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

WP:RM Backlog

Requested moves is in a pretty good backlog. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 02:11

User:Gimmebot removing transclusions of GA reviews

User:Gimmebot is removing transclusions of GA reviews from pages. There is no consensus to do so. Having the reviews on talk pages allows one to easily see the information related to the state of the article. I have contacted the bot operator, but he refuses to rectify the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The review is link in the article history. Why does it need to be transcluded as well? Grsz¹¹ 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This way, people can easily check to see why the GA was passed (if it was a drive-by review, or if it was legitimate). Also, the bot operator should not have done this without the consensus of the Wikipedia community at BRFA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The link is still available in the {{articlehistory}} template; if there's a problem locating the GA info, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. If you can't find that info, that problem needs to be rectified within the GA process, or the GA process should simply no longer be part of articlehistory. Articlehistory was originally built to handle FAs, and it works perfectly for them; blocking the bot will stall the FA process. Rather than stop the bot, the options should be to correct the underlying problems at GA, or remove GAs from articlehistory, which will create a whole lot of talk page clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, once the review is done and over with I don't see what the advantage of transcluding it as well is. The review is still easily reachable. henrik•talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think many GA reviewers remove the transclusion once the review is over. I know that I do anyway; it's in the article history for anyone who's interested. The motivation behind transclusion is to involve as many editors as possible in the review, without depending on them becoming aware of a separate page. Once the review is over there's no point. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, though there may be procedural questions to be raised with regard to WP:BRFA/WP:WGA. Skomorokh 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding Rschen7754's request. The link to the review is in the bottom center of the ArticleHistory template at the very top of the talk page - isn't that usually how it's done once the actual review is over? I've only been through few, a couple Norton reviews, and a Tim Richmond BLP review, but that's the way it was once everything was said and done. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that job in any of the bot's requests for approval. I would also object to removing the transcluded reviews automatically, but I can see how someone could easily reach the conclusion that removing those reviews was uncontroversial. Hopefully the bot operator will stop the bot from doing that particular task until it gets approved. Give him/her some time to respond to your request and to this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with bots to be perfectly honest, but I did want to mention something that came to mind here. I remember a conversation about WP:SIG somewhere - in that conversation it was mentioned that transclusion does play a factor in server performance. I realize that 1 GA transclusion on a talk page does not equate to 50 or 100 sigs that do that, but I did want to mention it. I don't know if that has any bearing on this conversation, but I thought it may be something to consider. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The operator has refused to do so - see the above link. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be better to bring this up at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard instead, where bot-operators and bot-approvers are more likely to see it, and it will be more clear what consensus is about it. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with above that once the GA Review is over there is no need to keep the transclusion - it is linked in {{ArticleHistory}} prominently at the very top of the talk page and can be easily found there. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2 seems to be the task that allows the bot to work on the article review top business, in non-specific terms. I left a note at WT:GA. –xeno ^talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I might be too parsimonious, but I read that and didn't come away with the impression that removing transclusions was authorized in that request. TBH I didn't look at the first contributions to see what the authorization may have been based on. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, it's a liberal interpretation of the task. –xeno ^talk 13:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the transclusion after a review is largely a matter of taste and there is no prescription - as long as the review is linked e.g. from ArticleHistory. However, keeping the review transclusion on the talk page after a review maintains high visibility for article editors wishing to improve an article in response to the review. I don't see any benefit for the encyclopedia in automatically removing the review when article editors may wish otherwise. This should be left to individual editors and reviewers, not a bot. Geometry guy 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question is, what is to be done? The bot operator does not seem interested in rectifying the situation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The rub

We have two issues here which are getting clouded. One issue is whether or not it is kosher to remove review transclusions. I'm going to go out on a limb (not much of one) and suggest that it is kosher to do so, just given the responses here. The other is whether or not a bot is allowed to do so without an authorization. We aren't a bureaucracy and we shouldn't let admittedly minor quibbles stymie editor participation, but we look rather a lot like a bureaucracy when bot-ops are concerned. We have policy and practice which reflects a community consensus to restrain bot edits prior to authorization rather than to bless those not reverted as good (in english, BOLD is for people, not bots). So I'm prepared to say that we should just open up another BRFA for the explicit task of removing transclusions. It will probably be a quick up and down approval.

In the absence of such an approval I'm going to ask that the bot operator stop removing GA review transclusions from pages. If they don't stop in 24 hours or start the process of getting approval in 24 hours I'll block the bot. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot has been processing all FA process tranclusions into articlehistory for well over two years, and GAs almost all long. The transclusions are not removed; they are linked in to articlehistory. If this isn't working correctly at GA, that is an artefact of the GA process, not the bot. In the FA process, it's clear; perhaps the GA process needs to address the root problems, whatever they may be. But blocking a bot based on inaccurate information about the problem will not help the FA process, which depends on the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Geometry guy has it about right. Whether or not to remove the transcluded review is a decision for the reviewer and/or interested editors, not one that a bot ought to be making. So I agree with your blocking proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"BOLD is for people, not bots.". That's a good line to remember when discussing 'bot behavior. --John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like there's an issue at GA, that it's not clear when a review is finished. In the FA process, it is clear; this is an artefact of the GA process that needs to be addressed, and not by blaming the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's very clear when a review has finished. If it were not, then Gimmetrow's bot wouldn't be able to delete the transcluded review. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• When did the bot start removing the GA review transclusions from talk pages? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • The bot does not remove GA reviews; it adds them to articlehistory. GimmeBot has been building articlehistories for several years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The bot has recently begun to remove the GA review which is transcluded on the talk page; it removes the transclusion, which there has been no agreement that it should do. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It was pretty recent - unfortunately, the only way to definitely know may be looking through the diffs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not sure if this is what you are talking about. When the bot puts the GA review in article history, it is no longer is clickable. That is, clicking on GA reiew and date in the article history no longer brings up the GA review. This is confusing, as in the past a click would bring up the GA review just as it does the FAC review. Also, it this problem related to the fact that the GAN backlog report is no longer being updated? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      The latter issue is completely independent (a different bot and bot operator). Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

      It is not true that reviews are no longer clickable; the link is in articlehistory. If links become unclickable, that is an arteface of the GA process, not the botification into articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the additional comments above, I agree that the bot should not resume editing until these concerns are addressed. (I do note that neither the bot nor its op have edited recently, so a block may be unnecessary.) –xeno ^talk 21:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow runs the bot a couple of times a week, I believe. It does a lot of work for FAC, as well as doing article history and GA updates. Geometry guy 21:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the bot isn't editing, then I have to consult with others as to whether they are available to help with the manual work so that I can promote/archive FAC today as planned. This is another example of the unfortunate effects of illformed opinions at AN/I from editors who aren't familiar with the processes. I don't look forward to closing and botifying all of today's FA promotions and archivals myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it, bot runs can continue for FAC, as long as Gimmetrow is willing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a wonderful waste of time and effort. If you really think it necessary to fill out the brfa forms in triplicate for this task, you could have done so yourselves. I do not agree that bot policy requires it, but if you do, you might want to do something about certain editors doing controversial jobs in article space. (However, I would suggest that some of the admins who've commented above should read the bot policy again before they consider enforcing it.) I've been removing these transclusions for about a year as part of tidying up banners and talk pages. At some point, months ago (at least before January 2009), I added it to the code to avoid making two edits. I've been for the last two years now maintaining various parts of the GA process, including fixing all sorts of problems these transclusions cause. Commonly, they are not linked properly in the {{GA}} template, and when an article is moved, the transclusions sometimes become redlinks. Given the unending problems that nobody else seems interested in fixing, and the nothing-but-grief I get for doing this, the solution here is obvious. I'll keep doing FAC, and everyone can thank Rschen7754 for volunteering to do all other talk page template and related work from now on. Gimmetrow 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupendous: your attention is needed to continuing to build articlehistories (as you've been doing for well over two years now) and is appreciated at FAC and FAR. Of course it's troubling that few people commenting on the issue seem to have clue about everything the bot does, and the need for it, in terms of building templates into articlehistory to eliminate talk page clutter, without losing anything. Does this mean that when a FAC is botified into articlehistory, GA will no longer be included in articlehistory? Or that articlehistory errors will increase when non-bot editors now go back to try to retroactively add them? Unfortunate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't keep doing this forever. Good a time as any to stop. Gimmetrow 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably about time for you to stop, as you appear unwilling to listen to reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contributing to a hostile environment. It is in part because of comments like these. which you have been making for months, that I have no incentive to help you. Some might even construe your comments as personal attacks, perhaps? I wonder how ethical it was for you to support a block based on a faulty argument, and without disclosing past history? Gimmetrow 10:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread highlights the insidious damage caused by AN and AN/I forums: editors commenting who have no background or understanding of the issues, costing Wikipedia a valuable resource, partly because of ignorance and misinformation about the process. If the solution is that GAs are no longer considered part of {{Articlehistory}} because there is no one to do the task, then that could work, except that I suspect that what will happen is that now other editors will try to add GAs to articlehistory, causing the error category to go bonkers and rendering *all* articlehistories a mess, after more than two years of work has gone in to building them correctly (thanks to Gimmetrow). It would be helpful to hear some voices of reason and moderation in here, from people who understand the issues, because this destruction of articlehistories will also affect FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) and SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) on this one and quite frankly don't know why others are making such a big deal about it. When a GA Review finishes on an article I am working on, I generally remove the transclusion myself, and change it to a subsection on the talk page that has a link to the GA Review subpage with a note like "This article recently had a GA Review, which resulted in blah. You can read the GA Review at [link]." It really is not that hard. For all of the tremendous work that Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) does for this project and the {{ArticleHistory}} process, editors should cut him some slack, and more than that, be grateful for his help. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an ill-defined problem here which seems to be related to the way the GA process is handled. In FAs, it's clear when a review is finished, and a human being tells GimmeBot when to botify it into articlehistory. If the process isn't well defined at GA, that should be cleared up within the GA process, not by shooting the bot operator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the bot operator if there was any consensus for this. He indicated there wasn't any. I asked him to stop. He refused. ... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy mother of pearl. An AN/I discussion about removing transcluded GA reviews from talk pages. Seriously? Was this such a big deal that it needed to be brought up? I think that everyone's time here could be better spent on reviewing FACs. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This didn't have to go to ANI. Gimmetrow could have simply fixed his bot. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this thread is an example of moaning for the sake of moaning? The bot is doing a perfectly acceptable task, so why create issues when there are none? Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point - the GA transclusions are being removed from the talk pages. This was never agreed upon by anybody. This was never approved by BAG or the community. I do not oppose GimmeBot's work on FAC or even the rest of the things it does for GA - I just requested that the transclusions of the review pages be left in place. The operator refused to do so, and I thus brought it to ANI. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Jenuk is not the one missing the point. The transclusions are being linked in Articlehistory. If there's a problem with the links, that should be solved at the GA level-- this process works perfectly with FAs. This is a most unfortunate assault on a much useful bot and hard-working bot owner, who isn't thanked often enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

However, that makes it more difficult for somebody to look at the reasons why the article was passed. As for "most unfortunate assault" - you seem to miss the point that I asked him to stop doing this. The only reason this is at ANI is because of his refusal. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, this is at ANI because an editor did not cave to your demands.... Gimmetrow 01:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edited from this:

“ Just saw this on AN. Too bad it was closed, but Rschen7754 is protesting Gimmetrow regarding removal of transcluded GA reviews.

Drama over the stupidest things, it never fails to amaze. I wish an edit war would start up to toss this thing on WP:LAME.

