229 is interested in following Wikipedia's long established rules, they should find reliable sources and should start a discussion at the article's talk page to allow for evaluation of these sources. I have seen no evidence, as yet, that they intend to do this, however. --Jayron32 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a blatantly obvious attempt by the OP/IP to advertise his own website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN-ish behavior

Ucla90024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting to his own edits and ignoring the advice of other editors, such as in [61], [62], [63], and [64]. My latest message to him was followed by a blanking of his talk page and continued reverts. Could someone give him a stern warning? …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 22:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the You Chung Hong article, it reads "helping rebuild the community after it was relocated to accommodate the construction of Union Station in the 1930s" and "He designed a series of buildings on Gin Ling Way, one of which ultimately housed his legal office, and developed the main entrance gate on Broadway and its neon lighting". How can an editor say "text does not support a picture of the east gate of Chinatown". Anyone knowing Chinatown will say that the gates are the most important structure there. The photo was posted by creator of the article. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Ucla90024 in this case. The image has been in the article since it was added in July 2009, and the actual bold-revert-failure-to-discuss cycle here, Grayshi, is you removing the image, you being reverted, and you not going to the talk page to discuss but repeating your edit and then warning someone else for not agreeing with your bold changes. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • A typical example of boomerang OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• I restored the image to the article and tried to clarify in the image caption the relationship between the arch and the article's subject. The article has had the image since it was created and there is a reference to the arch that has been there since the article was created. This is an issue that would have been better played out on the article's talk page or that of the editor in question, with a question asking for a clearer explanation, rather than turning into a slow-motion edit war. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop participating in this now. Articles are off my watchlist.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pashto language

This issue involves a dispute with user Lagoo Sab. It was about style as well as content of the official language section of above lemma. I have asked for a 3O on 06-12-2010 which was given by user Ironholds. Lagoo Sab had nevertheless re-edited saying both of us are biased resulting in a dispute as well as what I consider personal attacks as well as hypothesizing about my identity. I have encorporated suggested changes into the section, restructured it to account the undue weight notice entered by Lagoo Sab. And am simply frustrated as of now. I will provide diff links in the process but would appreciate assistance. Chartinael (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• To give further context as to the user behaviour - personal attack, personal attack and assumption of bad faith, discrediting of a source based on the writer's ethnicity and religious beliefs, personal attack and assumption of bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I dealt with it before I saw your report here, but I came to the same conclusions you did after seeing his report at WP:ANEW. He's blocked 24h. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually that's discrediting a source on the grounds that not all sources are reliable. Which they aren't. I, too, have seen books where paragraphs or even chapters have been copied from the WWW. I've also seen books that aren't academic works. I own several. ☺ And the correct response is, as you did, to point out that the author is a credentialed expert writing in xyr field of expertise.

    The response that you missed out on was noticing the possible conflation of official language with language with the largest number of L1 speakers. It's not necessary to take a census to determine the former. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

    • "That claim is made by Rizwan Hussein, a Shia book writer" is fairly clearly aimed at impugning the writer and therefore the source :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Only if one regards "shia" as an insult. Why are you regarding it as an insult? Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Move drive by User:MatthewVanitas & User:Someone65

User:MatthewVanitas is also moving articles, few of moves may be justifiable e.g. removing of honorofics & titles but to remove Sayyed, Syed, Sayed from names and moving them to new name without these surnames (e.g. Sayyed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi to Ahmad Saeed Kazmi) is not correct, to be noted Syed is not title or honorofic it is part of name. He is also moving articles having Shia, Shi`ite to Shi'a.
Log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=move&user=MatthewVanitas&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&month=&year=

User:Someone65 is engaged in move drive. He is moving articles having Islamic to Calipahte and Shi'a, Shi`ite to Shia.
Log:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Someone65&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

As these moves by the two users are not sporadic event but massive drive, they should have been discussed at proper space. Due to lack of discussion they seem to be working in opposite directions on Shia/Shi'a articles. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments: 1) please note that the "Shi'a" spelling issue is part of a massive cleanup and category sort I've been doing of Category:Shi'a Islam. We'd brought up the Shi'a vs. Shia vs. Shiite spelling issue a couple years ago on WP:ISLAM, and at that point folks had signaled an overall preference for Shi'a, so several of the articles and new cats I started then were spelled "Shi'a". Fast forward a year or two, and there's still no standardisation whatsoever, but since the majority of pages/cats had "Shi'a", and "Shiite" has fallen out of popular academic usage, I've been moving to "Shi'a" except in set phrases (e.g. "Shiite Tide") where the other spelling is common.

