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

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

Unresolved

Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Extremely long conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

  Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's not a bad way to organize things when a single issue overwhelms a discussion page. For what it's worth, that discussion can and should stay open until it is resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  Seriously...we finally get a clear majority on a proposal and we have someone derail the conversation with an improper close, and then I come back and someone has moved it off the noticeboard to a subpage. If we'd let the conversation go we might have actually got a resolution now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• It might now. It didn't when I did it, though, because I used three tildes. :) MickMacNee, sorry if this squelches conversation in any way; it's not my intention, but 300,000 bytes on ANI is just too much. :/ It was over 2/3rds of the page. Crossmr, it's standard to remove conversations that overwhelm this page; that's why the instructions for doing so are right there at the top, under "How to use this page". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• I've moved the latest comment about the situation to the subpage. I will be moving any conversation that belongs at that subpage to it, unless there is consensus to restore the whole 300,000+ bytes to ANI. It's inappropriate to fracture it and have conversation in two places. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

• I'd suggest that this was a sub-optimal but perfectly understandable response. Yes, the page was getting huge, and was totally domination this page. However, as has been noted above, past indications are that subpaging leaves only the "partisan warriors" involved. (I'm not just talking about pages realting to Betacommand, but other editors perceived-by-some-as-problematic who've been "subpaged" as well.) The topic ban discussion was preceding independent of the squabbling, I'd like to see that section restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, can we agree on some naming convention or something to make these easier to find/organise? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• If consensus emerges to support the now 354,000 bytes of this conversation to take over ANI, then, certainly, we should restore the entire conversation. Restoring a single section would be a bad idea, as it does not give a complete overview of the conversation to anybody stumbling upon it now. But, respectfully, if ANI has never been able to resolve issues with Δ, then perhaps ANI is not the best forum for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish to highlight this person aswell, I have tried to come to middle ground he just point blanks reuses, I have even moved the pic and cut them back to how there were done for the PAST 18 MONTH, so either he off his head of wiki have never cared before? I have stated in talk page and each pic talk description aswell, yet there not good enough, I have state there needed to better explain page, I also found its DAM cheek him he the one that in the edit war AND also placing the warning to me, Judge and jury?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs)

• I think we need a bit of organisation here. We seem to have various Delta/Beta subpages spread out. Heck, the Delta/Beta archive pages aren't even all subpages of the same parent. I totally agree with moving all this stuff to different pages, so the rest of ANI can flourish, but the way it is at the moment is all very confusing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorsal Axe (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what on earth this means, but it does not help me, and also seams that if this Admin is correct then for the past 18month, umpteen admins have failed in the duties.

Previous subpages

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 1
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 2
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 3
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive 4
9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 5
10. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Archive 6
11. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks
12. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Reverting of subpage

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Subpaging. In support of the principle above (which I objected to!) I attempted to move the sanction-lifting proposal to the subpage, but was reverted by Beta. I'm cross-posting both to add the timestamp, also because I consider this an "incident" and I'm requesting adminstrator action: Either move the new proposal to the subpage or bring the old one back, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it was highly inappropriate for the subject of this ongoing ANI thread to fracture the conversation by starting a new section at AN, and I have said as much at AN. Since he reverted your subpaging his new thread and since there is some disagreement from evidently involved (I haven't had time to check deeply), I've transcluded the subpage to AN so that everyone can see the entire history of that conversation. (ETA: Had to reduce that to a link, as an e-mail I received informs me that it is creating load issues...which is why it was subpaged to begin with.) Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Cross posting from Edit warring noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#WP3RRN_Delta7July2011 Sorry for the crossposting, but this discussion is everywhere... I've placed a notice at the edit warring noticeboard concerning Delta. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved administrators left?

We have a proposal on the subpage that has been open for 6 days. It' has a nearly 2/3's majority support, and the support has actually grown since it's been subpaged. At some point we need someone to step in enact the proposal that the community has clearly supported and clearly given plenty of time to considering.--Crossmr (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Community sanctions are imposed through consensus. A "nearly 2/3's majority" obviously means "no consensus". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I regrettably agree with that; however, the circumstances, increasing numbers of supporting administrators, and clear overwhelming majority opinion (short of the usual 80% community consensus standard for such cases) basically require that we file an arbcom case to enact that outcome now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no hard line of 80% at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. It's currently at around 29/17 or 32/17 depending on exactly how you count it (3 users seem to support, but didn't explicitly label their comments support), which shows far more than a simple majority. This isn't some 18/17 split, and the discussions has obviously been trending towards support, in the last 5 days the discussion has run 9/3 in favor of support.--Crossmr (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As the proposer there I have an obvious bias in favor of the proposal; I also have, as an uninvolved administrator done a lot of community consensus closes. I would not close this one, at this time, as enacted. One might relist it to gather additional input, but that's already been effectively done by the high profile nature of the case. Arbcom exists in large part to deal with situations "stuck in the middle" sufficiently that the consensus criteria can't be met. The supermajority we have here justifies action, but not community consensus enactment of the topic ban. It does justify a "community patience exhausted" arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then as the proposer will you file this?--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert is right: none of the proposals in the subpage, pro-Δ or anti-Δ, have reached consensus or are likely to. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How could they when they're closed/shuffled around and constantly disrupted? However, I still don't see anything in consensus that necessitates an 80% majority, nor even a supermajority. What I do see is a rather clean unambiguous majority supporting a ban.--Crossmr (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the strength of consensus needed depends a bit on the severity of the sanctions being discussed. The proposal was an indefinite topic ban with limited exceptions for discussion: "Δ is topic-banned by the community from image fair use process activity including tagging or removals. This does not apply to policy discussions or development." Consensus for that is debatable (though getting there). But I would suggest that consensus is strong enough to support my more limited version: "make it temporary (3 months), and make it clear that all activity except image removal is allowed." This gets to the core of the matter, and ensures that things like the current proposals for Delta disambiguation fixing and NFCC 10c notification are unaffected. It would seem to me a highly constructive compromise; perhaps a brave admin is willing to declare it. Otherwise, Arbcom could be asked to pass it as an interim measure or something. PS As part of the discussion about a bot Delta has already said "If this is implemented I will stop my mass removals for six months...", while in the subpage discussion some exceptions for the "no removals" approach were suggested. On both counts, simplicity wins: "no removals" is simple to follow and simple to enforce - and given the vast amounts of collective energy expended on enforcement around these issues, that counts for a lot. Rd232 public ^talk 10:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Except people weren't indicating their support for your version so you can't use their support for a different thing. Delta's proposal, and his offer, is frankly insulting "I'll stop being disruptive if you grant me this exception". That simply cannot fly. Him stopping his disruption can't be based on the community granting him an exception. With that statement he's acknowledging that he knows his behaviour is disruptive and doesn't have full consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, Nothing will ever have full consensus. What I stated was I would stop mass removals for 6 months to see if the talkpage tagging and DaB repair system was effective, if they are not, Ill continue, removal is the most effective method for solving NFC issues. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Effect simply cannot be measured by how quickly you reduce the amount of non-compliant images, because there is a far more reaching effect to your behaviour. The effectiveness is greatly reduced when you enter into conflicts, piss off users, chase them away from the project, needlessly edit war, and remove some (not all) images from articles that should in fact actually have them. You've had dozens, possibly hundreds of users try to explain this to you over the years.Nowhere does it indicate in NFCC that you must do those things. Those actions are entirely your own choice.--Crossmr (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

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

---

Resolved

 – Block evading IP is blocked again, won't take the hint.

The earlier part of this thread is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#Daniel Case.

As I understand it the appeal hierarchy is

Administrators

Arbitration Committee

Community

Once the community gives its decision the case is closed because there is no higher court. So it can't be taken back to the Arbitration Committee. I note that you've been editing under another name, although there is no reference to that in your userspace. Are you aware of the rule that an involved administrator should not block but leave it to someone else to make the call? Please explain the relationship (if any) between the Mediation Cabal (which you are involved with) and the Arbitration Committee. Are you speaking in an official capacity or as a private citizen?

This is a matter of general interest, so it would be win - win all round if Errant simply answered the question.

To D Macks: You don't darn a sock by pushing the delete button. You get needle and thread and do something constructive. Why is it always administrators who choose the lazy option? Don't the silent majority get a chance to air their views on Wikipedia? 94.195.195.252 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I'm a newbie could you spare a few moments to give me a simple explanation of how the system works (not too technical please, as most of the technical stuff I read in Wikipedia is way over my head). Thanks. 80.229.81.66 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Just to clarify, although the last post has been added to the archive box the request is still outstanding. 92.27.84.129 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond to Errant's reply on my talk page, as Errant is an involved administrator who has blocked me three times in three days he clearly has no respect for the rules. He can't be ignorant of them because he is an administrator. The same goes for Tnxman307 (two blocks in seven hours).

Now to the discussion.

You are currently not welcome to edit Wikipedia in any form whatsoever.

Who says?

You have exhausted all forms of on - wiki or community appeal, the only remaining avenue is contacting Arbcom via email.

If winning a case is "exhausting all forms of appeal" I plead guilty.

The Community does not stand above arbcom in the unblock system of hierarchy as you seem to be claiming.

Don't follow this one. Is Errant saying that the Community must do what Arbcom tells it to do? 80.40.145.34 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

billinghurst has closed multiple similar RMs

Can an admin be “uninvolved” when he has already closed multiple similar move requests? This is from Talk:Côte d'Ivoire:

Date	Requested move	Closer	Result
January 2007	Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast	Patstuart	“The result of the debate was ‘’no consensus"
June 2010	Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast	billinghurst	“The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved” “If you think that this decision is in error, and it requires a larger approach then please look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to make it an holistic argument."
July 2010	Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast	billinghurst	“aborting this discussion in this format.” “the means to take this further was more holistic with regard to looking to have a Wikipedia:Request for comment”
July 2011	Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast	billinghurst	“The only reasonable means to have this changed is to do it holistically and via an RFC."

I respectfully request that billinghurst be admonished not to close any future discussions on Talk:Côte d'Ivoire, or any other Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast related discussions. Kauffner (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:UNINVOLVED, so long as his prior interaction with the article was administrative, it does not count as involved. I haven't checked his history so I don't know if this is the case, however if all he's done is perform admin duties then he is pretty much doing what an admin does. N^oformation ^Talk 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This standard would seem to be an invented one. The relevant guideline is: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community to include...disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." The past closings were certainly disputed by various editors at the time. Not only that, but the fact that I am disputing this closing is by itself a reason for him not to be involved in this issue in the future. Kauffner (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been involved; their actions were all administrative, not a mixture of administrative and !voting.