”

-- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a... greatly edited quote. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr and World Series

From time to time we get users insisting that the World Series has no right to call itself a "world championship" and they post editorializing comments to that effect. Usually one reversion and a warning are enough. Sometimes a block is needed. This is a little different, as Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insist on this point, despite being opposed by other editors so far, even with one editor posting some (additional) explanatory material on the matter. Can something be done to stop that guy's editorializing? He won't listen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for one day for disruptive editing. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that like how p'd I am that the Miss Universe pageant doesn't have contestants from Pluto, or even from outside of the System of Sol? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have the distinct impression that some of the contestants are from some species based upon silicone derived lifeforms... (the need to breathe methane, as opposed to the carbon/oxygen relationship in the known lifeform systems contributes, I am certain, to the "air headedness" of some of the comments) while others simply appear to be from another planet/reality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the editing was disruptive, why block without a warning? Is there something more at play here? Blueboy96 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well he was obviously past 3RR and editing disruptively, as he is an established user he should know about edit-warring. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it should be noted at this point the block has expired. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Left notes for both users [1], [2]. Looking into this I could certainly have left a warning for Centpacrr (talk · contribs) first and I should have done that, but also I think the block was appropriate. I also admit that Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)'s behavior in this instance could have been looked into further as well. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A warning perhaps should've been given, but the block and explanation seems satisfactory to me. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks, agreed. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Along with this ANI report, I reported the situation to the Baseball Project page so that those who actually know something about the subject could weigh into the discussion. Which they did. At that point I backed off from editing the article, and other editors arrived at a compromise solution that addresses Centpac's complaints while leaving out his editorializing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, glad that's all been resolved. Cirt (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Megan1976

Megan1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) impersonated Megan1967 (talk · contribs), a confirmed sock of JamesBurns (talk · contribs). The account was mainly used for discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyde, identified as a sock there, but never blocked AFAIK. Is there a reason for not blocking it? Would an admin mind doing so? I know it's a very (c)old case, but atm all AfDs where JB or one of his socks contributed to are being revisited. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi HexaChord, according to the block list the account is blocked, but not according to the block log, which is weird. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. I wasn't clever enough to look at the block list. Maybe it's missing in the block log because it's very old? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The account shows as blocked shame on whoever tried to make like they were Megan. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Two other socks from above Afd, Spyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Zoombini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seem not to be blocked at all, right? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So very old, thanks for bringing them up but otherwise there seems aught for an admin to do, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
          • One of them edited again two years after the AfD and could be used again as soon as needed for whatever. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leanne. It appears that the impersonated account was itself an impersonation. So your comment applies twice over. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
        • What do you think about blocking the socks? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation by User:Kbdank71 in moving user page to mainspace

I have been having some longstanding problems with User:Kbdank71, that seem to be reaching a boil on his part. In response to a questionable close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 6#Knuckleball pitchers, I created a user subpage at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers to be used as documentation for what appeared to be a likely DRV. After providing information indicating that his close was problematic, he relisted the category for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Knuckleball pitchers. I raised issues with User:Jc37 about his close on his talk page, only to find that Kbdank71 was stalking me there, letting me know that my user page had been moved to mainspace. In his edit here, Kbdank71 insisted that my user sub page was created in violation of WP:POINT and was being moved to mainspace despite the fact that I had clearly indicated that it was not ready to be moved, that the page is written describing other Wikipedia pages and is in unencyclopedic form, in addition to the fact that the user subpage was created in full compliance with Wikipedia:User page. In violating WP:POINT, Kbdank71 moved a nonencyclopedic user page into mainspace, requiring that the damage he created be repaired by undoing the move and restoring content he had deleted. Kbdank71 then proceeded to make an improper cut-and-paste move here, which violates the same GFDL he cited as his excuse for making the move in the first place. While I am unsure as to what justifies this persistent harassment from User:Kbdank71, an admin who clearly knows what policy is and as with all admins is expected to uphold these policies, but any help in dealing with this abuse of process on his part will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, are you asking for a cross-space redirect like here? Not having looked at the history too much, ok, this discussion says to listify to your space. I do find it strange from someone to move someone else's userspace page into article space for some reason, but I'll wait to see what Kbdank has say because this isn't exactly explanatory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The result was indeed "listify and delete", which I am reluctantly forced to challenge given the problems with the close. What User:Jc37 incorrectly calls a complete list, ready to serve as a substitute for the deleted category, was created by me as evidence to overturn the close as deletion, first by Kbdank71 and then by Jc37. My user subpage was written in a rather unencyclopedic manner, quoting how their Wikipedia articles refer to them. While it could well become an article in mainspace in the future, it will require significant revisions to meet Wikipedia standards. Until then, Kbdank71's decision to move the article to mainspace without reading the subpage or making any consultation on the matter appears to have been done exclusively to make the WP:POINT that the list now existed. The cut and paste move only violates the GFDL he claimed as justification for the move in the first place. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10, again

[3], [4], posting to my talk page about his block. Blocked for block evasion, socking on 16 April 2009, after this discussion thread at ANI. I blocked both of the IPs for the block evasion/socking as well. Other administrators feel free to look into above and change something if needed, but at this point probably not much else to do. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here is some other material on this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/I-210 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of I-210. Also more at [5]. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the only way to get him to be entirely blocked is to block the entire 75.47.0.0/16 range. However, we can't just block the range indefinitely... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing comments by IP

There is an IP making dozens of disruptive edits to the Ayn Rand page. Some of the comments are disturbing. While (as many here will know) I am appreciative of an abrupt and robust approach, these comments go beyond what even I find acceptable. The admixture of capitalized words is also scary. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. MBisanz ^talk 08:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Ikip for canvassing

{{Resolved}} Blocking admin recused, no consensus that Ikip had violated canvassing rules, Ikip unblocked. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

 – Unblocked; see next section.

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

I've blocked Ikip (talk · contribs) for AFD canvassing, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). I invite review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was he canvasing at? Aren't you suppose to post a few links to prove your point? Dream Focus 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it just that one area? Where he mentioned something was at the AFD, at two other articles on characters from the series that were up for deletion as well recently? When delitionists make their rounds, nominating everything from a particular series at once, those involved in one should be made aware of the similar debates, since its basically the same thing usually anyway. In this case character articles from a series were all nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 10:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has long made a practice of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS, and makes a regular practice of linking AFDs to favorable venues. His article talk contributions speak for themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And another related article was up for AFD three months ago, but other than that only the one article was on AFD. That's not "character articles from a series[..] all nominated for deletion" or "delitionists mak[ing] their rounds". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMiB - as a deletion-minded editor you are not unimpartial and not uninvolved. You shouldn't be the blocking party here. Ikip should be unblocked immediately by you and discussion and consensus achieved. Okay, you didn't comment in this AfD but your views are pretty obvious on the matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This attitude is disturbing to me. It gives anyone who villifies their opposition a shield against criticism or censure by that opposition, because obviously that villification is the only reason they'd act, right? Ikip has been warned and warned and warned, by a variety of editors and admins, about various probes of the limit of WP:CANVASS, and continues to constantly advertise AFDs, policy discussions, and many other discussions to favorable venues. My stance here has been consistent. The canvassing is a problem. It needs to stop. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of such shields amount to attempts to change the subject off the problematic behaviour. In many case it should be view as gaming the system. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Were the rules of WP:canvassing broken? Was it not a Friendly notice, which is allowed? There was Limited posting AND it was Neutral in the announcement, AND Nonpartisan, AND had Open transparency. If you believe someone has violated a rule, then you should discuss it here with others, and let the editor defend himself, before taking such an action. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm missing something here. This is the only edit (of two in total by Ikip) to that deletion discussion, which appears to come firmly under the heading of Wikipedia:CANVASS#Friendly_notices (if even that, since WP:CANVASS is more relevant to user talkpage edits than article talkpages). I also see you didn't get round to placing any warning that you'd blocked Ikip, nor did you mention on their talkpage the existence of this thread (I've now rectified that omission). Tonywalton ^Talk 10:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only do so much at once. I left a note at his talk page regarding the block immediately after blocking, then invited ANI review, then replied to DF at the same time you put a notice on his talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit says nothing about a block. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was going to be unclear that he was blocked, what with the big "You have been blocked!" thing whenever he tries to edit. However people end up feeling about the block, hairsplitting about the wording of a block notice doesn't particularly interest me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see it as tangential. Blocking someone unilaterally, without any apparent consensus, failing to warn them of it in a polite (or indeed any) manner previously, then taking it here without having the courtesy to mention it to them are what I might call unacceptable behaviour rather than hairsplitting, and do interest me. This is hardly conduct likely to encourage editor to modify their behaviour. I agree with others here; this is not a good block. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here. First, this pattern of canvassing isn't new. He's been warned about it both here and on his talk page, most recently over the whole WP:ARS recruitment fiasco and similar "FYI" posts for WT:FICT. Second, I was busy considering my first reply here when you linked the ANI thread on his talk page; I didn't even get a chance. I am done discussing the latter point, but invite review of the former. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we obviously have major issues with canvassing and votestacking on AfD and the Article Rescue Squadron, this isn't really a good block. Not so much because you're involved, but he hasn't really caused mass disruption. If he'd spammed a lot of editors with a partisan message then fine, block away, but a few editors (even if it's known they'll probably contribute in a certain way) with a "FYI" message? A stiff warning would've been better here. However, AMIB is absolutely right that the disruption emanating from certain quarters of the ARS (which has now moved into projectspace) needs to stop. Black Kite 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. Testing the limits of WP:CANVASS is not forbidden, breaking it is. If your only reason for blocking him is that he did not in fact break the rules, then the block was wrong. As this discussion shows, there is no such consensus that his actions were block-worthy and you should have considered proposing a block here rather than just doing it. Even if you are not biased against this editor, your past history and your actions may be seen as such - something you should have avoided by allowing the community to make that decision. There was no need for any rush in blocking ikip and thus there was none for you to do it. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to avoid making this into a whole ARS versus the world mess. I still believe in the basic good work of WP:ARS. I don't want blocking Ikip to be used by anyone as "This is an example of the disruption WP:ARS is causing!" nor do I want to see unblocking him used as vindication of misuse of that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is not what you want but how people will react. You have to admit that you were involved with this editor in the past and that you occupy a philosophy on the other end of the spectrum. Both is not forbidden but both will definitely lead to such associations, whether you like it or not. The point is this: If you know about those things and there is no real need for a block to stop current disruption, you should always bring it here before blocking, not afterwards. Even the (unfounded) suspicion that an admin might use his/her tools to sanction an editor who they have difficulties with is very damaging for the trust the community has for their admins. Again, noone is saying you did it because of that but some comments below (like Cameron Scott's) prove that this is definitely how some people will view this and you should have considered this before taking action against ikip. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB's issue seems to be with the following diffs [6] [7] [8]. But these were postings related article talk pages, which are acceptable and in fact encouraged by AfD guidelines. Quote: "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate." The notifications were neutral, and could have been picked up by editors wanting to help merge just as much as !vote keep. Ikip also informed users on the AfD of his notices [9] as encouraged by guidelines. It seems abundantly clear to me that Ikip should not have been blocked, and certainly not unilaterally by AMIB. the wub "?!" 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the block for the reasons given by AMIB. Verbal chat 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No real comment about this particular block (no time to look into it), but I had email about Ikip and canvassing this morning as well as seeing this on my watchlist. Which is just to say that there is at least one other situation going on right now where he's been accused of inappropriately canvassing. This might be worth having a peek at as well, at least according to one of the people who have contacted me with concern about this issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What if the nominator did not inform anybody of the AfD discussion? It is suggested in WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO to contact other editors or projects. Can someone be blocked for doing what the nominator should have done as part of the nomination? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block for inappropriate canvassing, per original arguments and additional citations given. I see someone brought up the "deletionist" bullshit already; so early! seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the block since some seem to be trying to divert the attention to AMIB's role in the action rather than why it was done. David D. (Talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, so long as we're !voting. 1) WP:AFDHOWTO explicitly states "Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.". The ONLY diffs I've yet to see cited, [10] [11] [12] (it seems the blocking admin either cannot or will not provide any of his/her own) consist entirely of "FYI" and a sig. Seems perfectly in-line with stated policy. I also note, with some interest, that there is no block notice on Ikip's page. Is AMIB ashamed of letting non-cabal members of his actions here for some reason...? Snarfies (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I was the one who brought this to a wider noticeboard for review. Give me a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know already why Ikip has been blocked? Not that it would change anything, but at least it would light up things a bit... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is that AMiB has used admin tools in a dispute where he has been an involved party. See Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED - this is not good. AMiB, how do you define that you are an uninvolved admin in this situation? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How am I involved? I've outlined a pattern of problematic behavior, each time ending up in a general warning to Not Do This Again. To my knowledge Ikip hasn't canvassed any discussion I've had a large part of except WP:FICT, where he was canvassing editors who agreed with me that it was a bad idea.