2) I've had extremely low response rates at WP:ISLAM for Shi'a issues, so I brought up the Shi'a spelling issue last week on the Talk page of Shi'a Islam, and nobody but the complainant had any opinion, and there was no opposition to "Shi'a", so I figured WP:BEBOLD and made the spelling of a minority of articles/cats conform to the majority.

3) So far as honorifics, that's also part of a larger cleanup where I've been trying to fix the articles where "Hazrat" (his holiness), and other honorifics have been improperly used in the title, and where tons of further honorifics (e.g. A.S., S.A.W., "peace be upon him") have been used. I agree there are some names where "Syed" is used as a name vice a "descendant of Muhammad" title. However, the vast majority of those I removed were instead "Syedna", which was being used as a title of Mustaali Ismaili figures.

4) I'm a bit miffed that the complainant didn't bother to contact me on my Talk page. A simple "hey, can you hold off on your changes and we'll discuss it on WP:ISLAM for a bit?" would have been fine, would've gone with that. In short, the above complaints cover about 5% of a huge amount of long-overdue cleanup work I've been doing on Islamic topics, and to whatever degree I've been overzealous in the honorifics issue is largely due to having POV-pushers (who refuse to answer any of my Talk posts) making titles like "His High Holiness and Most Excellent Syed Ahmed Hyderabadi Qalandard (may God be pleased with him". Given that any names I may have over-chopped were names that I simply could not find proper versions of on Google or GoogleBooks, said authors should just be glad I didn't propose deletion for no verifiability. In any case, Faizhaider can drop me a line about any direction he thinks should change on Shi'a articles, and I'll contact Someone65 to make sure we aren't at cross-purposes on Shi'a vs. Shia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Caliphate issue, I discussed that here : Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Moving_articles_from_.22Islam.22-related_titles_to_.22Caliphate.22_related_titles_is_part_of_the_Jag_cleanup.3F

For the Shia/shi'a issue, thanks for notifying me; im okay with User:MatthewVanitas version, but i would prefer Shia. Someone65 (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any complaint regarding removing of honorofics (Maulana, Syedana, etc. infact at few times I also have moved articles to remove the honorofics) and move to Shi'a. I'm worried about move drives which are running in parallel and opposite to each other. This way one's work is been undone by other. And removal of Syed as part of name. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on Someone65's page asking him to come to WP:ISLAM to discuss spelling, and posted links on the Talk pages for WP:PAKISTAN, WP:IRAN, and WP:IRAQ. It's just to get some discussion right now, but if we can get some solid agreement and justification it might be good to see if we can get some agreed-on spellings into WP:MOSISLAM or similar. But in the meantime at least it gives folks a chance to weigh in on standardisation, though in the short-term I would argue that my changes were targeting the minority of variant spellings vice a huge move. I'm honestly baffled by Someone65's "Caliphate" changes, but since that argument is well-underway I'll stay out of it. If I have, among literally dozens of cleanups of honorifics in the last weeks, chopped a "Syed" where it was a name vice a title, I do apologise (particularly if the name was googleable and I missed it), but again that's a tiny portion of an overall non-controversial cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning anyone's all efforts just pointed out my concerns. As the matter was related to two editors which seemed to be not connected except that unknowingly they were working parallel and opposite to each other. I am part of wikkiproject:Islam and there no such discussion was happening (now there is one) and I didn't have idea of any other related discussion, there was not much on two editor's talk page except related to 'Islamic & Caliphate' at Someone65's talk page but it seemed it was not having good progress. My apologies to two editors if my ANI post has offended them in anyway, this was not my motive I just wanted to get things straight asap. BTW, article Sayyid & its talk may also be consulted regarding Syed title dialogue. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning a comment made by User:Campoftheamericas at Talk:Ganas#Finding citations

I'm not sure this is the right place for this; if not, please advise as to what would be better.

My concern involves a dispute at the Ganas article which I have been trying to help mediate (originally after seeing it listed at WP:Third opinion; there is also an open but mostly inactive MedCab case, so I'm not sure what the status of my "official" involvement there is at present.)

Brief backstory: Ganas is a "communal living arrangement" with some group-therapy-like practices that date to the sixties/seventies, about which there has been some controversy, including a 2006 shooting incident for which a former resident was accused and later apparently acquitted. (This latter fact may in fact be relevant here, but the basis for believing it may be relevant has been RevDeleted by User:Oversight per WP:OUTING).

My specific concern now is with this comment by User:Campoftheamericas which includes the text: "I have been told that if I continue to distress Eroberer, they are afraid she will get upset and come and shoot them down." This is in reference to User:Eroberer, another editor involved in the present dispute.