(slight conflict of interest: I opposed the move. The OP supported the requested move and seems unhappy that the consensus didn't go their way. I'm surprised that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY hasn't been cited yet). bobrayner (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. A little more AGF might help reduce friction; [1] [2] &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Billinghurst has already admitted earlier that he isn't impartial in this matter[3]. I don't know how he then decides that he has suddenly become impartial enough again to close this discussion. In best case this to me seems like bad judgment, if he wanted to argue for an RFC, he should have just entered it as a comment. In the worst case it's abuse of admin powers. Also, it's not clear to me that an RFC was actually necessary, I think enough parties were involved in the RM discussion to make a decision about what to call the country across all of Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the smoking gun. An involved admin closed this discussion, it clearly needs to be reversed. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Reversed" as in reopening the (at time of close) 13 day old debate for a few more days before another Admin closes it since it was closed as "No consensus". Or "Reverse" as in move it forth with? A little clarity please. - J Greb (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be reversed as in reopened as the close was improper due to the admin being involved. As to how an uninvolved admin should close it, well, that's up to him or her. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but since when was this a decision about all of wikipedia? WP:Engvar and other policies clearly do not require this, we only require consistency across and article. The decision should be made article by article based on the facts at play for each article. If there is any suggestion this is going to affect multiple articles there are far wider concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki has over a thousand admins. Just sheer coincidence that the same one keeps "aborting" and closing using the same peculiar "take it to an RFC" technique. Nothing to see here. Move along. The closings happen while people are still voting. This makes sure that not just anyone has the opportunity to close. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT again and again ad nauseaum. It's the country's name people, leave it the frak alone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be surprising if he/she has it watchlisted. That doesn't necessarily make them involved. BTW the 4th move above is another link to the third move. I guess you intended to link to Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested move. BTW even if billinghurst is involved his/her recommendation to use WP:RFC seems a sound one considering the history and a glance thru the comments, I'm not sure why it hasn't been followed. Having said that I doubt consensus will be reached for a move even with a WP:RFC Edit 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC): I meant to say 'wouldn't be surprising'. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably because there was an RFC about 6 months ago that had no consensus to change ... pretty much the identical arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd have closed that last RM as a reasonable consensus for move based on the arguments made (although it is close support wise); but there seems no issue with billinghurst coming back to close discussions over this timespan, especially as his closing comment makes a solid point about it affecting more than one page. I suppose it is a rational argument that a new admin should be involved each time to make sure fresh eyes are on the consensus - but it's not a deal breaker. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Without assuming bad faith on the part of billinghurst, I suggest that admins generally avoid closing discussions that they have closed before. In situations where it is necessary to determine consensus, a truly uninvolved admin should be equally able to pass on a discussion as they are able to close it. Given that he/she has closed it before, I'd say the balance has tilted ever so slightly toward involved that they should not close it. If the same uninvolved admin has closed the same discussion three times in the pass, then the wise, no-brainer if I may, course of action is to move on to the next RM discussion (and there are many waiting to be closed). --rgpk (comment) 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark and will add that in this case an active discussion was closed just hours after another comment was made. I request that the discussion be re-opened until discussion actually subsides and a truly uninvolved admin closes it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be more seemly for billinghurst to let somebody else do it. Looking at his edits, he does not seem to be somebody who (as Regentspark assumes) spends his time at WP:RM and has happened to close this question several times. Instead, he is an admin who watches this page and has several times imposed his desire (no move without an RFC, as if an RFC would be likely to show any other result on a yes/no question) on the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference, really, between a re-opened move discussion and an RfC? Either way, Wikipedians talk about what the article ought to be called, and either way, a decision will have to be made based on the discussion. Why fuss over what it's called? All this time spent talking about red tape would be better spent organizing and documenting the best case for both titles, and that's true whether or not the most recent move request is "re-opened". When did we become so bureaucratic? Just do things that need to be done, and we'll get somewhere. Stop worrying so much about rules and labels. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That this was not a re-opened move discussion, nor isomorphic to one. The way to achieve that would have been to use {{relist}} - or to leave it alone. Billinghurst did neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the argument against just having an RfC, and calling the most recent move discussion the beginning of it? Doesn't this get us ALL where we want to be, most quickly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not if Billinghurst closes it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? Is that helpful?

I'm talking an RfC, not a move request. RfC's aren't little forms you fill out and if it works, someone closes it in your favor. They're big-ass conversations where we try to learn what the community's consensus is on some major question. You're seriously coming out against such a conversation? Why? What's wrong with knowing as broad a possible sample of community opinion as we can obtain? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, the point you're missing is that this isn't a question of coming out for or against an RfC. Rather, it is a question of whether an admin who repeatedly closes a consensus forming request the same way is truly uninvolved or not. pmanderson's comment gets to the heart of the issue. If that admin is involved, then what's to stop him or her from closing the RfC the same way? Nothing ever gets resolved when there is the appearance of involvement on the part of the closer, however contentious or not the discussion may be. --rgpk (comment) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not missing that point. I think that point deserves to be left behind, and totally eclipsed by the point of what the article should be called and why. We could either argue about red tape, and rules, and propriety, and admin abuse... or we could table all that shit and write an encyclopedia already. Guess which one I'm in favor of.

I grant every single point about the closure being inappropriate, and I STILL say, why not just have an RfC on an issue that clearly deserves an RfC? What have we got against broad community input?

Again: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONTESTED CLOSURE. I support getting the hell over it, and working on the REAL issue at hand. Let's have an RfC already. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument against having an RfC is that an uninvolved admin has not yet closed the current ongoing discussion. If a truly uninvolved admin agrees that there really is no consensus and an RFC would be appropriate, that would be different. It's pretty unusual to have an RFC regarding a move discussion since we have the whole RM mechanism, and I would think there should be a good reason - in the opinion of an uninvolved admin - to have one, before we had one. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Who cares if it's unusual? This is pretty clearly a bigger case than RM usually handles. You don't have to take my word for it - I've only closed a few thousand - but this is one of the Big Ones. It deserves a large venue for discussion, because it will set lots of precedents. No matter how an RM discussion is closed, you still only have the weight of an RM discussion supporting the result. You want this outcome to be supported by as much weight as possible, so it's a Very Good Idea, from your perspective, to have a broad RfC. What is there to possibly be against, besides the oddness of it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you really want an RfC, we can throw an RFC tag on top of the RM tag, that way more people (possibly) get to see it, and we can continue the discussion we had going.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll do that. What I think is absurd is that people seem more interested in whether a closure was appropriate or not than they are interested in arriving at the correct decision. That is an example of how Wikipedia is NOT supposed to work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We're disagreeing on how best to get to the best decision (I reject the notion that there is one "correct" decision. But I have no objection to throwing an RFC tag on the existing (and now re-opened by yours truly) discussion - I certainly won't remove it - though I still don't see the need for it until and unless an uninvolved admin closes it as no consensus.

By the way, the issue of whether billinghurst should have closed this discussion, and whether he should be closing discussions involving this topic in general, is what still needs to be addressed by an admin, though consensus seems pretty clear, especially since it has been discovered that he admitted being biased on the issue a year ago. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you see no need for additional steps until you don't get your way, and then you're ready to move heaven and hell, and re-open a discussion twice, yourself ([4],[5]). If I did that shit, you'd be reverting me and accusing me of admin abuse right now, but you can judge as invalid and revert closures as many times as you want. Why didn't someone else re-open it, if it's so obvious? Why not wait for someone uninvolved? What would be the harm, or is waiting for someone uninvolved only a wise move for people you disagree with?

I guess since we're to play by Born2cycle's rules, I'll leave this discussion and get to work on maintaining a move-request-turned-de-facto-RfC at the end of the RM backlog for as long as possible. What a load. This isn't how we're supposed to work, fellas. We've started to care way too much about how we get there, and we're losing sight of where we get.

I dunno, maybe the bottom of the RM backlog is a good place to advertise particularly contentious moves. That's actually worth considering, and finding a way to congeal into something more solid than these late-night musings... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be onto something with that idea about adding a special contentious move section to the bottom of the backlog.

I can't speak for others - I don't know why so many complained (at the talk page as well as here) about the improper close, but nobody else re-opened it. I waited, but then finally decided on being WP:BOLD myself. For the record, I would not protest your revert, or anyone else's revert, of such an obviously improper close.

I don't understand why you're spending so much time and energy arguing there should be an rfc, without creating one. Apparently I have to be WP:BOLD about that too[6].

Again, the main issue here about whether billinghurst should have been closing these discussions, and, if not, whether he should be admonished for doing so, is still open. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I'm arguing for the RfC and not setting one up... well, I've advertised the discussion, which is essentially the same work as opening an RfC. What's also important to me is that Wikipedians don't get caught up in bureaucracy and start believing that formalities are required. The more that attitude is allowed to reign here, the worse Wikipedia works. IAR is incredibly important to me, and I see a lot of people misunderstanding it. That is more important than the name of Ivory Coast, so that's where I'm coming from.

The issue of people being admonished is completely uninteresting to me. The level of static generated is admonishment in itself. Let the lawyers lawyer until their tongues turn blue; I won't be listening. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What's up with this "Côte d'Ivoire" stuff? I thought this was the English Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That point belongs at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#Requested_move:_C.C3.B4te_d.27Ivoire_--.3E_Ivory_Coast, not here. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the question of which version of wikipedia this is need be confined to an article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no dispute that this is the English wikipedia nor that Côte d'Ivoire is one of the countries English names (whether it's the more common one is what's in dispute). If you want to have OT discussions, a far bigger issue is the apparent mistaken belief by some people as expressed in this thread that the RM will affect the decision wikipedia wide either way. This is clearly not supported by policy as WP:Engvar and other policies clearly only require consistency within an article, not between articles. The decision should be made on an article by article basis. And in cases where there is apparent variation in what sources use, then following the norm in the local variety of English is clearly appropriate. I've seen this before with RMs and is rather disappointing people still have this belief. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's also a case to be made for consistency across articles, at least in some cases. In fact, consistency is one of the primary criteria laid out at WP:AT. You're right that the overall topic of what to call the nation in question is bigger than one RM, though. That's why people have been suggesting we widen the scope to an RfC, which is really just to say, that we get more participation and have a big ol' discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Nil Einne#Consistency for some clarification/further comments. Note my primary concern was the usage in articles (not article titles) although I do believe we don't always have to be consistent in titles as well (and this is supported both by written policy including WP:AT and practice) particularly in a case when there is geographical variation in the name in English or where one name is used by certain organisations all the time. As I mentioned there, we do have Bronze (color) and Orange (colour) and the plenty of similar examples. If you try to rename them all in the interest of consistency, you're likely to find yourself right here at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not anywhere close to advocating anything like that, and you needn't refer to policy for me. There are good reasons to do lots of things, and it's hard to make completely general statements. I've done a lot of work maintaining the regional varieties cease-fire. We're one the same side here; don't worry. I sometimes express myself strangely. I'm not familiar with the usual AN/I lingo, so I just say stuff sometimes. C'est la vie. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Literate readers of English recognize "this 'Côte d'Ivoire' stuff" as one of the English names of a certain African country. I learned about Côte d'Ivoire in English language sources, and continue to do so, by that name. Welcome to the Anglophone world, Bugs. You learn something new every day, at least if you care to. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree with much of your stance on naming, I think that tone is unhelpful. The discussion is contentious enough already, before we drop gentle hints that those who prefer a different name are ignorant or illiterate. So far people have mostly been restrained - just the occasional bit of snarkiness (on both "sides") - and I hope we can continue in that direction. Otherwise the debate will just get more nasty, more dramatic, and more contentious - without actually making anybody happier about the article title. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt

There seems to be some dispute about the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Might be worth a look from a neutral admin William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If there is any doubt, please discuss it a bit, and then make it right. (I closed the RFC initially.) Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be agreement on the talk page for closure but if a less involved admin did the honours, I think everybody would be happy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not object to closure but I did, and do, object to Jehochman doing the closing. I said more about this on his talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have endorsed the closure as a neutral admin. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you endorse Jehochman's closing statement? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As a mostly uninvolved admin (I opined vociferously against Cirt's RFA three years ago but don't recall any interaction with him since then), I agree with Jechoman's first sentence ("A request for arbitration is now pending, and it seems that the "battle lines" have solidified, so this is a good time to close the RFC."), but the rest of it is nothing but an attack. It in essence attempts to create a guilt by association - because some scientology socks opposed Cirt's RFA, good faith complaints about Cirt's conduct are no longer permissible. The RFC makes a prima facie case for misconduct and you can't just sweep it under the rug by blaming the accuser. However, since it's going to arbitration, there's little point in arguing over the closure. --B (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's an RfC that I and many others spent a great deal of time at. I would like to see Jehochman's closure reverted and the RfC left open if we can't find an uninvolved admin willing to draft an unbiased closure statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now clarified that I endorse the act of closing, and the first/last sentences of the initial summary. I do not endorse the whole thing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, the way the RFC has been closed by someone clearly considered to be involved just adds weight and demonstrates why the the Arbitration request is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Jehochman's closure and statement are a perfect illustration of the problem. I withdraw my objection to to it. Let it stand. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

note - I have added User:Jehochman to the RFArbitration case, he is clearly involved now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As an "involved" editor insofar as I have edited the santorum article (however I am completely uninvolved WRT Scientology etc.) I support the closure and RA's comment on the RFAR page that the RFC has become a "clusterfuck of epic proportions". Without commenting on the merits of the allegations or responses, the RFC has descended into a complete morass. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved template in this section since apparently the edit war is still ongoing. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit war is the total responsibility of an involved administrator User:Jehochman warring an attempt to close it out of process. His closure was a disruptive/joke, a complete example of the problem that User:Cirt;s divisive, disruptive and against NPOV and BLP policy violating contributions create in the community. An administrator that disrupts in such a way has no authority and should hand over his tools. Such poor involved administrative actions ultimately reflect on all administrators and take authority and respect from the position. - User:Griswaldo presents a couple of diffs that clearly show why User:Jehochman should not have even had the idea to unnecessarily close the RFC on User:Cirt when users were clearly objecting to him attempting to close it - never mind his warring to close it again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if Jonathan was involved or not if The Wordsmith, who I assume no one thinks is involved, endorsed Jonathan's closure? NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that is only one user endorsing the decision of one other user. There needs to be wider discussion involving more than one uninvolved user when doing things like closing an RFC. Admins are granted tools to enforce consensus, not to unilaterally make decisions. We aren't granting them authority at RfA. We are entrusting them with tools to enforce the will of the community. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread when I opened a request for administrator intervention on AN [7]. There are several reasons why Jehochman was mistaken in closing the RfC:

• RfCs normally run for 30-days. They should only be closed early with consensus approval on the RfC talk page.
• An argument could be made that the RfC should be closed if a related ArbCom case opens. In this case, however, an ArbCom case has not opened, and may not open.
• Jehochman expressed fairly clearly that one of the reasons for his closing of the RfC was because he disagreed with it. If an editor disagrees with an RfC, then they need to leave their opinion as a "view", outside or otherwise, in the RfC, instead of closing and announcing their opinion at the top of the page. Very irregular and unhelpful. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that an uninvolved admin endorsed the close...? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

His endorsement should have gone on the talk page in the thread that should have been started to propose the early closure of the RfC, as per our rules of order. If we allow anyone to disrupt our dispute resolution procedures, then the process loses any credibility and validity. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an uninvolved admin endorsed the close is irrelevant if there was not a clear consensus to close the RfC. The role of administrators is to enforce the consensus of the community, using the tools granted with their sysop bit. They should not be allowed to unilaterally make decisions such as this without requesting guidance from the community. I don't care if 5 "uninvolved" (as if that means they don't have an opinion) admins say they agree. There should be a discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wordsmith supported closure, but he quite soon stated clearly he did not support all the closers comments. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• consider this - I am able to clearly post a comment like this about an Administrator without anyone disputing at all. a complete example of the problem that User:Cirt's divisive, disruptive and against NPOV and BLP policy violating contributions create in the community.- how many administrators could you say that about. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I remember from Pending Changes, your overly expansive interpretation of BLP seemed disruptive enough on its own. When you elevate BLP above normal editing policies and say we shouldn't cover what the media say about a topic, and propose this should be protected by a special censorship mechanism overseen by reviewers who have to share that POV or lose their right to review, that's a huge problem. And when I then see the same people involved in an RfC witch-hunt against Cirt incorporating bogus charges, leaked e-mails, Anonymous board forums by third parties, and blaming him for taking out a false statement about a living person or failing to incorporate a tabloid reference about another ... well, my ability to AGF really starts to dry out.

Now it is true that I don't see any obvious policy basis for Jehochman to have closed that RfC, though as I remarked at the (newest) ArbCom case, it may be time (as Raul654 suggested) to create one. If the allegations against Cirt had been winnowed down to the few that weren't completely unreasonable, we might have reached some closure, or at least, reduced the extremes of partisanship involved.

I also don't understand how you can add Jehochman as a party to the case. Isn't that ResidentAnthropologist's show? If every named party can bring in whoever they want there could be thousands of parties before they decide whether to take it. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes was a tool and the discussion over its usage wasn't focused on BLP. I support Pending protection completely as a limited and useful addition to the toolbox. Alas its gone and I have left it long behind. I know you don't support WP:BLP and see its creation as the day the Wikipedia died and I appreciate that you are as welcome to your opinion about it as I am, but it is currently policy so I work with that and I attempt to interpret it from as middle of the road position as I can. As for your other opinions, I can only say that User:Cirt has at times violated policy in a major way and I realize he has his supporters (if you write anti Scientology content and aid the google-bombing of a republican that some reported had made homophobic comments you will have some supporters) but if you look at some of the issues raised in the RFC from an uninvolved neutral position some of the User:Cirt's contributions are totally unsupportable. Also, it is not a witch hunt at least not from my position. I also agree that there could have been more conversation at the RFC but that closure by User:Jehochman destroyed the discussion , at least it did for me. As for the show - I don't think it's anyone's show really and its not unusual for someone to add someone they feel is involved, and I think User:Jehochman's close and re-closure imo make him involved, quite strongly actually imo - if he had not of done that perhaps just perhaps we could have resolved it at the RFCU.he is able to discuss and claim he isn't involved if he likes. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User misappropriating committed identity

Resolved

I'm involved in a content dispute with a new user:DerekMD on Richard Stengel. User has requested comment on that dispute. I only mention these facts because I'd like to say that's not why I'm here. The new user has recently created a user page, appropriating a nice image from User:Coren's user page to decorate it. Unfortunately the new user doesn't understand the page construction, because while some userboxes were removed, the administrator userbox was left in place. Clicking on the test link demonstrates the new account with less than 100 edits is not in fact an administrator. So I mentioned to the user this was inappropriate and have received no response or reaction. At the time I noticed the user had a committed identity, which I thought, heh, unusual for a newbie, but so what? So today I googled the listed identity and... it's User:Coren's. Since I'm involved in a dispute of sorts with the user, I can't just correct it myself. Could I get some fresh admin eyes on User:DerekMD's page? BusterD (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, however I've removed the administrator userbox and the false/misleading committed identity from the userpage. Claiming to be an administrator when you're not and using someone else's committed ID is disruptive. Night Ranger (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to do that myself under the circumstances. I've notified both named users. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to think this is anything more than a newbie that didn't notice how some bits of my userpage didn't apply; or didn't quite know how to remove them cleanly. — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coren... not trying to impersonate anyone. I really like the reactor image. I guess it's OK for me to use it for now? since no one has said anything about that. If not just let me know. ThanksDerekMD (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Use it all you want. It's a freely licensed file from Wikimedia Commons; nothing to do with Coren personally. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC).