The only involvement I have with Ikip that wasn't chiefly in agreement with him is saying "Stop canvassing, dude" and being attacked for it. The idea that attacking an admin who warns you to stop doing something disruptive "involves" them to the degree that they cannot act to stop you from persisting in that disruptive conduct is baffling to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Casliber has an obligation to define exactly how he believes A Man In Black is an involved admin. Certainly it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that admins are only permitted to act against editors that share their personal philosophy about exclusionism/inclusionism. I'm not a big fan of this particular block, as I've shared on AMIB's talk page. Not being a fan of this block doesn't mean I think that AMIB has violated WP:INVOLVED, though.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This diff merits discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the definition of whether people think you are involved or not depends on whether they agree with you. AMIB actions were correct, this is gaming and canvassing and should be stopped. This whole involved/univolved thing is tedious. AMIB brought it here for discussion, so attacks against him should stop. Verbal chat 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB failed to provide evidence supporting the block. Editors should not have to guess. If AMIB doesn't have time to to a block properly, AMIB shouldn't do it.
• The notices we guessed were the basis were proper, allowed, or even encouraged. Ikip was not violating WP:CANVASS.
• AMIB was acting outside community consensus here, and that some editors seem eager to support this block goes to show....
• Because concerns were raised about action while involved, AMIB should have immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock, if AMIB wasn't willing to unblock directly.
• Because there is clearly no consensus for block, and blocks should represent consensus, and because there has been adequate discussion here to make this clear, User:Ikip should be immediately unblocked by any neutral admin who comes across this discussion. --Abd (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  On the fourth point, isn't that what coming here for review means? I don't much interact with the bureaucracy of blocking. If I need to say so outright, then any admin can reverse my administrative actions if they feel that they are improper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, AMIB, that makes it very clear, and could avoid further disruption. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As for reversing it myself, I'm torn; the opposition is "This was not a good reason to block," the support is "Despite that this user is obnoxious and this just happens to be on the inside of the technical line." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You have no obligation to unblock, unless you conclude that the block was in error. Let me suggest that it was, because the actions Ikip took that you considered canvassing were actions that are routinely accepted as proper or even desirable, even if the effect might be some differential participation at the AfD. He wasn't just "on the inside of the technical line," he was doing what is allowed or even suggested. If you unblock, this resolves this whole disruptive dispute, in one stroke. Hence it would be laudable. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've looked at the diff's and I don't see what's the problem with Ikip's notifications. The notices were neutral in content and at related talk pages. Canvassing is allowed and "votestacking" seems to be thrown around a lot without any evidence. Like Casliber, I'm troubled that the admin my not be completely uninvolved in these articles. With that kind of power, AMIB should have deferred to another neutral admin for review or at least solicited comment before taking unilateral action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattnad (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Improper due to the previous involvement of User:A Man In Black who has been stirring up trouble about this for days now. There was no breach of WP:CANVASS and a block is not an appropriate response in any case as blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've criticized Banjeboi for proposing the modification of a template to solicit people directly to a deletion discussion when it was originally intended for something else. I don't recall Ikip even being involved in that discussion.

  If you mean questioning whether Ikip's canvassing of various discussions strictly to favorable audiences is a good idea, well, you caught me. Damn me for asking for input first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As an utterly neutral and uninvolved party, I am very troubled by the way this discussion is going about, which is more like a witch-hunt than anything else. I would like to review the unblock and cannot support an unblock until things calm down so that the evidence can be reviewed properly. If you make a claim that an admin is involved, you need to provide diffs first - asking the admin to prove how he is uninvolved first is absolutely unreasonable. Interim support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The possible problem with involvement has been resolved by AMIB through his explicit recusal, so it is moot, leaving only the issue with the block itself. NCMV, your comment criticized the "witch-hunt" against AMIB, but then supported (interim) the block without giving a reason. Given that the stated reason for the block was defective, as there was no canvassing, but only quite proper, even desirable neutral notice to articles under AfD, I'd think you could agree that unblocking is appropriate now. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In striking my vote, I neither endorse or oppose the unblock as I am still asking questions to both administrators to satisfy my concerns over how this was handled broadly; this includes questions over the initial block. But this does not detract from you inappropriately closing this in the absence of allowing discussion of the subsequent unblock; I note that the unblocking admin appropriately reverted your closing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block It's just part of a pattern of behaviour by members of the Article Canvassing Squadron - look at the recent discussion at the project page, it's a political focused inclusionist activist group and should be closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is not the kind of support I am looking for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes and? You must have mistaken me for some form of robot or drone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then let me clarify. This accusation has nothing to do with why I blocked Ikip, and I would not want to see him blocked based on this accusation, which I believe is false. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to support what Ncmvocalist has said. We should review the block, not who made the block. A decision is either right or wrong, it does not change depending on who made it. Chillum 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• AMIB is an involved admin deep in the inclusionist/deletionist wars, and involved admins are explicitly forbidden from using their tools. AMIB at this point has no more standing to use his tools to process AFDs, or anything related to them. He needs to respect that, or the next time he's probably on a short train to RFC and then Arbcom. rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Exceptional claims require exceptional justification. Either take this to the arbcom to have my admin bit removed over this, or strike it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, we are reviewing the block, not the admin. Either the block was correct or incorrect, who made it is not going to change that. I will not accept the idea that the same decision can be correct when one person makes it and incorrect when another makes it. Either it is a correct decision or it is not. Chillum 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hear hear. I agree. Re the ARS: If there are problems with the ARS (and there may be, or with a subset) then that is a separate matter and should be brought up elsewhere. Verbal chat 14:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Up to now we still don't know the reason for the block. We're still guessing. Therefore we can't discuss the block. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Kay, I will elaborate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip has made a practice of pushing the limits of WP:CANVASSING. At every opportunity, he advertises any contentious discussion with which he is involved to any sympathetic party (most infamously here, advertising an otherwise-neutral project on hundreds of article talk pages of people with "inclusionist" userboxes), not respecting any requests that he desist save when they are enforced, and following only the letter of the rules. When anyone calls him on this, he goes on the attack, describing them as deletionists or devoted to destroying article content. However, he's aware that soliciting only those who agree with him is wrong (criticizing Ryan4314 for it here), but continues to walk the line any way he can.

I blocked him because I do not feel that Ikip will respect any sanction that is not enforced. I respect that the reason I blocked him in this case may have been within the letter of the rules; the wording of the rules shifts often enough that I'm not always 100% up to date. Nevertheless, I feel that this is a pattern of disruptive behavior that needs addressing.

Diffs forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ikip
• That's all we need. How long ago was this blockable canvassing? Also, read my note to Chillum. You as an admin have zero standing or authority to levy this block as one of the deepest "deletionist" partisans on this site, just as anyone deeply involved in the squadron would have zero standing or authority to undo it. You must undo this block and not do such a thing again, or you will not be long for your tools once the Arbitration Committee sees what you're about. All that aside, blocks are preventative. Note: that's preventative for Wikipedia's protection, not your political inclinations. You pretty much missed the goal as far right as you can on this one, for being involved. rootology (C)(T) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Edit conflicting with me trying to edit them in isn't gonna get them here any faster. Also, I'm adding diffs for my assertions; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock. There is hardly ANY canvassing here, and cross-posting a note that is just the AFD itself plus the text "FYI" to a tiny handful of talk pages is not canvassing or disruptive to the AFD process, which already has too few people looking at it. I would unblock myself, but I don't think I'm a totally uninvolved editor in regards to Ikip. In regards to inclusionism/deletionism, I'm 100% uninvolved (just look at how many AFDs I've begun and I believe I'm about 66% delete, the last time I looked at the stats). rootology (C)(T) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, I am uninvolved with this editor. We just used to chat back in 2006, and then he literally leaped down my throat and went off on me, on the worst terms imaginable with zero faith in me back then, and then basically said "Welcome back, congratulations," last year. Based on the zero evidence preceeding the block (involvement aside, we do NOT block for long-past or even days-past actions) in Ikip's contributions, I have unblocked. Any uninvolved admin may reblock that's not one of these people in the fights if required. rootology (C)(T) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to carefully justify the accusations you have made against AMIB. Being an exclusionist doesn't render him impotent when dealing with inclusionist editors, just as being an inclusionist doesn't render one impotent when dealing with exclusionists. If you believe that AMIB is so deeply involved with Ikip that his behaviour is skirting with Arbcom sanctions, I suggest that you provide evidence to support that belief.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support block - we give far, far too much leeway to those who game the system, and should look particularly dimly upon those who have been warned multiple times before to stop doing it. We should also look extremely dimly upon those who show up to these sorts of discussions only to throw around ad hominem 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' insults--for make no mistake, when one editor calls another either of those things, it is almost always intended as an insult. //roux   15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose block 3 friendly neutral notices, placed exactly where and how they are supposed to be as per guideline, do not constitute canvassing. Had there neen 20 notices, there might be a case. But 3?? No consensus over the 3 edits was asked for or reached. Due process was not followed. Pique over perceptions of past edits or edit history do not justify lack of process in this one instance. Although Ikip might have pushed the guidelines a bit in the past, in this case he did no such thing... only upset an editor who does not agree with his editing style. Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Rationale for my unblock

1st:

• Ikib blocked by AMiB on 10:18, April 26, 2009. AMiB for starters has no authority or right to block for anything related to the Article Rescue Squad, Deletionism, or Inclusionism, or anything like that, barring vandalism, as one of the major players on the "Deletionist" side. This would be like User:DGG or another user widely perceived to be on the 'other' side doing likewise. We don't allow politics in the use of admin tools, and I encourage AMiB to never do this sort of thing again, as it's a short road to RFAR and losing his bit.

2nd:

1. Wikipedia space: Nothing for 72+ hours.
2. Article talk: Nothing for 72+ hours.
3. User talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.
4. Wikipedia talk by Ikip: Nothing for 72+ hours.

