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)

"so you can't use their support for a different thing" - yes, a completely different thing, apples and oranges. No wait, they're both fruit, that's too similar. Moondust and crocodile clips? No, they're both physical objects. Frogs and fridays? Well anyway, completely different. There's just no way that a near-consensus for a fairly complete indefinite topic ban could be translated by way of compromise into consensus for a lesser, time-limited topic ban that enables productive solutions to be explored. No way. So, best do nothing, as usual. (Heck, in this case, if Delta's bot happens and he puts mass removals on hold, it may not work out too badly.) Rd232 public ^talk 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I didn't say so in the community ban proposal, I think Rd232's proposal in conjunction with Beta's proposal is entirely acceptable as far as I am concerned. It was extremely healthy for Rd232, as someone else who wasn't otherwise closely involved, to propose alternate solutions that might have more community support. It would take a very bold uninvolved admin to close and enact that under the circumstances, but perhaps such does exist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr states that the proposal was "constantly disrupted" yet still wants the ban to be enacted. ? With respect, doesn't make sense. I noted before in that debate, and will repeat here; if you want to enact a ban on Δ, then start an RfC where evidence can actually be laid out, responded to, and considered in a fair and equitable way. This scattering across multiple boards, with closings/unclosings, etc. isn't yielding a proper process to cause someone to be banned for anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because despite the disruption there is still clear support for it. Delta discussions generally generate huge amounts of respondents, except when people do things like that have been done here. If people thought it was going to take 70 or 80 people to make the decisions, they really shouldn't have done what they did, however we still have a very clear majority. I've twice posted several incidents of Delta inappropriately responding to users and causing conflict with his behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of his on-going issues when handling NFCC disputes.--Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do you see what you're saying? Despite the disruption? Do you not see that the disruption has made the discussion completely invalid? Last I bothered to check, there was a clear majority to remove one of his restrictions. Should we apply that too? The best bet for your own sake if you want his head on a pike is to start an RfC. That will carry clear validity if it holds to uphold the additional sanctions you keep begging for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

billinghurst has closed multiple similar RMs

ANI has no "admonishment" power and even if it did there is no consensus forthcoming to do any such thing, the discussion is now breaking down into a discussion on the merits which has no place at ANI. Consensus is that the name/move should be discussed at an RFC; though whether that can be incorporated into an RM section is left to the discretion of those who set it up. Although it was not discussed, it is noted that the closing instructions identify who can and cannot close discussions - the only prohibition is on closing a discussion one has participated in and nothing in this thread suggests that Billinghurst participated in any of the discussions. There is no consensus that Billinghurst shouldn't still close further discussions on this topic; however, there is an apparent majority and prudence would suggest that he should not. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Noformation 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) You're entirely right about the tone. Bugs wasn't trying to contribute to the debate, though, in any serious way. I know this guy, and sometimes he needs shutting down. If he decides to participate in a constructive manner, I'll dig it the most, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't worry; I'm not taking this line any further. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I close many move discussions and usually (though not always, unfortunately!) even contentious discussions settle down after some kicking and screaming when the closing admin/editor is seen as genuinely uninvolved. The longer a history of apparently involved closures, the harder it is for closure in later discussions (positions harden, the malaise of unfairness settles in, etc. etc.). After all, no amount of deliberation is going to convince the Côte d'Ivoire cohort that Ivory Coast is the correct title and the Ivory Coast contingent that Côte d'Ivoire is the correct title. But, if the 'losing' side views the process as fair, it allows them to move on and be productive editors elsewhere. That's why the means are often more important than the ends, even when viewed as bureaucratic or unnecessary (it is almost never the latter). However, I don't think we're going to get some sort of resolution with this thread. So, I suggest marking this as resolved and moving on. Meanwhile, I'll take up the issue of serial closings up on the RM talk page. --rgpk (comment) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The only comments in this thread defending billinghurst's actions were obviously made without knowledge of his previous involvement and bias. Why is it so difficult for someone to recognize this, and, instead of saying "I don't think we're going to get some sort of resolution with this thread", noting that the result of this ANI is that consensus is clear agreement that it was inappropriate for billinghurst to close those discussions, and that he is to refrain from doing so in the future. If we just close this without doing even that, what's to stop him from closing even the current discussion again, much less the inevitable next one? Once again I suspect the thin blue line inhibiting admins from reprimanding other admins. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore my "sandbox"