Like Bishonen says, this is a freely licensed image and you are welcome to use it as well — it's certainly not mine. There is something eerily attractive about the blue glow of doom, though, isn't there?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore my "sandbox"

Dreadstar has deleted the work area in which I created Lewinsky (neologism). This has lead to the misunderstanding that my first edit was to create that article fully-formed. I asked Dreadstar to restore it but their response was "If you think I'm enabling a disruptive sock/spa account, you've got another think coming. Plenty of other admins to go to for this besides trying to rub it in my nose." KayBee (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article itself still exists. You could copy it to your computer and work on it there. I expect that because it's thought to be a BLP violation and is a candidate for deletion on that basis, they don't want extra copies of it running around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi Bomb, (anagram: Wikibomb) could you please reveal the name of your primary account? Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that such is not a requirement at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to review WP:ILLEGIT at your convenience, Collect. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no question Bomb is a single-purpose account, and one that appears to know wikipedia pretty well, which spells "sock", although if his primary account is not blocked, he could try to argue that he's within the rules. However, refreshing my memory now by reading your citation, he looks suspect on several points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to mention, one of the points discussed at the DRV was that the single edit creation of the article was strong evidence for the editor being a sock, knowing that there was an edit history for the article in user space would have been very helpful in the discussion and never came up. I don't see much point in restoring it now, but I would like to know why it wasn't revealed at the DRV. Monty₈₄₅ 15:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• We're being trolled here, and trolled quite well given the all-enveloping shitstorm that has surrounded the creation of yet another article on a fake neologism (and the ensuing attempts to add it top various sexual slang templates and lists, as well as a fucking disambig link at the top of Monica Lewinsky itself) plus an article on Lewinsky's non-notable father. Block, delete, and let's be done with the games. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a more legitimate expression than "santorum". That's a fake neologism if ever there was one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Bugs, that is a minor quibbling that ignores the bulk of what I said. What's your point? Tarc (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You're the one who said is was "fake", which is apparently an untrue statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • There's no such thing as a 'fake neogolism', People coin phrases all the time. Some catch on, and some don't. I don't think we need to dwell on that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The article I created in my "sandbox" was deleted with no discussion and I was blocked for creating it. While I was blocked I was accused of being a sockpuppet. The article has been restored, the block has been lifted, and there was no evidence to suggest that I am a sockpuppet. I have broken no rules here. I have asked for my work area to be restored because people continue to be mislead by claims that the article appeared in its finished form. If the article is not in violation of any rules how can an earlier incomplete version be in violation of the rules? Please restore my "sandbox". KayBee (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think you need this work area restored? If you think just because there are a series of edits there and that this will somehow exonerate you in the eyes of those that feel you're a sock, you're sorely mistaken, as there's plenty of other extenuating weirdness about your sudden presence in the Wikipedia, not the least of which is your username (kiwibomb --> wikibomb). The content itself of the sandbox is just the fake Lewinsky neologism, which is on the verge of deletion. Once that happens, you don't get to retain copies of deleted content in your userspace. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop calling it a "fake" neologism, as that's undermining your argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Undermines it for who, people like you who have apparently taken the Grand Prize in the red herring fishing derby? Pardon me if I don't lose much sleep over your concern, but don't sidetrack the conversation on a silly tangent like this, please. The major issue here is a non-new user who even today is still pulling stunts like using a picture of Lewinsky to illustrate the neologism article. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I found it on Urban Dictionary, with a posting date of 2003. You can argue whether that's a legitimate source, but you can't argue that the OP made it up. The santorum thing, on the other hand, was made up by a radio jock who wanted to equate his own bodily fluids with a public official. You can't get any more fake than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

When did I ever say that this Kiwi sock created the word? Oh wait, I didn't. Kiwi Bomb is to a "lewinsky" as Cirt is to a "santorum"; neither created, but perpetuated. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, do you think maybe they got the idea from Campaign for "santorum" neologism‎? I think I tried to have those images of Santorum and Savage removed from an earlier version of the article, but no one wanted to listen. Sauce for the goose, etc? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have twice explained why I would like it restored. It appears there was no justification for Dreadstar having deleted it in the first place, but I must argue to have it restored? Is this how things are normally done at Wikipedia? Editors are blocked for creating properly formatted articles about notable topics? Why have I been singled out to be insulted and treated with hostility? Bigtimepeace appears to have done nothing else but try to make thinsg as difficult as possible for me for the last few days. Does Wikipedia have an ombudsman who can intervene on my behalf? KayBee (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently sidestepped my question; what use to you have for the sandbox restoration, if the sandbox is just a copy of an article that is now out in article-space? If you really think you're in the right here, just take a copy of the current neologism and paste it into your sandbox sub-page. It will have a short shelf-life, but its your trip, as they say. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You sound very familiar, KayBee. Have we met before? Recently? Did you used to go by another name? It's clear you're not a new editor yet you keep pretending you are. Why do you do that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If this goes the way the BarkingMoon thing went, you may as well abandon that line of questioning, because nothing will be done anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you can't let him have his sandbox! There was no reason for deleting it; clearly the BLP argument can't be valid if it's already been rejected for the article itself. Doesn't the principle of the thing matter to anyone here? He shouldn't even have had to ask. And this constant ABF sock puppet nonsense directed at someone just because they're editing correctly - someone who could well have learned editing and developed some opinions on our local politics as an IP - that's just repugnant. Wikipedia shouldn't see editors treated this way at all, let alone on the main admin page! Wnt (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we get a sense of how ridiculous and childish this is when we have an account literally asking to have their sandbox back.

There is no need for this, whatsoever. The article Kiwi Bomb created might well be deleted, which would make all of this moot. Even were it not, restoring the sandbox is pointless and will do nothing to change anyone's views of this new user account. The idea that people not knowing about the sandbox has affected anything about the ensuing debate or opinions about "KB" is absurd.

Personally I am strongly of the view that this account is, to put it mildly, not really here to help and should have remained blocked. Sorry if that offends Kiwi Bomb or anyone else, but it's just what I think based on some pretty clear behavioral evidence, and it's perfectly legitimate for anyone to think that. I think I'm a very assume good faith sort of chap as a general rule, but I don't have it for this particular account. I am not at all inclined to grant this request and would suggest other admins not do so either. And I suggest that someone close this section soon, because the whole point of it is to waste our time. There are plenty of articles for Kiwi Bomb to work on and since they are free to edit now they should get cracking, rather than stirring up pointless drama. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the majority of the "pointless drama" was not the result of Kiwi. The above conversation is so chock-full of self importance and bad faith that there's very little room for reasonable discourse. Something was deleted out of process, the person asks nicely for it to be put back... It should have been very simple. But instead we've got people playing Judd Dredd. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I may be new around here, but I know WP:Dick when I see it. Why not restore the sandbox? Dot196 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm old around here, and I know WP:DUCK when I see it... GiantSnowman 23:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reason not to merge the sandbox history with the article? If it's deleted, it's still deleted, but meanwhile the history has been restored per the user's request. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Aaron, you are an administrator, and no one is stopping you from restoring the sandbox if you think that's the right thing to do. Rather than taking shots at the paucity of the discourse--which rather adds to the paucity of the discourse--right the wrong, as you perceive it. I believe we are being played by the user in question and don't feel like playing along with them--but that's just me. If you take what they are asking for on good faith, terrific, fulfill their request and shut down this "self-important" discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And now we have Dot196, who finds ANI with post #1 and knows all about the don't be a dick wiki-adage? Hmmm... Tarc (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I normally prefer to stay out of these discussions but I agree with snowman and tarc. Passes duck and is rather obviously trolling. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@BigTimePeace: I was actually only prevented from doing so when this request first appeared by difficulties in the big room. Unfortunately I now feel that, despite the poor discourse, to restore would be unsupported by consensus.

@Tarc: Then file a report and get it check-usered. We have systems in place, use those systems. If the check user comes back clean, then put down the pitchfork and back away.

Please stop chasing ghosts, and when there is something actually disruptive that a user does, then treat them the same as any other user, with calm polite warnings leading to escalating actions to prevent further disruption. Surely the duck hunters can recall the entire mess with Durova, !!, and "profane german"? Trolling only works when you're sucked into it.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI and CU already run here and came up with nothing. Essentially, Dreadstar and others are acting the epitome of WP:Dick to a new user. Silverseren^C 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't need technical evidence to know a returning user when I see one, and neither do many others. I see your WP:DICK card, and I raise you a WP:DUCK. Tarc (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe folks can stop calling other folks dicks or accusing them of acting like dicks, that would help with things. Plus it's too close to WP:DUCK so people might get confused. If someone wants to help turn this discussion in a more fruitful direction though, they could create WP:DICKDUCK or WP:DUCKDICK (not sure which one is better). I don't know what it would mean but we need an essay like that stat!

Aaron my argument, and that of some others, is that this user has been disruptive. If you think not, fair enough, but to me their edit history seems to indicate a clear desire to stir up controversy and trouble, which has indeed happened. If you think the consensus here is against restoring the sandbox, okay, but I I'm not sure there's really consensus for anything, and so I don't think admins are necessarily limited from doing what Kiwi Bomb wants here. Obviously it's up to you though.

If no one is going to restore the sandbox then we should mark this resolved, because continued conversation is not going to help anyone. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK and WP:DICK are essays, not policy, and WP:DUCK was written by some of the same people from the current faction fight. WP:AGF and WP:HARASS and WP:BITE are what should matter. If someone is eager to checkuser Dot196 I can understand being suspicious is an admin's job, but a person proved innocent shouldn't be still treated as guilty. Wnt (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Road signs in Iran

After the deletion of Road signs in Egypt, I have been reviewing the other articles to which Santapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributed. It turns out that a majority of signs in Road signs in Iran were copied other countries' signs; some use the Latin script, others (e.g. Czech snow chains and winter tires signs) are prima facie suspicious. I saw no other option but to remove all the copied signs; somebody more knowlegeable than me should feel free to selectively re-add them. (Note: while traffic signs in different countries are often similar, they may not have identical design; e.g. the color and/or the pictogram might slightly differ.) Somebody should also check fa:نشان‌های_راهنمایی_و_رانندگی_در_ایران - the road signs seem to have been copied there from the English page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just mention that while I agree that we should be skeptical about the tire chain signs, it is a lot more plausible that such signs would have utility in Iran then in Egypt, Iran is further north and has areas with sufficient elevation to receive substantial snow, see Mount Damavand. Monty₈₄₅ 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinharib99

Someone needs to persuade Sinharib99 (talk · contribs) to start communicating and to understand why his rapid creation of unreferenced bibliographies is being responded to by PRODs from a number of editors. DGG tried to get him to respond on the 3rd but he continues to create unreferenced BLPs. He doesn't seem to have responded to any messages on his talk page for over a year. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you mean biographies. ;) In any case, since DGG's note the editor hasn't created any unreferenced BLPs, the only BLP they created since that note was Praydon Darmoo which at least has a reference to a newspaper article. So I'd suggest that DGG did get through to Sinharib99, to a degree. -- Atama頭 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, user was warned about the same in March of 2010; took a break and did the same thing again. N^oformation ^Talk 07:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RPP backlog

Resolved

 – cleared--rgpk (comment) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you all know... Egg Centric 13:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Still there... Egg Centric 14:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Returned user User:Everyme

• 84.44.182.35
• 87.78.55.135
• 87.79.225.139
• 84.44.230.33
• 87.78.52.92
• 84.44.182.35
• 84.44.231.244

Not entirely sure how to handle this. I saw a dispute on the Village Pump here, where an IP was becoming quite upset. During the course of the debate, he claimed to be Everyme, a user who was blocked indefinitely in 2009 after socking around blocks. In April of this year, User:Xavexgoem unblocked Everyme with the edit summary "Long past done - close eye by me".