Again, any demonstratably uninvolved admin can freely reverse my unblock, I waive all wheel warriness, etc rootology (C)(T) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• A bit more discussion here. rootology (C)(T) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you didn't address any of my comments to Casliber on this subject while still accusing me of being involved, but I respect unblocking due to a lack of a pressing issue to prevent. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The first part of your argument is a real stretch, and it's part of the reason why disruptive inclusionists and exclusionists seem to operate under a protective shield. Admins on the same side aren't inclined to block, admins on the opposite side use an extreme interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to justify inaction, and admins uninvolved in the issue at all are so tired of the mess that they don't poke their nose into it. AMIB has not participated in the discussion in question, and seems not to be involved with Ikip except for repeated warnings about canvassing and near-canvassing. Your second argument is that after having been warned by an admin multiple times about behaviour, the editor does it again, and the admin didn't catch it fast enough? I think arguments against the block based on Ikip not having technically violated the canvassing rules warrant discussion, and I can respect those. Arguing that no exclusionist can ever block an inclusionist or vice versa means that we might as well give up and split the project in two.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all--just report the issues here, and the uninvolved folks can sort it out. The same as anything else. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice theory ... in practice, they just turn into squabbles that people tune out, like this one: giant squabblefests with one group of admins afraid to act, another group uninclined to act, and everyone so eager to blame it on inclusionism/exclusionism that they don't evaluate the situation and judge whether the underlying behaviour of either party warrants action.—Kww(talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being overly idealistic. rootology (C)(T) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably 90% of active admin are uninvolved in fiction, and at least half do other things than participate in deletion/inclusion debates at all. But they're willing to help out in other areas as neutrals, just as I ewill comment here on things i don't otherwise actively work on. I don't primarily hunt down vandals or copyvio or BLP violations (unless I happen to come across them) but if there's a dispute about it, I can look. That's what this board is for. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's not what happens on this board. Hell, we are on AN/I right now and look what is happening. Admins and editors are sorting neatly into groups based on their preferences and those without preferences are either ignoring the issue or clucking their tongues at what a shame it is to have disputes like this. At what point are we allowed to just say that treating wikipedia like a battleground is OK as long as your area of advocacy is notability of fictional subjects? Because that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No accusation was made, Root. He just said that in practice the model doesn't work. Most of the cases do tend to fall right along the lines that Kww mentioned. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason to re-impose this block, so endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Nuff said

I don't think A Man In Black blocked for political reasons or out of bad faith, but perhaps he should have sought community opinion before the fact, rather than after the fact. I don't think Rootology should have been the one to do the unblocking since he is to some extent involved, but I don't think he unblocked in bad faith either.

FWIW, I would have unblocked if Ikip had requested unblocking via template. The fact that he didn't is rather odd, but that's neither here nor there. Both admins involved here were a bit quick to hit the buttons, but I don't see any reason to think that either were being quick out of malice or without a belief that they were taking correct action. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of problematic adminship?

This is not the first time A Man In Black has blocked someone with whom he was involved and which garnered the community's scrutiny. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Review_of_A_Man_In_Black.27s_block_of_Jtrainor. Given this admin's extensive block log for edit warring as well, I strongly urge the community to consider to what extent adminship has been abused by this editor when dealing with opponents per [{WP:INVOLVED]]. After all, don't we as a community occasionally consider desysopping after two bad blocks? We have at least two questionable blocks as well as a long history of edit warring. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A block that ended a long-running case of brinksmanship over copyright is a clear example of a a pattern of inappropriate blocks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen nothign wrong with AMiB's actions as an admin, and I've been on the wrong side of it before. Knock it off. One dubious block in which the major opposition is a direct attack on AMiB's 'wikipolitics' is hardly anything, and another lbock which was reviewed is also not enough. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, desysopping is only handled by Jimbo Wales and Arbcom, and if the administrator elects it, WP:RECALL (which AMiB does not), so either User talk:Jimbo Wales or WP:RFAR. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AMIB has a history of edit warring, and then blocking people to get his way. I can't say I'm terribly surprised he would misuse his tools in other venues as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jtrainor was invited to rehash his six-month-old dispute over copyright with me by Ikip here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, as I regularly browse and comment on WP:ANI (as my contrib history will show) and thus would've noticed this eventually anyways. Ikip just sped the process up a bit. Jtrainor (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Ikip leaving a note regarding this ANI post on the talk page of an editor favorable to his particular position isn't relevant at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Having likewise been blocked over opinions of content issues during a dispute, I likewise believe that A Man In Black has gone above and beyond his station in certain instances. Perhaps not material for an RFAR, but nevertheless Jtrainor should not be singled out as a unique "problematic" case - this has happened before and to other people. MalikCarr (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, MalikCarr, at the same time and for the same cause as Jtrainor, also here rehashing that same six-month-old dispute. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip didn't leave a note on Malik's page, however. Anyways, saying "it's old" is irrelevant when one is attempting to display a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to involved or at least questionable blocks of Jtrainor, MalikCarr, and Ikip, at least one other has come under scrutiny as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Edit_War_at_Now_Museum.2C_Now_You_Don.27t_.26_Request_for_review_of_actions. The revert warring mentioned there has actually occurred on SIX articles and not just the one discussed at ANI (I am surprised that hadn't been brought up yet at ANI): [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The only problem I see here is a bunch of editors with a vendetta. Such witch hunts look worse for the hunters than the so called witches. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Care to provide some evidence for that claim? Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) When fully half of your entire edits to Wikipedia have been reverting content disputes with an admin, and three-quarters of your blocks from that same admin, you tend to take on a rather jaded perspective to the whole project. Incidentally, he's not referring to a dispute six months ago, but rather to a dispute that lasted six months, went through RFC and ARB, and still didn't really produce any firm conclusions. I'd argue that the recourse from that isn't a vendetta, rather simply seeking returns on great inequities. MalikCarr (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Self evident? Are you joking? No really, please provide some evidence for your sweeping claims. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Read the whole thread here. A request for block review is brought here. It is was undone. There was no argument other than an agree to disagree conclusion. That should have been the end of the discussion but the whole thread goes off on mulitple tangents. Focus on the the big picture and keep content dispute to the article talk pages. David D. (Talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I have read the whole thread. I don't see how this condenses to a content dispute and I don't see how going off on "tangents" offers evidence for your accusation that editors/admins here have been motivated by a vendetta. Perhaps you'd like to retract that accusation. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Is the word vendetta your only problem? How about grudge? You really think this whole thread is only about the block in question? David D. (Talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) My main problem is the fact that editors are intent on abandoning AGF without any great cause to do so. I would hope that if you think AMiB is acting on a vendetta that you provide some evidence--evidence beyond the fact that he has brought Ikip's conduct here before and beyond vague hints at wikistance. I'm also well aware that this thread isn't just about the block in question. That's part of the problem. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Actually I'm still waiting for the diffs that resulted in the block of Ikip in the first place. Did AMiB already provide them? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I need a scorecard or something, this thread is turning into allusions to implications to veiled accusations of implied misdoing... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, you need to just shut your damn yap and stop replying to every accusation :-). Just sayin. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A question

To get things straight, is there now some sort of more expansive standard for involvement that I don't see in WP:UNINVOLVED applied to admins on one side or the other of a wikistance dispute--or more accurately, admins who have been characterized by third parties as being on one side or the other? Because if there is it better be written in policy that has some community consensus and if there isn't we better stop reversing blocks without speaking to the blocking administrator on the basis of this imagined new "recusal" framework.

More to the point, when we find this new raft of administrators who are neutral in every respect on every issue and who also have an interest in wading into these periodic shitstorms, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

first step is to ask here, not assume there isn't anybody. DGG (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is noone who is neutral on every issue but that's not needed anyway. You just need an admin who is neutral on the issue at hand and there are plenty of those. As DGG says, ask here before assuming that there is noone. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I could speak for Protonk, I think his point was that if the standard for being uninvolved comes down to whether the community views you as inclusionist or deletionist, we're in for trouble. Does the community see me as inclusionist or deletionist? I have no idea, nor do I really care. Could you find three editors who see me as deletionist? You bet -- I could probably even give you a list. Could you find three who see me as an inclusionist? Yes, absolutely. But if that means I could never block an editor over misbehavior at AfD, then I doubt you'll find any admin who could.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being clear. I understand that help can and should be found on the admin boards. I'm just wondering why this apparent new standard for neutrality isn't written in policy anywhere. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(just woke up - need coffee but this important) There is no new standard here. We have a policiy on uninvolved and AMiB is way involved as a common player in the trenches at AfD on the opposing side to Ikip. This is patently obvious. Also it is especially important in greyer areas like the neutral wording of three notes to other uses. Rootology summed it up well above after I went to sleep last night. This is in no way a borderline case. Can you imagine if I blocked a deletionist for incivility? People would (rightly) point out my nonimpartial position. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're an inclusionist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. yep. Unless on misinformation, then no. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Do you send me the membership of the mailing list, then, so I know who I'm too involved to censure?

I generally leave such labeling nonsense to the people who actually care about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops)

In any event. WP:UNINVOLVED is about keeping administrators from using the tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute, I thought. I'm not actually in dispute with Ikip over anything, except that his conduct is inappropriate. I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points, or that I intend to go out drinking with him, but no block I could possibly make (save possibly an indefinite one) would ever silence his advocacy for article inclusion, nor would I want it to, nor would I meaningfully benefit from it.

If you genuinely thought that someone was being uncivil, then yeah, block them, be they deletionist, Republican, or Modovian separatist. Now, if you suspect that your evaluation is tainted by your personal feelings, sure, don't act, but administrators are trusted to use their judgement to evaluate a situation dispassionately.

Aren't they? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately an admin's judgment of being impartial can differ from what other users will see in a situation. As Casliber pointed out, this is probably not anything about deletionists vs. inclusionists but about your contributions which include a track record of debates on the opposite side to ikip. If any deletionist had made the block, I doubt we would have most of this discussion, it's just what happens if someone makes an administrative decision when they previously were in a content dispute with the same user. As a rule, I think admins should avoid taking administrative action against users who they were previously involved in a content discussion, even if they are not involved in the dispute which was reason for the action at hand. It would help avoid such accusations, at least a bit. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. AMiB and dispassionate. I certainly wouldn't have thought of that adjective in describing some of your exchanges. OK, you weren't on opposite sides in this particular AfD, but there have been many of these exchanges - I have had them with you myself there. "I don't think I could honestly say that I agree with him on all points" is rather an understatement don't you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you picked on that aside, but you still haven't ascribed to me an ulterior motive that makes sense. Posit that I'm a complete blackguard, willing to do whatever I can to accomplish...something. It can't be to shut Ikip up, because he's going to be back in two days to argue to keep articles, just like before. It can't be to make him less convicted to prevent articles from deletion, because any persecution will only galvanize him. It can't be to strike some greater blow against article inclusion, since a fair few passionate self-declared inclusionists keep Ikip at arm's length. So whatever it is Villainous AMIB is out to do, he's doing it pretty badly by blocking Ikip and coming to ANI for review.