Campoftheamericas also appears to reveal that he-or-she currently resides at the place that is the subject of the article, and appears to be quoting others who currently reside at that place (about which I have already remarked at Talk:Ganas#The Conflict of interest policy).

Should any further action be taken at this point? Would others care to also keep an eye on this situation in case it becomes more inflamed than it has been already? Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also that User:Campoftheamericas has a couple of times now [65] [66] self-identified as 98.116.147.84, which is who made the now-revdeleted comment mentioned above. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything stated above is correct. I am going to take some time off of Wikipedia. Best of luck. Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administrator intervention; I don't see Campoftheamericas having made a threat (relaying that someone else was afraid of one might possibly be considered a personal attack, but I think the context explained what was said). I think the other members' fears are perhaps unreasonable but that's not directly relevant.

Camp - I understand you wanting to take a break. If it helps, if you chose to continue participating but avoid this one topic area, it sounds like it would just be easier for you. We hope to avoid conflict of interest, especially where the real world issues are causing people stress related to participation in Wikipedia (or visa versa).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone check User:2012sschulz and possibly block them?

2012sschulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:2012sschulz is a freshly created account being used solely for the purpose of making reverts. He has reverted twice at List of gamebooks without discussion on the talk page or helpful edit summaries, despite a warning, and his edit summaries include other suspect reverts such as reverts on the talk pages of other users]. The history also suggests there may be a WP:SOCK issue. Can I get an outside perspective, and if necessary a block? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC) 2012sschulz

I reviewed their activity. A couple or three clear vandalism reverts; some of what were probably intended as vandalism reverts, but reverted constructive trimming out redlinks by normal editors; a couple of questionable reverts.

Not a great start, but I can see this as a new user trying to get used to how to do things to help clean.

If they never respond on their talk page and keep up with the most questionable reverts, eventually it rises to the level of a real problem. Right now? I'd assume it's a new user learning and assume good faith. We have policy ( WP:BITE and WP:AGF ) and plenty of precedent that we give people some rope learning the system. It's just good business, for a volunteer organization, plus it's nicer to people.

I don't think we need admin intervention yet. I encourage more discussion on his talk page on what's wrong with the things that were done wrong.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the outside opinion, Georgewilliamherbert. I'll take that advice and see how it goes. I didn't assume it was a new user on the basis of the activity being reverts over a fast period to a wide range of topics, but I suppose AGF mandates that I should. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the same behavior with new users with innocent explanations not regularly, but more than a few times. We could invert it, assume bad faith, and assume they're someone just trying to get autoconfirmed for malign purposes. But I don't see reason to assume so. It could be, but AGF is preferred to ABF. If it turns out to be a bad assumption we can deal with it easily enough then. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement over Allen West (politician)

Note: I condensed 2 related threads into one for sanity of reviewing admins --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)And I edit conflicted with you. Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side A

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel who was fined for his actions during an interrogation. After being fined, he retired from the army. Prior to my edits, the opening said "West is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel", which I think is a lie of omission as there is much more to the story than West being simply a retired Lieutenant Colonel. Ive made this argument in the talk page as well, but if the opening to Richard Nixon said hes just retired as president in 1974, someone would add short details about watergate. My initial reaction to his edits was that he may have a conflict of interest, as all of his edits are to the one page, which I viewed a classic sign of a campaign staffer, but after his personal attacks on me, I dont think that is the case. In his first edit, Dchip12 the removed the mention of the interrogations, and added large amounts of non notable information about the military service of West's relatives, and also added " Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the military." [[67]]. After Dchip12's personal attacks against me, a third opinion came in and kept my mention of West's interrogations, Im fairly certain that it has been decided that the interrogation should be mentioned in the opening, but now Dchip12 insists on his edit of Wests' extended family's military service, which I dont think anyone could see as notable. Dchip12 has also rewritten the opening, but it does not flow as well as the previous opening, and contains a blaring run on sentence in the second paragraph [[68]], so I did revert it and I tried to explain to him in the talk page [[69]] why I did so, but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends[[70]], and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent[[71]].