After I commented on the dispute at VPP, the IP came to my talkpage and confirmed he is Everyme. However, his tone became more antagonistic and I advised he calm down. Instead, he leveled a clear personal attack against me. I left a warning on his talkpage, which he removed with the edit summary "fuck off, dipshit".

I had left a message with Xavexgoem, but no response so far. I really don't know how to handle this. Normally, I'd call for another indef block, if not a ban, but Everyme has already stated on my talk page that "Nothing short of a rangeblock is going to stop me from contributing anyway".

I'm sure Everyme will take this report as proof that I'm out to get him, just like everyone else. Honestly, that was not my intention at the beginning; I simply wanted to understand the dispute and attempt to clam him down. He seems intent on playing the victim, though, and on disrupting the project until it conforms to his wishes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no question he saw the warning, since he deleted it. The IP is part of a /19 range, so a rangeblock would be potentially painful. Someone more familiar with the user's history should probably look over the recent activity and make a determination on how to proceed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that he is using the old account, but why was he unblocked? I concur with HTF...he isn't here to help and trolling. People under a rangeblock could get an account.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he was unblocked, but he says he no longer has the password to the Everyme account. Also, he seems happy to use his IP, because it lets him avoid scrutiny: "This is exactly why it's good to have no account. You guys can hold your witchburning palavers all you want. I'll just move on to the next thing." He seems quite set on avoiding any block to continue his editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to list the contributions from a certain range? It'd be nice to see in a case like this, at least to the extent that we'd see how many people would be impacted from a range block. RxS (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Between the four IPs listed, the user has three separate ranges in play, two of which look to be dial-in access, which makes them dynamic by definition...and one of those is a /15 range. It's all from the same ISP. It may be too early to be thinking block evasion, since the original block was lifted. I'm thinking that going the opposite direction might be a better option: semi the page. I don't see any other IPs involved in the discussion in question. Just my 2p worth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N5iln (talk • contribs) 11:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

He states that he doesn't have an account but he indicates a willingness to sock. He also is participating in discussions on talk page archive templates that make it sound like he has an account...why would he care if he was only going to contribute as an IP? Should we get a checkuser to take a look?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The way the IP list is growing, it might not be a bad idea, and WP:CHK doesn't consider such as fishing. I'll hoist the {{Checkuser needed}} flag. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the blocks did not block him from editing anonymously, and I know he's been editing for a while anonymously. A rangeblock at his range would knock out a fair bit of Germany, iirc. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you're here, can you explain why the Everyme account was unblocked? And since you're keeping an eye on him, did you note his rather acerbic VPP comments? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This user seems to have a history of not only sockpuppetry, but of using childish insults to refer to others [8]. Frankly, I think the main account should be indeffed, and further attempts at sockpupptery should be reverted and blocked. I'm also not sure why his user page is protected indefinitely [9]... I'm not sure "human dignity" is a legitimate reason for indefinite protection. Night Ranger (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember why I unblocked him, maybe I was feeling generous. And also: you all can, y'know, ignore him. It's really your only option. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You probably weren't the best person to unblock him as the following seems to indicate you're some kind of friend of his [10]. My apologies if I'm reading that wrong. No, ignoring him isn't the only option the community has. They can also insist that the account be reblocked, as it ought to have been left, as the person who created it is engaging in abusive sockpuppetry and being disruptive enough to make people bring it here for resolution. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Declined – Given that Everyme hasn't edited since 2008, and the only source of disruption seems to be coming from IPs, there is nothing here for CU to do. You're free to look at contributions from entire IP ranges with this tool; what we have so far are 84.44.128.0/17 and 87.78.0.0/15, in which the latter is too large to technically rangeblock in any aspect. You have a similar situation when looking at all the IPs listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Everyme. I don't think there is much that can be done here as far as blocks are concerned, and from my quick analysis of the situation, the most reasonable option would have to be protection of all involved pages. –MuZemike 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reblocked the account per the above discussion. It will at least have the advantage that it will be obvious that we are dealing with IPs from a blocked user, not from an unblocked user, which means that any such IPs can be temporarily blocked for block evasion if needed. Fram (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of template

No Admin issues identified, take this to the talk page, or if necessary to WP:DR, or if really necessary to WP:ANEW, and not here on ANI, as you were told yesterday! Goodbye.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The issue was raised yesterday by Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requests for comment on Al-Andalusi's edits and mass tagging, and change of template , is this allowed? which was closed with the note: "...Instead of having someone remove all the tags and thus begin a massive edit war, please resolve the concerns on the template's talk page. This thread should be considered closed now". That did not happen, instead Misconceptions2 removed every single tag and then another user (William M. Connolley) again removed the tags after being told by Misconceptions2 on his talk page: User talk:William M. Connolley#Al-A tagging all expedition/battle pages of Muhammad, advice. They claim that it hasn't been discussed enough, even though I already explained on the talk page that, per WP:MOSISLAM: "Articles on hadith should make clear the reliability of the hadith – if they don't, then consider adding Template:Hadith authenticity." I made it clear from the beginning on the talk page (right after I added the tags) that the tagged articles include primary sources with no check for authenticity of the hadith, see Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think Al-A is right to say that the removal of the mass-tagging is unexplained. Misconceptions2 has made his objections fairly clear, and I've tried to discuss this on Al-A's talk page. Speaking of which, can I draw your attention to I'm not leaving this until I see you blocked or even banned for your attitude [11]? Al-A has still provided no real reason why a whole pile of articles should be tagged, without making some attempt to resolve whatever the issues might be on talk, first. However this does appear to be part of the long-simmering dispute about Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad and what it should contain William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I made it clear on the TP the reasons behind adding the tags, per MOS Islam. Now if those reasons are not enough to convince you, then that's another issue and you cannot under any circumstance remove the tag before a consensus is reached. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I've already added a note there about your reasons, which don't really add up. You really should have replied there, first, before starting the mass-readding William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Ok so you disagreed, but who told you could remove the tag before a consensus is reached ? I disagree with your disagreement and by your logic, I can add back the tag simply because "I disagree". Besides, you haven't objected to Misconceptions2 mass-reverts despite being told by an admin not to do so, but it seems you only noticed my reverts. You cannot remove a tag because you "don't like it", in fact, tags were specifically designed to address this attitude. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Tags are text. They come and go. This particular tag isn't a common or well-recognised one. You can't simply wrap some text up in a tag, dump it on a page (or large number of pages) and say "my text is inviolate simply because I added it as a tag". As the admins pointed out to you at your previous report, none of this stuff requires any special powers so admin opinions aren't really needed and certainly aren't binding William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) The tag remover seems to be more knowledgeable about this situation. [12] If those articles aren't based on the hadith but other sources, then that tag makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I don't think this is true at all. I did explain on the previous ANI: As to the claim that these articles do not cite hadith but rather the works of Al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and Ibn Hisham. First of all, to many hadith scholars, the term hadith encompasses more than just the sayings of Muhamamd, and has been used interchangeably with athar (which are the reports from Muhammad's companions). In either case, both have come down to us with their chains of transmitters, recorded in the books you mentioned (Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd and Al-Tabari). The chain, known as an isnad, could be assessed for reliability using the principles of Hadith studies. So it is quite misleading to say that Al-Tabari said so and so when he clearly states in the introduction of one of his works: "Let the reader be aware that whatever I mention in my book is relied on the news that were narrated by some men. I had attributed these stories to their narrators, without inferring anything from their incidents...If a certain man gets horrified by a certain incident that we reported in our book, then let him know that it did not come from us, but we only wrote down what we received from the narrators" Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) The problem is that ANI is a vast and fast-moving place. Such comments are easily missed. Please copy them over to Template talk:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad#Hadith reliability where they belong William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Dear, dear. Why can't people resolve things on their own talk pages? This dispute is over the interpretation of hadith and the applicability of a template, so what do you want from admins? I'll block Misconceptions2 and you, too, Al-Andalusi, if that would make you happier. That way there would be no more silly AN/I threads. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nottoohappy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

come back when he ignores the warning. Since he hasn't even had the chance to ignore the warning, we don't know what his intent is. --Jayron32 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Kevin Garn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nottoohappy (talk · contribs) has ignored repeated requests to stop the Disruptive editing of the Kevin Garn article. Every one of His edits has been undone as vandalism or violations of BLP rules. I would suspect this is a WP:SPA account since 18 of the 25 edit he has made were on the Kevin Garn page, and the other edits were related to that page.

I think this something a admin need to look into. Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor has had repeated warnings, including a final warning 2 days after their most recent edit. I'd say one more violation warrants an indef block, but they haven't edited since the final warning. -- Atama頭 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The last warning was put up at the exact same time (17:03) I posted hear, so if the Admins wish to wait for Nottoohappy to edit again, that's fine. Had I seen the newest warning before I posted here I would have waited.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My instinctual reaction is to block the editor. It seems to me that the likelihood of this person suddenly turning a corner and cooperating rather than making the same advocacy BLP violations against the Mormon Church and others is very low. But I'd hate to block someone after a final warning but before a new offense, it doesn't seem right. -- Atama頭 18:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A block at this point would be punitive, or at least it would appear that way. The issue is not ripe for action until he edits again.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Problematic user

Although EastBelfastBoy (talk · contribs) acts in good faith, he fails to listen. The edits he makes constitutes WP:OWN and possibly WP:POINT. He has received help many help by users but appears to ignore it. Any ideas? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

He's just frustrated because not enough people have taken the time to calm down and nicely explain the relevant policies to him. Half of the messages on his talk page I see are either warnings (some completely incorrect; how is this vandalism?) or "refer to policy X". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia after all. Someday we might have a version of Wikipedia written entirely in Wikispeak, but we're not there quite yet. To be fair, Island Monkey has made attempts to talk to him like a human being and EastBelfastBoy was willing to communicate, on his talk page. -- Atama頭 17:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hacking attempt?