I'm not so much offended by the accusation of bad faith (I'm not so naïve as to expect that in a sufficiently large group that nobody will see evidence of bad faith) so much as I'm offended by the implicit accusation that I'm a villain and I suck at it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your words not mine (re 'villain'). You are the one who has had some heated exchanges at AfD and has argued to delete in many. I am pointing out that you shouldn't use admin tools in AfD debates with someone on the opposite side. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole uninvolved admin bit is to keep admins from using the tools to gain some sort of advantage. The advantage I gain by blocking Ikip is... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...temporarily silencing someone of an opposing viewpoint whom you once proposed User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Silencing him from where? (And that was a joke about the silliness of citing clearly ridiculous proposals and essays. Clearly, "Note to self: Buy more stamps" was part of my plan to silence opposition.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabric hits the nail on the head. The problem with this nebulous, untwritten standard for involvement is that anyone can declare someone too partisan to render a decision. this isn't as simple as (as AMiB puts it) determining whether or not an admin has given him or herself the upper hand in a dispute with the tools. we are inventing some "meta-dispute" between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" whereby any admin who has expressed an opinion about content in any fashion can be ginned up to be party to this "meta-dispute". After someone has announced that said admin is party to the dispute, who are we to argue with them? AMiB has voted to delete things in the past and has (Gasp!) pulled the trigger and deleted things. But in the absence of some actual meta-dispute (note the lack of scare quotes) we have to be convinced that AMiB is so tainted by his prejudice that he will use the tools inappropriately.

so what is it? Is there some dispute on wikipedia that I am party to, despite not having voted in or closed and AfD for months? Where do I fit on the scale? who am I not allowed to block based on their stance? Because I want to know. apparently it is some community standard, long held, that I'm ignorant of. So clue me in. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced AMiBs participation here was wrong and gives the strong appearance of prejudice (regardless of motive). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave aside sundry issues with that declaration and press on my key point. Who may take action? I note that you haven't pressed particularly hard to state that Ikip was on the straight and narrow. Presuming that he wasn't, who is allowed to block? Who is allowed to block and ask for review (as AMiB did here)? Who is allowed to block only after seeking review? Where is all of this written? Protonk (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, my opinion on the action (neutrally worded notes on 3 editor's pages), is that it was in a grey area. I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing. Bakc to process - if I saw an editor which whom I was concerned there might be the perception of me being non-impartial, then I would ask here whether other admins thought it block-worthy. This happens fairly regularly here. If an action is genuinely blockable, other admins will concur and might do it themselves or give me the green light to do so. If it was an absolute no-brainer, eg editor is revelaed to be sock of banned editor, it is not such a big a deal as these grey areas above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I note that alot of deleters will spend more time at AfD than alot of content editors and keepers, but that is a bigger-picture thing."strikes me as unrelated, but ok. Where is this standard for admin action written down? where, if I were just learning how to be an admin, would I look for guidance on the subject? I just want to answer that. Here I'm deliberately avoiding discussing the presumption that a meta-debate constitutes an involvement just as an actual article debate would. I'll concede that for the sake of argument. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly simple. Have you and I been in content and/or policy disputes and/or DR escalations vs each other? If so, you and I have zero business or right using the tools on each other. There's a reason we have a thousand admins. If one of has been naughty, any one of them similarly uninvolved can take action if required. That's my standard, and I think that of most people. rootology (C)(T) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but I think it is even simpler. We have a standard for admin involvement at WP:INVOLVED. If no one here can point to some policy suggesting that the standard is much higher then we don't get to act as though it is. I mean, I agree with you that the ideal state is the invervening admin be neutral in all respects. But I'm not going out on a limb when I say that community practice doesn't being to approach this state as we have applied it here. To pick on two people, Stifle and Fut Perf both have clear, announced views on non-free image use. They have been involved in RfCs, content discussions, deletion debates, deletion reviews and so forth. Under this standard you propose, they would be unable to close an image deletion debate or block someone for uploading copyrighted material. How is that workable? what happens when the only people interested in working the trenches have a POV on the subject? Protonk (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will be borderline cases. This isn't borderline. I admit I'm surprised to see it, for I regard AMIB as one of the most level headed among the strong opponents of Ikip's position--AMIB and I have had useful discussions over the issues involved, on my talk p. and elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should dredge up the fact that being a fooist doesn't say anything about behaviour (for example, DGG and Cas are really nice chaps despite the fact I disagree with them sometimes) and being a barist doesn't automatically make you involved. That said, as much as Ikip irritates me, this block was more punitive rather than preventative. As rootology pointed out, he was dormant for two days prior. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my heart is inclusionist and my head is deletionist, so I am always looking for processes that will help editors to create notable articles. As far as I can assess from my lurking, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) seems to have a mission at the "heart" level that's incompatible with modern views of adminship neutrality. His September 2005 RfA was very light touch compared with the ordeal by fire that today's candidates have to endure, and few of his 2005 supporters seem to be active nowadays. I would feel more comfortable if he went through RfA again, perhaps after a tranche of coaching from Casliber if he is willing. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist might be on to something. Why not have admins go through the RfA process every couple years (kinda like an election for lack of a better term)...so the RfA isn't a one time only deal. I think that AMIB should go back through RfA and some coaching. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 00:52

@Neutral, see Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators. Unless AMiB submits to it, an ANI consensus could not force him to take a reconfirmation RfA just as it couldn't desysop him. All that can/should really be discussed here is the appropriateness of this block and whether it represents a pattern of nonconstructive behavior. If people believe strongly that it does and that action against him is required, then WP:RFAR is the place to go. Trying to push for outcomes that cannot happen here is a waste of time IMO. Oren0 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't force any admin to do a recall unless there is wide consensus to make recall mandatory for all admins. Good luck on that windwill... rootology (C)(T) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What Oren0 (talk · contribs) says is technically correct. However, editors' acceptance of admin actions is to some extent voluntary, and for the time being A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is discredited. Bear in mind that current RfA processes ask a lot of searching questions about dispute criteria, neutrality, self-abnegation etc., none of which A Man In Black had to respond to in 2005, so a period of coaching followed by voluntary RfA would help restore his lost credibility. - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this what prompted your strange refactoring of an innocuous comment? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, discredited is typically = desysopped, or confirmed bad socking, that sort of thing. I'm chalking this up to a momentary lapse and/or error, myself. Shit happens, we're human. rootology (C)(T) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Shit Happens" I would normally agree with, but when "shit happens" over and over and over again and it only happens when it is people who disagree with AMIB, it isn't "shit happening" anymore and it is intentional....and something needs to be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 27, 2009 @ 01:49

Assume the presence of a belly-button. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack, regular resysopping would be a massive timesink. Arbcom is the place for review of misuse of admin tools, and I suggest this has been the most underutilised piece in teh admin jigsaw puzzle in recent years. And yes I would recuse from arbitrating on folks I have been in conflict with or semblance of conflict. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notifications at related articles

I started a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles. One may note that I used notifications that I posted as the example. Flatscan (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Huang_Sir

This user keeps removing reliable sources from Republic of China and replaces them with a link to the Chinese Wikipedia. He has already been told numerous times in the talk page and in the revert comments that self published sources are not acceptable, but yet keep inserting his Wikipedia link. Here are some examples: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and there are many more (Actually, I think every single one of his edits are about his Wikipedia source). Laurent (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I just can't make him understand that Wikis and emails are not acceptable sources, and now he is posting crazy stuff on my talk page: [25]. Laurent (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just left him an {{ANI-notice}} --Rodhullandemu 13:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it an email, but a file,a respond, from the government which you can send to some Chinese to confirm it.Huang Sir (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at zh:Talk:中華民國#关于国土问题 and zh:Talk:中華民國#關於條目中華民囯首都問題 (need someone with a better grasp of Chinese than I have). There seems to be the Chinese Wikipedia equivalent of an RfC open on this exact issue- one in which Huang Sir is a principal participant. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could be helpful, however a decision that affects Wikipedia China doesn't necessarily affects the English Wikipedia. We also have a mediation request going on here for the Republic of China article. Laurent (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this to me; from what I can understand, the issue at Chinese Wikipedia is as yet unresolved. But, Huang Sir is trying to say that we should accept such a reference per a decision made at the Chinese Wikipedia. What that indicates I'll leave it up to you to decide- I hope it's just that my Chinese has suffered that much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also dropped a note at Huang Sir's user talk trying to explain why WP:V specifically forbids the use of such unpublished emails as sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Markacohen disruptive editing and forum shopping

Markacohen is a SPA whose main purpose is to add links to Holocaust denial sites into a range of articles. He claims to be an anti-Nazi and that he only wants to add them to "expose them as pseudo-science" and "shine the light of truths" into dark corners. He has come into conflict with a number of editors, has been blocked once for edit warring, and is now forum-shopping around Wikipedia, trying to sell a fairly creative interpretation of events. Methinks he does complain to much. This edit leads me to lay aside WP:AGF and assume that he is indeed a Neo-Nazi in disguise. I'd suggest a last warning or an immediate block. Input from other admins would be appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I genuinely apologize for the edit warring and personal attacks I made initially, and was blocked for 2 days to think about it - which I did. During those 2 days, I apologized to everyone numerous times, and pledged to work within the system to resolve issues in a civil manner. During those 2 days I began reading the policies and procedures on how to properly overcome disputes. It is my genuine and honest desire to bring resolution to some issues which seem very ambigious, I am genuinely asking for help in these regards.

I am asking in good faith and with genuine honesty:

1. What is the proper way to seek resolution or help over the problem of Dougweller editing, deleting and modifying my discussion posts, which I believe are preventing a civil and neutral discussion of some very sensitive, taboo and controversial subjects?

2. Can someone please help me get accurate understanding of the rules and regulations on linking to hate sites from a hate article? I understand Holocaust Denial is a very sensitive subject, so please tell me how to properly, get resolution over someone deleting a reference link to the Leuchter Report, from the Leuchter Report article.

3. What does this mean, Wikipedia is not a collection of links? Whenever I post some external links in a hate article about the very hate article, I had WilliamH delete the links saying Wikipedia is not a hate collection of links.

4. What is a SPA?

I am asking in good faith, honesty and with genuine purpose for help in these regards. I do not want to fight, I make no personal attacks, I am criticizing certain behaviors that I believe are making open debate difficult in the discussion area. I know this articles are very sensitive subjects, i'm seeking how to work within the system for resolution, which is why I went to these various places asking for help.

Please help me or tell me, how I can reword my language or questions, so they are not adversarial or causing problems.

I apologize for anyones feelings I hurt, in anything I said. I am genuinely want to be a productive member of wikipedia.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An SPA is a single-purpose account. The accusation is that you're here to make some sort of point or prove some sort of truth. (I haven't gotten involved in this to know what's going on, just clarifying the terms.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping me out here. I genuinely would like to be here for the long run, not just on controversial areas. I have been reading Wikipedia for more years than I can count (love it to death!), and to be part of this project is an honor and a privilege for me. My interest isn't only in Holocaust Denial / Genocide Denial, I have many other interests as well. Although, right now I have gotten into some heated discussion regarding the Holocaust Denial areas and seeking resolution. If the Administrators want, I will voluntarily resign from Wikipedia or simply no longer contribute to areas concerning taboo or controversial subjects. It would make me sad beyond belief if I was banned and banished from Wikipedia. I am humbly asking to please not kick me out of this community, I genuinely believe I can be a valuable asset here once I learn the rules for resolving issues.

Sincerely, Markacohen (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You've accused me today of stopping links to the Leuchter report without mentioning that I was one of 4 editors reverting you, or that there has been a link to it (albeit not to the hate sites you are trying to add) since the 23rd. You've tried to add similar links to Germar Rudolf and complained on the talk page about me and another editor, despite the fact that your rationale is that people need to read what he wrote, and we already link to what he wrote. So all your links would do is add links to hate sites. You say you want to "make sure the proper and accurate keyword(s) Pseudo Science or Pseudo History" but you seem to do nothing about that. Your links are all to hate sites, it is other people who (since you started this) have added links to debunking sites. You get reverted by 4 other editors and won't accept that there is a consensus against you but go around complaing and asking for someone to help, although during your block you were given the link to dispute resolution.