Ive tried my best to maintain a civil discussion, but Dchip12's responses to me seem to be more about personal attacks than any edits. --Tippx (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Side B

I need an administrator at Allen_West_(politician), This user above "Tippx" insists on making ridiculous excuses on why information should be withheld from Allen West's wiki page. I'm just a casual Wiki observer and only contributed for the 2nd time a few days ago and it was all I intended. I just put a few facts about West's family in his early life section and Tippx claims facts like "West's dad served in WWII, his brother served in Vietnam, his nephew is a young captain" is too much an "overwhelmingly positive POV" when it's not even a Point of View. It's a FACT. He attempts to claim I stated and I quote "long list of West's family's military history that sounds like a campaign ad".... West's campaign ended over a month ago. So that's complete rubbish. What's funny is I'm not even a big West fan nor am I that into politics for that matter. Nor am I a big Wiki user. I just figured I'd put facts like what I have for readers and I'd be on my way, but this guy is so threatened by West for some insane reason. He needs to be looked over. Again, he's even trying to paint me as putting a "campaign ad" by just stating facts about West's family and despite West's campaign and mid-term elections are long over. And again, I'm not even a big West fan, I'm more apathetic than anything but clearly Tippx is threatened by him for some reason otherwise he wouldn't go to such trouble as to want an article a certain way. Tippx want's the simple single facts about West's Dad and Brother gone but he "coincidentally" insisted West's controversial exit from the military be put at the top of his page. He also CONTINUES TO claim the statement "Growing up, West knew he was destined to be in the U.S. military" was MY statement when I have REPEATEDLY told him it was CLEARLY a statement I got directly from one of the cited sources I put down from this article right here in which the reporter, Anthony Man, got that from West. It states that West said he was destined for the military. He flat out says that in the article, an article which came out a few days ago, so I put it up. Allen West: from controversy to Congress Also since then, I went ahead and included a statement that West was forced to retire due to a controversial incident but Tippx still wants to play.

He flat out LIES above when he states "but the only response i have gotten from him was that A)need to get friends69, and B) I, a registered republican who lives a thousand miles away in NJ am a supporter of West's (former) opponent"

I CLEARLY answered his questions for why I put things in my statement and he is a blatant liar when he says he's a Repub from where he says he is. It's an attempt to make me look like the bad guy here. I trust you'll read over how this thing got started with me innocently, for only the 2nd time EVER, inserting information on West's page after I came across it in an article and since then Tippx has decided to troll Allen West's page and give everything a hard time.

This user clearly is just an anti-West guy who's upset to the fact he insists on deleting things of mine that are just plain FACT, not POV's, all cited correctly. He needs a talking to. And if not that, he needs to be banned from the West page, if not from Wikipedia altogether.

Dchip12 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Responses

This is not the complaints department. Please attempt to solve these problems at any of the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Until administrators see evidence that other methods of dispute resolution have been tried, they are unlikely to step in to sanction anybody. Unless both parties wish to be blocked for edit warring, find outside help in the form of a Third Opinion or a Request for Comment. --Jayron32 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the uncivil section header and united the two sections. Dchip12, making a new section with such an uncivil title does not help your complaint. Comment on the content, not the contributors. Ok? Basket of Puppies 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dchip12 blocked 24 hours for personal attacks after being warned about civility, Tippx regretfully blocked as well for edit warring before coming here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NLT Heads-up

WP:NLT heads up, See: MediaWiki_talk:Robots.txt#Robot_Exclusion_for_Wikimedia_images. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User indeffed. I will notify the Foundation. Tiderolls 06:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations by User:Delicious carbuncle

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated BLP violations by the user in question, despite requests to stop and 3:1 consensus at WP:RSN against using a questioned source that fails WP:RS on a WP:BLP page.

---

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) adds controversial info sourced to website "www.truthaboutscientology.com" to WP:BLP page on Jamie Sorrentini, diff link
2. After talk page discussion, this issue was taken to WP:RSN. At the RSN discussion three editors, myself and two others, did not support use of this website as a source.
3. Fifelfoo stated, "Unreliable. Self-published; absence of recognised expertise; no editorial oversight."
4. Becritical commented, "There's no indication that the site is reliable."
5. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) was shown a prior Request for Comment on the matter, where dispute resolution did not find consensus to use the website as a source, at Talk:Catherine_Bell/Archive_1#Request_for_Comments_-_Use_of_the_.22truthaboutscientology.22_website from 2007.
6. In a strange edit summary actually acknowledging there is no consensus supporting use of a questionable source in a BLP, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) willfully violated BLP anyways, and added the questionable info back with the website source that fails WP:RS, see diff link.
7. I posted a note to the user's talk page, asking him to stop the BLP violations at the BLP page, and stated the issue would be reported if the disruptive behavior continued, see diff link.
8. Despite the 3:1 consensus against using this website source from the WP:RSN thread, and the WP:BLP issues involved as mentioned at the user's talk page - Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) proceeded to add this website source and questionable info to the BLP page, now a 3rd time, see diff link.

---

Requesting a previously uninvolved admin take action here. The info violates WP:RS and violates WP:BLP. It is contentious, poorly sourced info about a BLP, and should be removed from this BLP page. Admin action should be taken with respect to the disruptive behavior of Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs); deferring to uninvolved admins to review. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)