On this page at least:

Talk:Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Edit request from ThePurpleProtector, 20 May 2011

Starting from there, I only noticed it because the comment I was just having changed font and became red. Theres a message there but it isn't in the history log of the page so seems may be injected? Maybe its old but thought I would bring it to your attention Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was in {{ESp}}, which might need protection. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, its fixed on my end so that was definitely the source. Thanks for clearing it up Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the template as well (3255 transclusions). I'm not super-current on what we're doing with high-visibility templates, so if another admin wants to reverse my action, that's fine. TNXMan 20:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be pointed out that editing an unprotected template isn't really hacking anything, but here I'll defer to WP:BEANS before going any further. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily and baiting

Resolved

 – No further administrative action required. No baiting here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

Nice try at attempting to "bait" me, Fastily. His response to my latest request for rollback is an escalation from the declines of this previous rollback request, and this autoreviewed request. He had been warned to desist in interacting with me, and yet he comes less than 40 minutes ago with this unacceptable tone; also, deeming my initiation of a new request "admin shopping" is highly inappropriate...I was well aware that my request would have to be partially processed by Slakr, who originally revoked my flag. It is clear I have learned my behavioural lesson (see Lhasa), much better than what occurred when I asked for a lock-down of Xiamen but Fastily has not learned his. Attempts at reconciliation by accepting all of my CSD G6 mean nothing when he is going to continue like this. Sure, question me regarding civility, but check all of my 1,000-something contributions since 12 June (when my block expired). See if you can find even one instance of nasty/threatening tone. To end, if this is what I ultimately have to pay for as a result of enforcing set-in-stone consensus against those clearly coming here only to disrupt, when (many) other users only get warned for mis-use of the same privilege (reverting at most ambiguously bad faith edits), then condemnation galore. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 20:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What administrator intervention do you want from this board? Quigley (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some enforcement if he responds to me at a page beginning with WP:Requests for _ even once with the sort of colours he has shown to me. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't blame Fastily responding as such when, in your rollback request, you refer to other users as idiots. No, I didn't read the diff, because it doesn't matter, your request was uncivil. N^oformation ^Talk 21:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear who HXL49 called an "idiot" if anybody; there's just a link to the history of the Taiwan article, which is often a target for IP vandals and trolls. On the other hand, administrators are held to a higher standard of decorum, and the fact that Fastily called HXL49 a "monkey" does raise some questions as to whether Fastily is baiting HXL49. Quigley (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This lengthy diff contains the "idiot" remark, FYI:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, it's a humorous and light-hearted American figure of speech. Rest assured, no monkey business intended ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The more typical version is "you can't an old dog new tricks". Whether that's better or worse than being called a monkey, I couldn't say. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't care if it's intended (really?) to be humourous and light-hearted. The connotations that it could possibly carry are what matters. I demand a retracting of the 'monkey' comment right this moment, and your lighter tone here is merely spraying salt on a wound. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, well, okay. Feel free to glean unintended meanings from my words if it floats your boat :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That you used 'monkey' instead of 'dog' should speak entirely for itself, you know. Not so much about the intent as the victim's reception of it. And I believe that is what's taught in (American) schools about bullying, is it? —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is much the idea of "you get what you give"; because the idea of civility borders both ways. You pretty much left yourself open, not to abuse, but to a lessened standard of politeness, when you refer to another editor as paranoid. Perhaps take a page from Slakr's book - he did not demand you retract that. Simply ignored it. FWIW "dog" is the British version, I've mostly heard "monkey" in the US --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have retracted my own comment myself. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that (s)he was the only user whom I was in conflict with on that page that month, it is clear that I was calling that IP (98.122.101.52) an idiot, Noformation. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is not baiting. No admin intervention necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 21:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• So, are we done here? Quigley (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, This thread appears to be 'retaliation' of some sort for notifying Slakr of this rollback permissions request. In his request at WP:PERM/R, HXL49 engages in a textbook violation WP:CIV and WP:NPA, in which he refers to another editor as an idiot numerous times, and refers to Slakr as paranoid. I should like to note that HXL49 has been both warned and blocked numerous times for his disruptive behavior in the past:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#User:HXL49 - HXL49 was warned for violations of civility and asked to refrain from attacking other users
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive702#Personal_attacks_by_User:HXL49 - HXL49 received a final warning for gross violations of WP:CIV/WP:NPA
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive704#Intimidating.2FThreatening_behavior_from_User:HXL49 - HXL49 is blocked for making threats and violating WP:CIV/WP:NPA. However, his block length was reduced upon promising good behavior.

Neither I nor Slakr believe HXL49 has learned his lesson, and another block may be necessary to get the message across. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you clearly called me a monkey when I have slung no names at you. Pardon me, but Slakr referred to himself as "paranoid at times"; if he didn't use that phrasing, I wouldn't have. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, I knew you would notify Slakr of my request, so why would I retaliate for your message on his talk? Think this through again. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment on this thread would incidentally be the same as my recent comment on his current request for rollback. I've made other comments there regarding my reasons for opposing HXL's request. With regard to "baiting," I'm fairly certain Fastily meant no such thing, and the "can't teach an old monkey new tricks" is simply a derivation of the idiom/metaphor of "can't teach an old dog new tricks," which isn't exactly pejorative when a user continues admin-shopping despite that very same behavior failing in the past. --slakr^\ talk / 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think I was really admin-shopping when I knew that my request would have to be looked over by you? Think a bit more. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, yeah. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain? —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You already know the answer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is. I am not at fault for Slakr's usage of the "feel free to restore whenever" comment. I am not at fault for the disruption caused in December (and as recently as 2 weeks ago) at Taiwan. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, please explain how going back to WP:RFP/R is "admin shopping" because I don't understand the accusation when HXL49 knows how (1) ubiquitous you and Slakr are on there and that (2) any new admin who would give him back the flag would refer back to the admin who removed it. Quigley (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Expecting Fastily to fully explain himself is a great wish indeed. And Fastily, I nicely asked you (see the removed text) to avoid handling my requests. If you are going to ignore what I ask of you, it isn't my problem...officer —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley: I can't speak for Fastily, but the last time the user requested rollback, he got upset when I was asked, by Fastily, for my input in the matter due to my original removal of the flag and subsequent refusal to reinstate it. That would at least indicate to me that he was shopping for a favorable admin who would just grant him the flag with no questions asked, having failed to get me to restore it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

↑ -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Last time was last time. Did I get upset when Fastily notified you? Why would I when I knew that some sysop would do so? This is beginning to be wholly irrational: an attempt to paint my behaviour at present as the same as what occurred around 10 June. Sigh. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, from the old request, you said: "Fastily, I think it was rather clear from the user talk diff I gave you that deference to Slakr is not necessary." This seems to suggest to me you did not expect anyone to contact me. --slakr^\ talk / 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are still referring to parts of the events of early June. This time I only stated "Note this comment in the user rights log". A step down from "deference to Slakr is not necessary". I only asked the passerby to note your comment and not to completely bypass you. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool... so is there something else urgent that needs addressing by ANI or can we close this thread? Neither I nor Fastily intend on closing your RfR due to our prior involvement, so one of the other uninvolved admins who patrols RfR will eventually drop by and either grant or decline it. --slakr^\ talk / 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how many CSD G6 requests he satisfies; he may have been using the apparent good will in such actions to cloud any potential posts at RfR. Know that the very little trust in him I have is yet enough to believe he will not close my request. Whether he will comment on my requests, that is a different question... The message that he should not be commenting away like that...needs to sink in his head. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That probably will not happen anytime soon :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. Not making a promise is better than breaking one, which I am sure you do very often. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 23:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Slakr, you can close the thread now. Quigley (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I lolled. I'm not sure how you think this sort of behavior towards admins (or really, towards anyone) is going to help you get what you want or get people to listen to you. Kevin (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious in dealing with a user who's so anxious to get the rollback privilege. Although, you could try it, and see if he misuses it again. However, that could require 24 x 7 monitoring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Suspect bot account

BendelacBOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared on WP:AIV with a large number of alterations to articles, mostly deletion of language links and replacing with others, none of which appear to be logically supported under WP:MOS. Could someone take a look at the account and see if I'm misreading the activity? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the link changes are good or not, but the bot is not authorized locally and doesn't appear on the list of global bots that would be permitted to change interwiki links without local permission. The bot owner appears to be from the Hebrew Wikipedia, so I've left him a message there -- in English since I don't know Hebrew, but if anyone who does cares to supplement my message, feel free. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I also left a notice of this discussion at User talk:BendelacBOT. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

hello everyone. my bot in is trial, you can see here. if anyone think that my bot do a mistaike, just post on my user discussion page. btw, now my bot have bot-flag in 5 wikipedias -yona bendelac (discussion) 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, problematic "veteran" user

I request to be IP banned myself, so I don't have to put up with Sudoghost's harassment anymore. I tried to play nice, inviting the stalker the help me, but he is just fucking insane. Please IP ban me, so I am not tempted to edit Wikipedia anymore. Thigle (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not harassing you as far as I've seen. I haven't been closely following your interactions, but as far as I have been, you've been the one at fault. Pay attention to the rules (copyright and otherwise) and give other users as a modicum of respect and you may magically find you have fewer problems with other users. Kevin (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You were edit-warring at User talk:SudoGhost, going well beyond WP:3RR, even after being warned that it would lead to a block. Since you've been blocked twice before for edit-warring, for 24 and 48 hours, I've blocked you for a week. -- Atama頭 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified SG of this discussion. Kevin (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Boomerang strikes again! —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities)

Thetruthnow2012 (talk · contribs) who cannot obtain WP:CONSENSUS for his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) is resorting to disparaging personal attacks against other editors. His other accounts include:

• Thetruthof2011 (talk · contribs)
• 24.5.132.234 (talk · contribs)

The content dispute can be viewed at the dispute resolution entry I started. He initially edit-warred over the page, but stopped after receiving a WP:3RR notification, primarily because he was convinced that the other editor Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) and I were also guilty of violating 3RR. I wasn't.

Thetruthnow2012's correspondence on other users' pages was mildly uncivil [14] [15] [16] [17]. (My response: [18].) But he really let off steam after I started the dispute resolution entry to amicably resolve all content issues. In response to the DR, he started a reciprocative entry [19] [20] which included WP:SHOUTing and phrases like:

• two wrong editors perpetuating falsehood don't make a right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• That is 'Yk Yk Yk's opinion, but such an opinion reveals a form of SPITEFULNESS on his/her part nonetheless.
• The so-called editor known as 'Yk Yk Yk' also claimed that I made unnecessary changes to the web page entitled 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'.
• For both said editors, like a SPITEFUL TAG TEAM

Seeing that he felt aggrieved that he was being cornered as a relatively new user, I re-explained to him (in the most courteous tone) what was wrong with his edits [21]. His response [22] [23] included personal attacks and accusations of bad faith:

• i.e. 'rangoon11's false cooking of the statistical data
• BY 'YK YK YK's OWN ADMISSION she stated that she only changed my edited webpages and sided with 'rangoon11' on the frivolous basis that it was puffy
• it can safely and legally be said that the editor known as 'YK YK YK' is as dishonest and disreputable as 'rangoon11'

Also, his messages [24] [25] [26] inviting other users to the dispute resolution "arena" suggests that he is deliberately kicking up a fuss (WP:BATTLE) to make a mockery of Wikipedia.