Full disclosure - Markacohen has complained about me at Witiquette Alert [26] because when after being reverted he added the links to the talk page and I removed the 'http://' bits. Everyone involved knew what the links were. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just do this like a week ago? //roux   16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Stephan Schulz may be on to something here, but I'll continue to assume good faith for now and wouldn't endorse a sanction at this stage. Markacohen, I strongly advise you to drop this and edit something else entirely. Per WP:RS and for other reasons, we are extremely reluctant to include external links to extremist and similarly problematic websites, except where the sites themselves are the subject of the article. Each such link (like any other article text) needs editorial consensus, and the links you want to insert currently have not. You will be taken much more seriously in any discussion about this issue if you dedicate a few months to making useful contributions to entirely uncontroversial subjects, in order to demonstrate that you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia and not a throwaway account with some disruptive agenda.  Sandstein  16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (Note: the preceding comment was added in parallel to those of Dougweller and Roux above, but for some reason there was no edit conflict.  Sandstein  16:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd strongly recommend not to assume good faith anymore. What makes me think that "Mark A Cohen" (why would someone "mark a cohen", actually?) is at best a kind of agent provocateur is his claim Leuchter is an "engineer" ([27]), a claim that has been debunked several times in court and elsewhere and is held up only by fellow Holocaust deniers ([28]). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been at WP:EAR for the past few days too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI I closed the thread at WP:WQA to avoid forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules

Can someone look at this SPI? It seems to have stalled after being noted as being borderline, meanwhile the editor in question is continuing to act in a disruptive fashion and making comments and personal attacks that seem to clearly indicate he is not as new as he purports to be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see why this is borderline. At 20:36 on April 16, AncientUni (talk · contribs) is blocked for being a blatant sock, after working on Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks earlier that day. At 10:15 on April 17 (i.e., first thing the next day), SonGoku786 (talk · contribs) is created and immediately begins rapid and sophisticated editing on Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks, taking up where AncientUni left off. Perhaps this is a case where too much evidence was presented in the SPI, obscuring the obvious pattern. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks on my watchlist and ask myself for several weeks now why there is so much activity, even edit warring when there was far less last year. What exactly is going on there? Isn't there a WikiProject about DBZ? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a Dragon Ball task force under the Anime/manga project, but it has only one or two active editors that I can think of, and there is no current task based effort to do anything with that article. Seems a bit odd to me...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Collectonian, you'll just have to put up with it until it is processed.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob, just wanted to make sure it hadn't gotten lost :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears they are on the same ISP which makes it pretty conclusive. You'll just have to wait for an admin to make a decision. You can post a link to here and case at WP:AN if you want it done as soon as possible.--Otterathome (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikademia

Wikademia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for spamming, made a number of unexplained edits adding __NOTOC__ and/or __NOEDITSECTION__ to seemingly random articles. I have undone several of the edits but, as it is quite tedious to do manually, would appreciate it if an experienced AWB user or someone with an appropriate script could take a look at it. Thanks! —Travis^talk 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, since the user is blocked, I have advised the user to comment -->there. —Travis^talk 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and undid his edits after taking a look at the talk page. I do believe this user was acting in good faith, but perhaps we should work it into the Manual of Style for when to use the __NOTOC__ and/or __NOEDITSECTION__ tags. Wikiademia, if you read this: Don't let this experience chase you off from Wikipedia; we could always use another helpful editor. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia review discussion of interest: [29] 66.31.40.74 (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Entertaining? Maybe. Irrelevant, though. —Travis^talk 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins: Please watchlist 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak

Guys, please watchlist 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak. The level of activity, editing, and news has been astonishing, and tomorrow as the week begins anew in the west will be even more insane. Given that we're at the top of the searches for Swine flu, which correctly links back to the outbreak article, which is on our main page, it's only a countdown now till our outbreak article is the #1 hit in general for searches. We need all hands on board for this one.

Please click here to watchlist it. rootology (C)(T) 18:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That article has been renamed (with consensus) to 2009 swine flu outbreak, so watchers should now click here. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Main page featured article semiprotection

Hey, I need a little help here. Ocee (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to semiprotect the past few TFAs, which goes against the currently accepted practice, despite my pleas to stop. Today's TFA, Operation Passage to Freedom, was semiprotected despite barely being touched, and I counted two IP edits that were positive contributions. While his idea is not completely without merit, I don't think that a unilateral decision to semiprotect accurately reflects the will of the community or the spirit of the project. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the semi. The edits in the history do not amount to relentless or extreme vandalism, which is the threshold for a TFA prot, and I've left a note to that effect in the log. I'm not about to go full-on guns blazing, however. If he prots again, I'm not going to sustain a wheelwar. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bongwarrior. "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by autoconfirmed users ... from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were true that "anyone can edit", there would be no such thing as an indefinite block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the persistence of some sock farms, apparently there isn't any such thing. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• TFA semi protection is A Bad Thing™, and just because a guideline "hasn't been discussed in a while" doesn't mean it has lost the support of the community. –xeno ^talk 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IP needs a long block

72.39.173.71 (talk · contribs) is an IP that's been stable for more than a year and a half, during which time the person behind it has done little other than vandalize articles (particularly Chatham-Kent and Cuckoo (disambiguation)), as well as the user pages of editors who warn him about his behavior. Today, for example, when I reverted his refactoring of an editor's message on his talk page, he left this on my user page (the possible validity of which statement hardly excuses it :-)). His last block was for a month; I think something a good deal longer is warranted now in the light of his continuing disruption. This seems a little complicated for AIV, so I'm bringing it here. Deor (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue coming from my end. Someone is piggy backing off my modem and has "hijacked" my IP. It's a known problem in my area, and I'm at a loss at to what to do about it other than switch service providers. Be advised that I have NOTHING to do with these edits... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.71 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really have no idea what to do about it, editing Wikipedia with an account would solve the problem. Then the IP could be blocked anon-only and you'd still be able to log in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake GA Reviews

New editor End of yarn just registered for an account, and passed Quark as a good article, without seeming to give it any real review from his passing "summary" and his incorrect method of trying to pass it. He's also claimed to be reviewing Prevailing winds. See Special:Contributions/End_of_yarn. I reverted these and left him a note explaining why, AGFing that he was just a new user who didn't understand the GA process. He reverted this as "trolling"[30] sending up some red-flags in my mind. Any one else want to keep an eye on him? Have there been any sock issues at GA of late? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What???? I read that article like 10 times and is there any sane editor here who wouldn't pass it? I don't really see the problem here. I saw the reversal as a bit hostile in my mind. End of yarn (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any sane editor would refrain from passing it as is. It fails the GA criteria. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

... FAILS the GA criteria? End of yarn's review might not have been a real review, but there's no need to make up things about the state of the quark article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. It has some unsourced parts and some MoS issues. Could easily pass with a little clean up, but in its exact state at the time he passed it, it was not GA quality. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All sections are extremely well-referenced and it's MoS compliant. Don't throw generic oppositions because you've placed your foot in your mouth. The article more than meets the GA criteria, this is an FA quality or very near-FA quality article. If you have specific comments to make, voice them at talk:quark. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not placed my foot in my mouth, nor it is FA quality. There are several statements that have no references, probably just misplaced. There is no reason at all to attack me, or to take things so personally. It needs minor fixes, nothing major. You don't have to go all defensive over that. Very few articles sent to GAN are absolutely perfect for passing right then and there. Gesh. I don't see you attacking the person who made a very length post on the article talk page noting minor fixes needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being defensive or offensive, this is a matter of you depicting the article as something it is not, and this, to me, raises a ref flag about what you're saying about End of yarn. All statements are referenced, the article is MoS compliant, and Markus Poessel's comments are mostly about possible style issues, ways to phrases things etc. Two things stand out as needing correction (so indeed, it should not be a GA yet, but not because of referencing or of MoS compliance), but you could not have picked those up unless you already knew something about quarks and group theory and read the article in details, which, judging from your background and the timing of your edits, is not the case.

I've said my piece about your argument against End of Yarn's edits. I don't care much about what happens to him/her, but let's not hang him/her on fallacious grounds. I'm now unwatching this page, those who want to say something about the quark article are invited to discuss on talk:quark. I can be reached on my talk page for anything else. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: will decline to leave an AN/I notice since he found this within minutes of me posting it anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though WP:GAN states that Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article, I smell something fishy, as well. MuZemike 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Or ducky. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The recently-indef'd sock farmer ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a GA junkie and some wondered if that user had used fake support win some GA's, but I don't think that angle was investigated - nor does that case necessarily have anything to do with this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh, doesn't sound or look like a duck, quite yet. Keep in mind the articles ILT was working on. Jumping from 1950s/1960s television shows to a high level of physics is not quite convincing of skull-duckery. No one has heard a single peep, either; that is, claiming to be an 80-year-old from a retirement home or a "socker mom" trying to protect her daughter. MuZemike 04:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point

Resolved

 – Not an ANI issue, see the appropriate xFD discussion(s). –xeno ^talk 01:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron a fit and proper use of project space? The text is pretty clear it's a parody of the Article Rescue Squadron and while I think that should be shot like a dog, I don't think point moves like this are the way to go... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do however confess to liking this --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged with Template:Humor for drama-prevention. :) --Conti|✉ 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This may be the Greatest Template Of All Time. rootology (C)(T) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And it even comes with a smiley face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I've really needed that craparticle template today... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it only didn't have this redlink in it... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah well you say that, but add it to a page which has a live AfD and magically... Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

...magically the drama boards are still not up for deletion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Some may think that a shame. I couldn't possibly comment. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As with some satires, there seems to be some question about whether it is directed against the ARS, or against deletionists. I read it as the latter. I suggest non-contentiously moving it back to user space. Just as funny there. DGG (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read it as someone stirring up trouble, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I think you've got to send your humor detector back to the shop if you didn't see this as a poke at ARS.  :) Protonk (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, missed the show. What lulz. That would be {{CrapArticle}} above? Mebbe merge w/{{sSmile}}? Off to read the naught bits. Cheers. Jack Merridew 06:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Userfied. No prejudice to MFD for the page or RFD for the leftover redirects. –xeno ^talk 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete Delete Delete as pure ANI-cruft ;-) MuZemike 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do the inclusionists want to delete the template? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added the rescue tag, and voted strong keep. I love the template, as long as it is not actually used (kinda negative). Ikip (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Awwww. I thought it was ANI that was tagged for deletion :D MuZemike 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this was just an attempt to stir up trouble during a period of friction between different points of view. There's no need to turn the other cheek, and it wouldn't create a helpful precedent. - Pointillist (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've now also speedily closed the TFD and userfied. MFD would be the next step. –xeno ^talk 02:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for shits and giggles and all that, but I'm not sure folks above thought this thing through before lavishing praise on the above template. Less than an hour after it was created, a registered user slapped the template at the top of what is perhaps our most widely read article (a featured one at that). It only sat there for five minutes, but in that time readers were treated to an official looking Wiki-box that said one our featured articles was going to be obliterated. After reverting that and blocking the user in question I put the template up for TfD—not because I have a terrible sense of humor (in real life I'm gd hilarious!)—but because it did not seem good to me to have a template that enables a snazzier form of article vandalism. I'm sure that template would be (mis)used that way again in the future, and because it has a semi-official look to it even experienced editors might not really notice it if it wasn't caught right away (particularly on articles with light traffic). I'm hard pressed to understand why we would have a template that can be so easily misused, but then again I don't know much of anything about the "Article Rescue Squadron" and therefore have no idea why it's so important that we make fun of it in the first place. Sincerely, John Q. Killjoy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I glanced over your comments in the Template for deletion, and didn't catch this. Good points. If I would have read more carefully I would have voted delete. I like the template, but not if it is used for abuse. Ikip (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, I've no issue with your actions. I speedily closd the TFD because userfy'ing it was the fastest way to prevent it from being re-used as an "official" looking template. Code can be written to nullify its use in articlespace (which I'll do presently). –xeno ^talk 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries xeno, I fully understood what you were doing and your actions were aces in my book. Aces I say! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cromulent! –xeno ^talk 02:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:24.57.75.186