User:Mr. Stradivarius is offering him the chance to tone down his hostility [27] at the dispute resolution page. I suggest we give him one more opportunity to WP:CALM down and resolve the content dispute in a collaborative manner. Otherwise, block him for incivility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith and harassment. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 00:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

USER: rangoon11 & YK YK YK and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and Golden Triangle (UK universities) 2

Yet another frivolous response by the editor 'YK YK YK' who has wrongfully dragged me into yet another arena when she had failed in the previous one. And this time he/she has piggy-backed on Stradivarius and what he had brought forth regarding the tone of the discussion. Be that as it may, it appears that 'YK YK YK' has failed to deny any of my assertions and such said matters have now become UNDISPUTED. And because 'YK YK YK' wants to make a NON-ISSUE into another issue that was never part of her initial complaint to David Wilson, she cannot now use this as a basis for her complaint, SINCE IT IS 'YK YK YK's FUTILE attempt to DIVERT EVERYONE FROM THE MAIN ISSUES THAT FORMED THE ORIGINAL BASIS OF THE DISCUSSION. With that said, I will take the liberty to address a few things that she kept from the discussion but had placed on my TALK page.

'YK YK YK' contention that the tone of my words is not to her liking or uncivil is a non-issue, but such words (i.e. 'spiteful' or 'dishonest') are benign at the least and mild at the most. Indeed, such words are legally used in courts of law or published in newspaper/newsmagazine editorial columns everyday (i.e. New Statesman; Punch, et cetera). Even David Wilson referred to the editor HRH2 who had complained about 'rangoon11' on a previous occasion as 'boastful'. However, it must be pointed out here that there is NOTHING CIVIL ABOUT 'YK YK YK's REPEATED AND UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF ACCURATE SUPPORTING INFORMATION BACKED UP BY VERIFIABLE CITES AND AUTHORITIES. And there is NOTHING CIVIL EITHER ABOUT 'YK YK YK's ADMITTED ENDORSEMENT OF ANOTHER EDITOR'S (rangoon11) REPEATEDLY UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP OF MY EDITS AND REPLACING IT WITH HIS/HER OWN INACCURATE ONES ON THE SOLE BASIS OF BREVITY and NOT SCHOLARSHIP. BY 'YK YK YK'S OWN ADMISSION TO DAVID WILSON ON HER COMPLAINT, SHE STATED THAT SHE KNEW THAT I WAS ACCURATE AND THAT 'rangoon11' WAS ERRONEOUS, BUT BECAUSE SHE FRIVOLOUSLY THOUGHT THAT MY EDITS WERE 'PUFFY' SHE FELT THE NEED TO DELETE IT ANYWAY AS WELL AS ENDORSE 'rangoon11's WRONGFUL DELETIONS. 'YK YK YK's own admissions bears witness to the fact that my said edits were censored out of spite. By definition, what both said editors committed was spite. How can anyone naively assert otherwise. See it for what it is and nothing more. And because of 'YK YK YK's failure to deny such assertions of fact, such matters have now become UNDISPUTED.

Another frivolous contention that 'YK YK YK' has repeatedly brought up was the notion that I felt cornered. I take offense to 'YK YK YK's non-issue contention. Such an inference by her is false and shows her lack of competence in such matters. It should be remembered that it was not I who brought forth this complaint, but ONLY 'YK YK YK'. This editor known as 'YK YK YK' has no other complainant on her side even though she continually relies upon 'rangoon11' for her complaint. But her said reliance is grossly misplaced, since the other said editor has yet to appear as a complainant in either arena to defend both his/her noted baseless inaccuracies and repeatedly unwarranted censorship of verifiably accurate ones, as a matter of record. And David Wilson cannot act as her witness, since his only involvement was due to the issue of the 3-Revert Rule, which has been amicably resolved and rendered moot as of Wednesday. As a consequence, editor 'YK YK YK's purported trilateral support is legally non-existent, incompetent and inadmissible.

Her blind adherence to the ideals of a concept is untenable, for I myself, do not share her flimsy and vacuous notions. And such positions held by 'YK YK YK' cannot be enforced upon me or anyone else for that matter. The idea of Wikipedia is that it is a free online encyclopedia, nothing less and nothing more. What I have done was provide valid corrections and further relevant supporting scholarship backed up by verifiable cites and authorities to two existing web pages, while editors 'rangoon11' and the sole complainant 'YK YK YK' had blatantly sought to replace my said edits with ADMITTEDLY inaccurate ones that were unsupported by any reliable and verifiable citations.

Based upon all of the foregoing, I request that the Administrator rule against the editor known as 'YK YK YK' and prevent her and others like her from ever censoring my future valid edits ever again. However, that being said, I welcome any other editor with superior scholarship and valid citations to provide their own input to the said web pages, for it is a free online encyclopedia after all. It appears that 'YK YK YK' continues to ignore that fact.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship without validity is unlawful." This is going to go just fine for Thetruthnow2012, because he knows dem rules. Doc talk 09:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For those that haven't twigged on, this is a counter-post to Yk Yk Yk's post above. I've changed the heading level accordingly. To Thetruthnow2012 - above you said that Yk Yk Yk had "failed" in the dispute resolution thread. Does this mean that you don't intend to participate in it any more? We really need your cooperation in that thread if we are to sort this dispute out amicably. If you choose not to participate, though, that's fine too - in that case I will leave it to the editors here at ANI to decide how to proceed. (I should warn you, however, that some of the editors here have banhammers and are not afraid to use them...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel

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

Unresolved

This user is following me all around WP and yesterday reverted two of my edits on different articles where he has never worked before. Diffs : [28] [29] [30] . In one of these reverts he is even restoring a dead external link, so the reverts are not done sensibly. There is an earlier history of various trouble with this editor, and I already pointed him to the WP policies with regards to wikihounding last month. I would like this ongoing harasment to stop. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the user name you used didn't exist, I checked your contributions and I think you mis-spelled the person's username; I've changed it for you. Also, note that you're supposed to notify people when you talk about them here, so I'll do that for you now. User got it just after I posted here Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) No comment on the issue itself though. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction MakeSense64 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no comment is what I feel inclined to make myself on this silly report. But for the record, I'm a member of the Wiki astrology project and I've been working very actively to improve and develop the quality of articles related to that theme, and to bring them up to a good article standard. I also use the star pages refered to here myself in my own research projects. If you check the contributions history of Makesense64 you will see that in the last month alone he has placed critical tags on a huge amount of pages that relate to astrology (more than 50) and called for swift deletion of content of some of the pages. I have commented on a very small fraction of these (about 6) mainly to contest deletion of valuable content that I have then committed to improving to ensure the issues are resolved. See for example, the latest at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Astrological_organizations. Again for the record, Makesense64 is very freeflowing with his criticsm of content and desire to have astrological references removed, but he doesn't contribute towards fixing the issues, which is where I place my editorial commitment, involving a great deal of time and hard work. But anyway, check the history, the worst I have done is disagree with him through reasoned arguments and last night I undid two edits for which he claimed imaginary consensus when in fact the only response he had received from other editors was objections to his proposal to remove the astrological references. As for the links, I did not realise the second link was dead. His explanatory comment was that the two links were removed for not being 'astronomical', not 'dead'. I checked the first and saw that it was clearly relevant to the page theme, even though its primary focus was astrological rather than astronomical. His mission appeared to be to remove all astrological references from the page even though he had not found support for his view so I undid the edits and reminded him that he had not got the consensus he was implying he had. Restoring the dead link was a mistake, but easily corrected without allegations of harresment. (Indeed, upon realising the problem, I just went and fixed it). Zac Δ talk 06:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't explain the wikihounding. The articles about Algol and Gamma_Corvi do not fall under the WP astrology project, so how come you are following me there like a shadow to undo my edits? That's the question. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a huge amount of astrology articles are fairly tagged with various issues (by me and by others) makes it all the more strange that you end up working at exactly those articles where I have just done some edit. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the above with more attention to my comments. You've obviously taken umbridge to the fact that I have undone two of your edits, but not without ggood reasons that were made apparent. Is it really strange that when I see a page tagged by you for swift deletion, I then swiftly follow that with an argument that the page should not be deleted and offer a commitment to developing the content and fixing the issues? I am an active editor and a very small number of your many pages of astrological interest overlap with mine. I wouldn't have time to haress you if I wanted to, which I certainly don't, so please stop wasting everyone's time. I really have nothing more to say except that if you have any issues with my editorial contributions I am happy to address your concerns on the relevant talk pages with civility and reason Zac Δ talk 06:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not stalking; from the article: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Undoing a couple edits in no way meets the criteria. Nothing for an admin to do here. N^oformation ^Talk 07:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not complain if it was only the undoing of a few edits. After disagreement on a few other pages he followed me here within hours [31] and went on to confront me on the talk page [32], see 'Is Astrodata a citable source on Wikipedia?' and several next sections. In fact his comments there (under a different name) already suggest that he has singled me out. Then there were other events you can find in his log files. And now he is back, 'accidentally' following me to non-astrology articles to revert my edits there, articles that are probably not widely followed. This is not stalking? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am loathe to waste time on this, because this editor has a history of drawing upon every WP policy known to man to try to find reasons why I should not be allowed to comment on his disruptive astrological edits. Not one complaint has ever been supported by any admin or editor - I contributed to the 'Astrodata' discussion because this arose as a direct result of his questioning one of my references on the Dennis Elwell (astrologer) page which he had tagged for deletion, partly on the basis that it lacked references; nothing sinister as he is trying to make out. Anyway: 1) There has not been any instance of a non-astrology interaction as he claims. If he can present one, I will be happy to comment further. 2) There have been three pages where he has argued for swift deletion of pages and I have contested and put considerable time and effort into helping to bring those pages to a good standard. This appears to annoy him. 3) Besides the fact that I regularly use the star pages as a researcher on that subject, I became aware of the Algol edit because I have noticed this editor targetting links that go to a certain website the owner against whom he has a personal vendetta; so I have those pages on my watchlist. In the Algol edit (which *co-incidentally* involved the removal of a link to this person's website) he refered to the Gamma Corvi for justification of his edit, so again, nothing sinister, no attempt to trail him ..., however I am aware of the need to keep the pages he is likely to target for disruption or deletion on my watchlist. I think it can be seen from his multiduninous numnber of targeted astrology pages, and my response on only a handful which I then commit to developing and invest good time in, that my motivation is only concerned with preserving and improving the value of editorial content, and I have no desire whatsoever to fix my interest on him as a person or editor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Zac Δ talk 12:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