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

24.57.75.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like for someone smarter than me (that would be most of you) to tell me whether it's appropriate for an IP address to be blanking warnings off its user page. Registered users can do that, in general, but as IP addresses are often shared, my understanding is that it's not appropriate for an IP to blank its user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't think that it should be allowed for IPs, it's my understanding that this is allowed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:Blanking. It says that IPs can remove warnings but can't remove IP identifier tags (Ya know, the ones that say this IP belongs to such and such ISP), unblock requests (while block is active), and sockpuppet tags (also while blocks are active). Also, don't be harsh on yourself, I'm sure you're intelligent. :) Icestorm815 • Talk 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's headed for a block anyway. He also gave me another funny comment for my "wall of fame". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important for all the previous warnings to be visible, so with that character on ice for 3 months, I think it is safe to do so now. Any objections? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Turns out it wasn't safe. Never mind. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Hello. I added three reputable references in the article on global warming. They dispute the theories presented in the article, and I placed them at the bottom. I don't think their inclusion is controversial per se. However, user Atmoz is reverting my changes and tagging them as "crap". I don't want a war of changes. Can someone help in this matter? Thank you. Jaksap (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a block warning on his talk page. However I'd like other admins to weigh in on his use of twinkle. I think it was a misuse of it and wanted to know if anyone else would support a warning or a removal of twinkle. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaksap is doing the bull-in-a-china-shop act in an article that gets a lot of grief. Warn Atmoz if you like, but please make sure to warn Jaksap to get consensus on the talk page before making these sorts of edits. Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave Jaksap a 3rr warning before seeing this page. While Atmoz might need a civility reminder, I think the revert itself was keeping with the talk page consensus and within the penumbra of reasonable twinkle uses. I don't think it is helpful to jump down the throat of Atmoz based on a single stressed reaction. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On further examination, Atmoz deserves at the very most a mild chiding. The changes that Jaksap was trying to make (to a featured article) were poorly sourced and poorly written, and Atmoz did not call them crap until Jaksap began to edit-war over them. Note that Atmoz has contributed extensively to maintaining this article, while Jaksap is a newcomer whose only aim is to push the point of view that the topic of the article is itself crap. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] It looks to me like Jaksap is picking a fight. This user showed up after two years of inactivity and attacked Global warming in this diff and this diff, using provocative wording like "dictatorships, not for free societies," "like a birth of 1984-like society," and "all based upon speculation." Then Jaksap proceeded to add a series of three anti-global-warming opinions (essentially unrelated to each other and out of context with the structure of the article) to the article, which is a featured article (but would not remain a featured article for long if this kind of "contribution" were tolerated). Atmoz was impolitic for neither providing an explanation nor initiating discussion when he reverted the first edit and for calling the material "obvious crap" the second time he reverted it, but his was a predictable response to provocation. It appears to me that much effort has gone into developing a balanced set of related articles, including not only Global warming, but also Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming, Economics of global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, and Climate change denial, and that content such as Jaksap's additions may be more appropriate for some of the other articles. If Jaksap wants to have an influence on these articles, this should start with a good-faith talk-page discussion, not a pre-emptive attack on one article. Meanwhile, Atmoz needs to bite his tongue in the future -- and make an attempt to communicate diplomatically, even when provoked. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If so, how come Global warming controversy is not even mentioned in the Global warming article? Someone who runs into Global warming article may think that it is an undisputed theory (=fact). I provided references from The Times and Science magazine, i.e. quality references from relevant scientists. I didn't destroy any structure, I added these on the very bottom. The fact is that their content disagrees with the theory that this article heavilly tries to promote ("balanced set of related articles" as you call it). There are numerous instances where alternative views on topics are given due attention in wikipedia articles. Why is this sacred cow protected? Jaksap (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you on talk:global warming, Global warming controversy is mentioned in global warming, and is indeed linked to at least twice. Your additions border from irrelevant to fringe to original research. They also violate the long-standing consensus to avoid popular press references for scientific points in the article. As for your "sacred cow" comment: We've worked long and hard to create an article that is in line with the scientific opinion on climate change - which is supported by all major national academies of science, at least 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, and the the scientific literature on the topic. In contrast to your claim, dissenting views are discussed with the appropriate weight. We aim to keep the article at this high level of quality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Global warming controversy is referenced twice, once under Global_warming#Economic_and_political_debate and another time as public debate. However, it would be better if this reference was under a section on the scientific debate (which is close to what Jaksap was trying to add). Characterizing his edits as "irrelevant to fringe to original research" seems excessive. Also, the comments on Jaksap's edits were way out of line. When Jaksap tried to discuss the problem with Atmoz, Atmoz simply deleted the question. Q Science (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of differing opinions on this. However, this debate is out of scope here. Is there anyone who thinks that we need an admin intervention here? If not, I'd suggest to close this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've always been in the frame of mind that twinkle is similar to rollback, for blatant cases of vandalism. A courtesy edit summary to why he removed it would have been appropriate, as opposed to just reverting and then reverting again and calling it crap. The reason that I warned Atmoz was strictly about the name calling. Atmoz seems to have held an account long enough to know better than to resort to name calling and then continuing upon being warned about it. [31] I can see how jaksap may have being a provoking force in this situation so I'm content with leaving this at just a warning to both users. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally baffled...

In over two weeks time I have commented in only one AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). And so, what is the most recent edit to that article? See this.

• First off, you would think after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, that editor would not make it a point to go after me in the lone AfD I have commented in the past couple of weeks, especially since I made no argument in the numerous AfDs he commented in or started.
• Now, as you can see at this, I am fourth in number of edits to that AfD and those in first and second place have 10 or more edits each, whereas I have a mere 3 edits). So, somehow my reply to ONE delete "vote" gets labelled as badgering when others have replied to a few times as many others in that discussion as I have?! Why single someone who is fourth in number of edits and who hasn't replied to anywhere near as many others in the discussion as those with the most edits? And again, especially given the recent ANI debate?
• On a second look, is this even meant as a serious contribution? Aside from the use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments, is using antagonistic phrasing like "this piece of shite article" really necessary? And what's with the "teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit." Are we editing an encyclopedia as mature adults participating in a serious discussion or what?
• Now, I know some don't like me and probably don't care if someone goes after me, but there have been more disruptive/pointed edits beyond the above and thus beyond me:
  • See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_Motto (even A Man In Black, hardly an inclusionist told him to “knock it off”)
  • See [32] (giving a suspected sock account a barnstar accomplishes what? Even if we aren't sympathetic towards sock accounts, how does mockingly giving one a barnstar improve the project? What is the point?)
  • See [33] (is this even meant to be a serious argument…note edit summary in addition to the WP:JNN argument to avoid?)
  • Not sure if the edit summaries here are supposed to be funny or what: [34], [35], [36], [37]
  • See [38] (accusing those who defend fiction articles of merely "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story"--that's a great way to look at our volunteers!)

I once again must appeal to point five at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. I am absolutely baffled that after the recent ANI thread he would actually go after me in the one and only AfD I bother to comment in in the past couple of weeks. Unbelievable. I strongly urge the community to reconisder supporting at least Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, if not Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Proposal:_Community_ban_of_Jack_Merridew. How much more of the above are we as a community really going to put up with? You would have thought that after that last and recent ANI thread, he would have either totally disengaged from me as I made sure not to comment in or rescue tag the AfDs he started, but instead not only comments in the same AfD as me, but to me in a bizarre manner and then uses a swear-worded stance that is hardly conducive to a civil discussion. And as indicated above, there are indeed other examples of less than productive or non-pointed editing since that ANI thread. I am at my wits end. I don't know what more to do here. I limited my replies in the AfD to only one editor's comment that I thought weak; I avoided rescue templating or arguing in the Honorverse AfDs JM started and we still get the above. I hate posting on ANI again, but I'm not interested in seeing if it's going to continue. None of us should have to keep putting up with this. Please help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

5,531 bytes. I'll admit that I didn't read a word of it. But as someone who is entirely uninvolved in this drama, I'll offer a suggestion. Perhaps your time is better served improving these articles you continually vote to keep rather than posting here? Just my two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I do... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good God, do you have to bring every single case where Jack even playfully slights you to ANI? If you can't deal with that of all things, grow a skin. It's not harassment of any kind, and is even insulting to the spirit of the term harassment and the serious connotations it carries. If we're to have any proposal, is to ban both of you from reporting to ANI and restrict all complaints to Jack's mentors, whom I trust a lot more than you to know when to make a post to ANI when the situation is serious and needs outside comment. On top of all that, saying something is "not notable" in an AfD is not a bad thing no matter how much you think it is and certainly is not an offense of any sort. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is unwilling to leave me alone and to contribute constructively, the community should take action. I am not interested in just sitting passively by while someone who was unblocked under a strict condition to make NO disruptive edits sees fits to go after me in the only AfD I commented in two weeks time, to come at me in an accusatory manner when if anything at least two other editors replied to way more editors in the discussion, and to test the community's patience by making other unconstructive posts. Point 5 of the ArbCom either has meat and meaning or it doesn't. No, I don't want to just watch this go on and on. The community should have either endorsed the mutual avoidance last time or the reban proposal, because it is plainly obvious that things are not otherwise getting better. And I would hope you could look past any dislike of me of shooting the messenger as it were. I am here to contribute to what should be mature and academic discussions, not writing in "lulz", not calling our volunteers "prattlers", not calling their contributions "shite". It's not about me, but about adding to a needlessly antagonistic and unpleasant environment for our community as a whole. And we should do something now rather than just let things get worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that you're so caught up in this perceived conflict that you can't differentiate between an innocuous and trivial comment and one that was genuinely harassment or disruptive. None of these are, although I'd like it if he didn't completely butcher the English language in the process. One would think that you'd learn what constitutes a proper ANI post at this point; you would have a lot more success in getting what you want if you were able to make a concise post that concentrated on significant disruption and not trivial stuff like this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He was unblocked on the agreement to make NO disruptive edits, not even what you perceive as "trivial" disruptive edits. Ergo he has violated, once again, the arbcom unblock agreement. Seriously, if you were subject of a dispute thread, wouldn't you make it a point if you saw your opponent comment in only one AfD in a couple of weeks time after that ANI thread to say err on the side of avoiding that one discussion? Who wouldn't?! And again, do you really think his giving a sock account a barnstar, even for "humourous" purposes actually adds something to Wikipedia? I don't mind good faith editors calling me out and challenging me to be a better editor. I obviously disagree with Sgereuka in that AfD, but he made a comprehensive nomination and did try a redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Thus, I can engage with him as an academic. How can any of us have a serious discussion with a "article is shite", those who defend it are "prattlers"? A number of editors have this misconception that I simply dislike deletion based arguments when more so than anything else, it's how one argues. And writing in this strange manner as what I cited above, does not allow for the advancement of a productive, academic discussion. And making it a point to go after someone after a divisive ANI thread is just mind-boggling. Could you imagine if after that ANI thread, I made it a point to say mock him specifically in the various AfDs he started and commented in since? Are you sure no one would see that as problematic? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you didn't address anything in my post. I don't know why I bother any more. Also, are you really rehashing your old JNN/PERNOM arguments for AfDs as Verbal notes below? Do you really have a stalker problem? I mean, your userpage is now the same, all your old behavior is back, and whatnot. I'm strongly feeling that there's no need to honor anything you say about this anymore if you don't care about your own safety. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth, please stop trying to derail these discussions. We want this dispute resolved, right? It is clear and undeniable that 1) we recently had a rather divisive ANI thread about my and his interactions and in that discussion many suggested we avoid each other; as such, I commented in one AfD since and didn't comment in the many he commented in and certainly not to him; why then would he comment to me in the lone AfD I commented in since? 2) he agreed to be unblocked and to make NO disruptive edits, so then why have to be told by A Man In Black to "knock it off" in a discussion? Why see fit to give a sock account a barnstar? Why accuse good faith contributors of essentially arguings so that they can be part of fantasies? Why make an argument needlessly antagonistic by calling the article "shite"? Again, please look past whatever your opinion is of me, because I don't want this resolved just for my sake, but for the commmunity's sake. I wouldn't risk continuing to edit here, if I didn't seriously think Wikipedia was worth it. I believe in this project; I think it has a real potential to contribute to humanity's catalogging of human knowledge and it pains me to see the community being played in the above described manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're still not bothering to address my post, so I don't see it as necessary to address your points either. I haven't seen anything on why this is non-trivial and why this is suddenly a blockable offense or something violating his ArbCom restrictions. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom agreement says "no disruptive edits." It does not say, "okay, well, so long as some people think they are trivial disruptive edits." Making a point of going after someone fresh off of a big ANI thread that resulted in even a spinout ANI thread is NOT a way to resolve tensions, but rather an attempt at escalation. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As the target of the comment from a nobody, I would appreciate it if he (and others) stopped this inane badgering at AfDs. The lack of good faith and civility is poisoning the atmosphere. Verbal chat 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: Sincerely, Verbal chat

Afds are discussions and not votes. People interact in discussions. People's stances are challenged in discussions. But in any event, if you think they shouldn't be discussions, but rather votes, then that is a discussion for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion as here we are discussing an ongoing and long unresolved dispute and it is best that we not side track it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Discussions"is correct, but your haranguing, lack of good faith, incivility, and self-rigtiousness do you more harm than good. I have changed my mind on AfDs (in both directions) following improvements or arguments on the AfD, but when you badger someone with your soundbites that are only tangentially relevant you make it harder for me to agree with your view, as I have to overcome the intense dislike you're fostering with your behaviour. Make your point in your own !vote, and ask people to clarify or bring up a point if they are egregiously wrong, but to badger as your edits do is counter-productive and irritating. If anything comments like Jack's in response help to defuse and calm the situation - I know it calmed my initial reaction to your poorly thought through comment on my !vote. Interactions should be collegial. Stick to discussions, not dogma. Verbal chat 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think my one reply to your one comment in one discussion is badgering then you do not know what badgering is. And if you think by contrast, his replying to me after an ANI thread in which many editors supported neither of us comment to each other at all in AfDs is helpful then I don't know what to tell you. And yes, when one such as I makes efforts to improve an article, it is indeed frustrating to see WP:PERNOM style comments that say nothing about the changes made since nomination, especially when they follow [39], i.e. you support a block for canvassing when as far as we can tell, no one actually commented in the AfD from the three pages where Ikip mentioned it, where by contrast it is likely that you and perhaps a couple others came across the AfD because of the ANi thread concerning that now undone block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: AfDs, plural. This is one example. I also didn't say canvassing, my understanding was that gaming was part of the problem; but this isn't related. It ceases to amaze me that people who file ANI notices of this kind are often the guilty party. Verbal chat 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I with much displeasure have started this thread now knowing some will likely jump on me raher than see the message, because it is clear that the previous ANI thread resolved nothing and as such, not for my sake, but for the community's sake, it is far better we definitively resolve this dispute now rather than let it escalate any further. I appeal to the three arbcom mentors to determine whther or not this should continue here for community resolution or if rather it should be discussed on arbitration enforcement. As my self-deprecating username suggests, I am not editing here for myself, but because I believe Wikipedia potentially serves humanity in general. As such, I am even willing to pledge to take a real break from this site for a time so as to help deescalate things and when/if I come back to focus on DYKs and the like as I've pretty much had my fill of AfDs, partially why I've only commented in one in two weeks' time and only rescued that one article. People should be able to edit this site without having their good faith contributions called a "&curid=22519824&diff=286395449&oldid=286384688 piece of shite", having their motivations for editing be described as "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story," etc. or for someone who has been blocked for sockpuppetry to somehow see it a worthwhile use of time here to give a suspected sock account a barnstar. It is unfortunate that I have my own perception by many of me here that I fear clouds the validity of my request. Please, don't put up with this stuff, because it's an opportunity to go against me, but because the diffs I cite above actually do create a poisonous and unwelcoming atmoshphere for others beyond me and because given the agreement to make NO (without exceptions) disruptive edits, that there would be even questionable disruptive edits makes a mockery of that good faith unblock request and those who supported it. You don't need to care if I feel insulted. I'm a nobody. But it's not just me who is being insulted by the above cited diffs. And it's not me who is effectively being slapped in the face by having them made. And I implore anyone who is neutral to sift beyond whatever partisanship comes up here. Surely, some impartial arbcom members can do that. Please resolve this dispute now. Please do not allow it to get derailed again. Thank you for your time and help. Respectfully, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the diff we are meant to see as harassment/disruption? Protonk (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted about a half dozen diffs of disruptive/unconstructive/escalatory edits in various places above and I am confident that no neutral editor with no past involvement with me will see the totality of them as anything but a collective violation of point 5 of the arbcom agreement. This time, even more so than the last time, it is fortunately obvious, and as such I am much more confident that neutral parties and/or the three arbcom appointed mentors will indeed do something to prevent this dispute from needlessly escalating any further. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well bringing ths here as disruption, harassment or both is certainly what I would call "escalating". pablo_hablo. 10:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want play games and wait and see to what degree this stuff is going to continue. I would much rather we put a stop to this dispute right here and now than just allow for swipes to continue and build over time. We can minimize the disruption by accomplishing what the first ANI thread failed to do. I have commented in one AFD since that last ANI thread and naturally he sees fit to comment to me in that lone AfD thread while in his delete "vote" saying the article is "shite" and saying it exists for the sake of "fans of a hottie prattling-online," which patently insults the various editors who worked in good faith on the article and who defended it in the AfD. Making a blanket assertion about our contributors is insulting. Seeing fit to go after me in first and only AfD I comment in since the last ANI thread is an ominous sign. We already had one ANI thread that was pretty massive and so, why allow things to build again? Why not just deal with it not, before it gets any further out of hand elsewhere? Let's iron it out here on ANI, rather then see AfDs or anywhere else be disrupted by a totally unnecessary dispute. He has three arbcom appointed mentors. He has an agreement not to make any disruptive edits. Doesn't that agreement have some teeth? And I don't want the precedent to be set that it's okay if I get bullied, because if we allow that, then it sets the stage the same happening to others. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You've posted a half dozen...and just like last time, only one is relevant. What are we supposed to make of the 3-4 "is this edit summary supposed to be humorous?" diffs? What are we supposed to do with this? That's not him harassing you or him being disruptive. Remember our conversation last time? That you will gain more from honestly presenting a small number of issues than inflating them into something they are not? Protonk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If even one you think is relevant, then it is still a violation of point 5. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not my point. Multiple people have asked you not to come to AN/I with posts that are essentially throwing everything you have at a wall and seeing what sticks. I'm not particularly concerned about the diff you mentioned. I can't for the life of me see how it is the end of the world for you to be told that JNN/PERNOM copy/paste responses are badgering. People have been trying to tell you that for YEARS (literally). And don't respond with "but JNN/PERNOM votes are..." I don't want to get into that discussion. In my opinion, your one cited diff was fairly benign. So no, I don't agree that it was a violation of point 5. Protonk (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You would think after such a discussion as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal, in the only AFD I commented in since that thread, he would not comment directly to me in that discussion, while saying say nothing to anyone else there. Seriously now. How many editors commented in that AfD? Why would someone who earlier this month many editors supported he and I avoid each other or if we comment in the same AfDs not comment to each other see fit to of all the participants in the AfD to only comment to me? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only note that Jack refused to agree to that compromise mutual topic ban so it doesn't have any bearing on the subject. I have an alternative view. Jack is being impish. He intends to needle you up to the point of frustration, which unfortunately for you seems to be a relatively low threshold. What he's not doing is harassing you or disrupting the project. Making an offhand comment designed to rile you up isn't harassment (as you have noted in the past when people have accused YOU of harassment). Relentlessly following your contributions, stalking you (or whatever we call it now), reverting your edits, refactoring your comments, etc. THOSE are signs of harassment. Again, taking a comment like his and making a production out of it isn't going to win converts. Eventually, the list of people who will diligently read through each diff and judge it on its merits will dwindle and people will have heard you cry wolf enough. I'm not "neutral", so I can't say that definitively, but that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, why antagonize someone by "needling them up to the point of frustration"? And as far as relentlessly following my contributions goes, as you can easily see, I haven't edited as much since that ANI blowout. There are a few days I didn't edit at all. Indeed, I only edited in one AfD since then and so, there really wasn't much to follow around since then, but the one thing that I did focus on, i.e. rescuing that one article, is where he did indeed see fit to comment to me and only to me and no one else. I would much rather this not be an ongoing trend when I by contrast didn't see fit to even rescue template all those Honorverse articles he AfDed. But again, I'm not sure why you don't see the other evidence above problematic. To take the Socratic approach... What is the point of giving a suspected sock a barnstar? How does that improve Wikipedia? What is the point of calling the article "a piece of shite" rather than criticizing it in a more articulate and less inflammatory way? What is the point of in two AfDs calling those who write/defend these articles "prattlers"? How does such a designation reach out to those volunteer contributors? How are these edits not unproductive? What do they actually do to improve Wikipedia? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Who knows why? But it is a stretch to go from one diff to say that he's stalking your contributions. The fact that you have editing little since the last AN/I would make it easier for us to make that claim but it can't possibly make it so easy that one response is sufficient. As for your litany of questions--I DONT CARE. I suspect few others do as well. I can't imagine a smaller thing to get worked up about then whether or not Jack has given a barnstar to a sock or not. I also note AGAIN that you are bringing up tangential issues and presenting them as core problems. It is most certainly not harassment for Jack to have an intemperate opinion of an article which is at variance to yours. Likewise I should hope that you would be the first to defend someone's views of content being separated from their conduct, right? Either the sole new diff you provided was sufficient to present an incident requiring administrator action or it wasn't. Rehashing old issues or conflating non-issues with issues won't hold water. 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Pura Ulun Danu Bratan

tl;dr

A Nobody really needs to take User:SB Johnny up on his request to start an email dialogue; I did and we're waiting for his input. Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him. And where's my ani notice about this? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While A Nobody has brought one diff to the table, in the last 10 days Jack Merridew has 100 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, mostly in the Fiction AFDs. When viewed from that perspective, 1% doesnt seem like grounds for complaint. If it was on an AFD topic that Jack Merridew doesnt often go to, I might see your point, but Jack does seem rather fond of voting delete on most Fiction related AFDs. I've tried to convincing him that he should vote keep on them, and maybe even clean them up, but he has yet to see the light. Has there been other diffs where the paths have crossed in that timeframe? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I did tidy up Moby-Dick the other day and if anyone ever AfDs that, I'll be sure to work to rescue it. This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new wikihounder.^{What harassment is not} — Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have avoided commenting in and obviously to him in the various AfDs he has started or commented in since the previous ANI thread. I comment in one thread and he not only comments in it, but to me as well and again, this follows on a thread in which a proposal that we avoid each other had more supports than not. You would think just as I refrained from commenting in the AfDs he commented in, he would not see fit to make it a point to comment to me in the one that I commented in. And again, I am not simply concerned here about this interest in me, but also in this bad faith accusing of editors who work on fiction articles. Look, all I want is for it to be clear that if I am not going to be going after him in AfDs, there is absolutely no need for him to go after me. And moreover, if there is an agreement that he should make no disruptive edits, then, he shouldn't be giving blocked socks barnstars, calling people's good faith contributions "shite" or calling those he disagrees with "prattlers". Why is it necessary to comment to NO ONE else in an AfD but me? Why say I am badgering when I replied to ONE other editor, yet the nominator and someone else replied to 10 editors a piece? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside question. Since you keep pointing to the topic ban proposal, what do you think about point 3, "Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin"? Have you done that here or is it just Jack's conduct at issue? I know none were passed, but even under the particular language of point 4, "Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other", Jack hasn't violated that. Are we supposed to punish him for violating a requirement nobody suggested (under a proposal he wouldn't agree to) when you went against an explicit proposed requirement you supported? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammer

I've spent enough time tonight reverting the wholesale insertion of what is essentially an advert for serialkillersink.net. This is the third time in the last 8 hours that User:Ericgein has inserted the link into Richard Ramirez, and he has done the same to over a dozen articles. He's been warned 7 times [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] as well as once before in February [47], and still returned to add it again. Can someone please block this spammer? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Use WP:AIV for persistent spammers. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've indefblocked the account. -- The Anome (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)