208.38.59.163

For several weeks 208.38.59.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been making dubious and unsourced additions to the disambiguation pages WSM, Pippa, and possibly others. In the first case, for example, they are adding an entry for wrestler Mark Henry, apparently on the grounds that the letters "WSM" appear on his tights. I explained that disambiguation pages are for names of things, and made requests of the user, in WSM edit summaries, on Talk:Mark Henry, and on Talk:WSM for confirmation that Henry is known by the name WSM, but in response received only a link to a photo of the wrestler. The user continues to make the addition, and their talk page is full of other recent vandalism warnings, so I'm now assuming that the disambiguation edits are vandalism rather than a content dispute. Since it's not an obvious case it would be good if I could get a second opinion. If it's agreed that this is vandalism then a block would be in order; if not then I'm open to further discussion if anyone can get the user to actually respond coherently. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation is for situations where someone might do a search for something, but come up with an article on a different topic, of the same or similar name. If he has a reasonable case that Mark Henry or Kelly Ripa are known as WSM or Pippa, there is not a problem with him adding it to the page. I suggest you stop accusing him of vandalism, these seem valid if somewhat obscure (Regis Philban does call Kelly Ripa 'Pippa' - a number of bloggers commented on it when Pippa Middleton hit the headlines; and the wrestler does have those initials on his pantyhose). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough for the Pippa claim, though it would be helpful if the nickname could be sourced (as I've requested on the relevant talk pages). The WSM issue still seems like quite a stretch to me—we don't generally add links to disambiguation pages for decorative text which appears on a particular person's clothing. For example, there is no link to Butt-head on AC/DC (disambiguation), nor to Orko on O (disambiguation), even though those characters are always depicted with those letters on their garments. The IP's persistent refusal to engage in dialogue on this issue led me to believe that they were choosing to act disruptively, though as I said, it was (and still is) difficult to be certain. If the consensus here is that this isn't actually vandalism, then what would be an appropriate forum for gathering further factual information and opinions on whether Mark Henry is an appropriate entry for WSM? I asked about two weeks ago on Talk:Mark Henry but received no responses; likewise the only contribution to Talk:WSM has been a photograph and some onomatopoeia from the anonymous IP. The photograph establishes that "WSM" appears on the costume but says nothing about whether anyone refers to the wrestler by that name, nor about whether anyone is likely to search for "WSM" expecting to get "Mark Henry" as a result, at least one of which would seem to be a sensible prerequisite for a disambiguation page entry. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-compliant signature

Could someone please ask Ohms law (talk · contribs) to bring their signature in line with the relevant guideline? It currently inserts a completely un-necessary line-break [33] [34] every time it is used, which lengthens pages needlessly and directly contravenes WP:SIG#Appearance and color. I have tried politely talking to the editor about this, but have been completely ignored. I have tried fixing one instance of the line-break, but was reverted twice with WP:TPO being cited, despite the fact that WP:TPO explicitly states that editing non-compliant signatures is permissible.

It is unfortunate that Ohms law (talk · contribs) cannot simply be reasonable about this. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He could be busy with stuff or asleep. It seems like you posted that at a time long after he stopped contributing for the day. Bringing it to ANI seems highly unnecessary and it should be noted that you and he have a history of extreme and vicious disagreement. Errr, also wasn't that message put there on his talk page only eight minutes prior? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but he has edited since then and not replied, hence "ignored". ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit: with regard to the long after thing, the time shown on the contribs and the sigs are different, the rest still stands though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't how to put this mildly, but this is completely unnecessary drama. Yes, WP:CUSTOMSIG advises not to use linebreaks (which I read as not to use them in the middle of your sig), but putting your signature as a whole on the next line is not in any way disruptive or malforming. In fact, I'm thinking of doing the same thing, just to make signatures easier to spot. I think you are in for quite a shock when LiquidThreads is eventually introduced; it places signatures on the next line by default!
— Edokter (talk) — 12:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I remove the line break manually when it's actually a problem, as well (when posting "support" or "oppose" votes, for example).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the consensus here is that line-breaks in signatures are acceptable, then the guideline needs to be amended. If not, then Ohms' sig needs to be amended. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As the page header says, Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. You gave the user 8 minutes time to respond before deciding that they "simply can't be reasonable about this" and taking them to the admin noticeboard? Jafeluv (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Since they've edited numerous times since I left the message, including two completely illegitimate reverts of my edits, yes, I've concluded that they're not planning to engage with me. You may disagree, however. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You never wait to respond to messages from people? Maybe he felt like he could respond in an hour or two, or even fifteen minutes from your post. Eight minutes is being very demanding. You know how we have WP:DEADLINE right? It's kind of that way for users I would think. They don't need to immediately respond to you and it's very unreasonable to expect them to do so immediately if they are busy with other stuff, in fact it is somewhat inconsiderate. Also, like I said, you and he have butted heads before, and even with WP:AGF in mind, I think that taking your history with him into account with the eight minutes, something smells rather rotten here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the reverts, it looks like they are related to this and were him reverting your removals of the <br> tags which you removed as a result of misinterpreting the rule. Again, seems to cast this in a rather bad light. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I do disagree. Expecting someone to respond in eight minutes (which would include noticing your message, reading it and writing a response) is completely unreasonable. It's not like this is an urgent matter or anything. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine; I'm a bastard. Whatever. Now that he is aware, and has replied in this thread, and has twice resisted changes to the signature quite contrary to WP:TPO, the sig still violates the guideline. Which is going to be changed – sig or guideline? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should either be changed? Also, are you sure that you yourself did not violate WP:TPO? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should either be changed? You mean you seriously don't understand? OK, let me spell it out. WP:SIG states that one should not have line-breaks in one's signature. Ohms' signature contains a line-break. Therefore, unless Ohm has a genuine, personal reason for requiring a line-break (and I'm yet to hear of one) the two are not compatible. Also, are you sure that you yourself did not violate WP:TPO? Given that it states, "If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, you may edit the signature," I'm pretty sure, yeah. But thanks for your concern. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Previous comment got lost thanks to the net. I think it has been pretty well-established that his sig does not in fact violate the guideline as it is simply a break putting his sig on another line rather than something making a two-line sig. As it doesn't violate the guideline, I would say it is itself a violation of WP:TPO, but an accidental one as you may have misinterpreted the guidelines itself. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the signature guidelines "rules", or merely "suggestions"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The top of the page says: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Jafeluv (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To comment on the signature issue, I don't see how Ohms law's signature is disruptive in any way. I don't think admin action is warranted here. Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

...so why does the guideline say that it is disruptive? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say it is disruptive; it says it may disrupt the layout of surrounding text. Quite a difference. — Edokter (talk) — 13:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So what makes this particular signature with a line-break different from the sort envisaged by WP:SIG which might cause disruption with a line-break? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Signatures that take up multiple lines I would think.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Meh, its just a line break. Not like we're dealing with Docu's "I can't hit a tilde 4 times" or KoshVorlon's gargantuan garishness. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The guideline says, "Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Proud Serbian Chetnik

Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

As of 13:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC), user was warned of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC.[35] Subsequently, the user appears to have gone on quite a rampage, disrupting articles and talk pages and attacking and wikistalking editors. Seeing this happen on my watchlist and in the user contribs, I decided to visit the user page to see what was up. Horrified by what I saw, I blanked it per WP:UP#POLEMIC,[36] but I think this user requires more than a user page blanking. Would an administrator please review his contribs for the last 48 hours or so as well as my blanking to determine the next step? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The jingoism is one thing (I have a bias against Serbs though, I will not lie), and can be disruptive, but the obvious homophobia in some of his contribs is a whole nother entirely (real homophobia is something that angers me greatly). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I ran into this user's editing pattern a few days ago. I've looked into his editing history and I've seen his user page. He is an openly POV-pushing Serb nationalist editor and I have no doubt that his only purpose here is soapboxing in articles related to Kosovo War and Greater Serbia, plus assorted vandalism in which he inserts dubious ethnicity claims about some Croatian people. I've went through all of his contribs and left an analysis in his talk page [37] in reply to his earlier query in which he asked why did I rollback his edits to Operation Storm. I'm not an admin myself so my opinion may be of less value here but I see no hope for this guy. His user page alone should warrant some sanctions. Timbouctou (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only a few recent edits appear to be in the area of the sanction warning. Though there are other POV issues such as the homophobia that should be addressed with the editor. I can try but not now. In any case, I don't think it's quite as bad as the above suggests, but some post warning diffs might be helpful. I wouldn't be inclined to take admin action at this point as he does appear to be willing to communicate and ask questions, albeit a bit brashly. User:Timbouctou, your opinion here is welcome and is not less valuable just because you don't have admin tools. They do not make admins of a higher class or able to discuss things that others can't. This page only has "Administrators'" in the name because it's a place to get the attention of Admins.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the edits too. About this Fluffer/LGBT issue, I am not well-placed to comment!! The Balkan-related topics see severe POV-pushing which stretch from hyper-irredentism of the Serbian nation to implying that various other persons from the former Yugoslavia are Serb. I may also say that this is without basis as I have never heard singer Severina mention these things in interview. From another angle, yes he seems to be communicating and has so far not reverted the edits where his contributions were cancelled. I can't say I've spotted anything that amounts to stalking (if someone could point this out) but my impression is that this is a relatively young person who may be new to the site. A fair disciplinary procedure will be best - from Level one to four and if the behaviour persists, block him a short time; if no reform - block him indef. This is my view. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec with below) I think template warnings with someone who has already been engaged in communications and even asked what the warning about the ARBCOM case meant, could have a negative effect and would become a self-fulfilling prophecy to a block. A block can't be used as discipline, they aren't punishment, they are to protect the project. If he's not reverting the reverts, so he is effectively following a 0RR or at least a 1RR, then we shouldn't even be discussing a block, at least not until we are sure he won't stop posting highly POV changes. We need to educate him in what POV means and what NPOV means and try to welcome him to make NPOV edits, notwithstanding his rather rough start. If he doesn't like our style, maybe he won't stick around but maybe, just maybe, he'll try to actually discuss his positions and bring in some valuable editing (or identify some of the opposite POV that someone not from the region wouldn't even see).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I also add that I do not believe this user to be in any way connected to User:Chetnik Serb despite the names. The latter is an incarnation of User:Sinbad Barron and it would appear strange if this were the case here too as the jingoism is for the opposite parties. Sinbad Barron's accounts all generate Serbophobic remarks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 13:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that such a pattern of pov-pushing edits is the start of a productive career as a net positive to wikipedia, but I'm willing to give this new editor a second chance (and a firm reminder of what WP:NPOV is for). Of course, if pov-pushing subsequently resumes then block, ban, whatever - persistent civil pov-pushers are one of the biggest threats to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)