Resolved

 – At this point no administrator seems inclined to take action on Kiwi Bomb's request and there isn't much else to talk about. Of course if some admin does come along and wants to restore the page there's nothing prohibiting that.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

No, no we must stamp out these unreferenced bibliographies. I'm asking the WMF to develop software. Do we want an article such as Praydon Darmoo which says "Mr Darmoo has in the last few years been under investigation for illegally selling arms to Iraq" based on this local newspaper article [7]? It doesn't even report the article correctly, and I can't find anything else about this case. It doesn't even seem to spell his name correctly. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And just what will this software do? Programmatically determine that a one-line stub is a "bibliography", and come up with some clever way of flagging it as such? We already have a low-tech solution for that: it's called "new page patrol". At Atama said, were the user still involved in the "rapid creation of unreferenced bibliographies" then there might be some need for immediate action, but since DGG's comment he hasn't created any more (although two created in the hours before DGG's comment have been deleted). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a joke about bibliographies. Since he's stopped, I guess we can wait and see, I'll take the Praydon Darmoo to BLPN though. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 7 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)

So, your solution to dealing with a problematic editor is to ignore the problem? Nice. So, how are we supposed to have a civil discussion about the issue on VPP while he keeps acting like this? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 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)

Thank you. I don't know this will discourage him, but at least it'll provide a way to slow him down, and maybe he'll think about discussing the problems instead of attacking other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 7 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:[11] ←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

Resolved

 – Bot conducting an authorized trial. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. I checked for the bot flag both locally and globally, but forgot to look for trials. Anyone with concerns about the bot's specific edits can note them at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BendelacBOT#Discussion. Marking this resolved. --RL0919 (talk) 14:16, 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 [12] [13] [14] [15]. (My response: [16].) 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 [17] [18] 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 [19]. His response [20] [21] 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 [22] [23] [24] 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 [25] 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)

In the absence of admin action and Thetruthnow2012's refusal to participate constructively in dispute resolution, Thetruthnow2012 has continued trying to bulldoze through with his edits at Golden Triangle (UK universities) [26], with edit summaries:

1. NO RIGHT TO CENSORSHIP DUE TO YOUR FEELINGS OF INSECURITY [27]
2. Reinserting what was unlawfully censored by previous editor [28],

badgering a user who reverted him [29] and attacking User:Rangoon11 [30] [31]. Admins, please intervene. — Yk³ talk ~ contrib 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel

Content dispute misconstrued as harassment. Consider dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 : [32] [33] [34] . 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. Noformation 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 [35] and went on to confront me on the talk page [36], 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) This is once again becoming uncivil WP:CIVIL: unnecessary personal comments that are not to the topic, and even complaining that I am sticking to WP policy. Several misrepresentations of facts in this comment: I never tagged the Dennis Elwell (astrologer) for deletion, just check the page history. As for your numbered comments: 1) Algol and Gamma_Corvi are articles under the scope of astronomy, so I was fairly wondering why you follow me there. 2) I have only nominated one page for swift deletion , giving my reasons on the talk page. When you expressed the intention to keep and improve the page I have even helped you how it can be turned into a proper list article. See Talk:List_of_Astrological_organizations 3) This can explain why you came to the astronomical pages about Algol and Gamma_Corvi, but now it sounds like you are monitoring that page for guarding the external link to the website you are talking about. That's equally questionable and suggests a COI. Bottom line: to accuse me that I am targetting pages for 'disruption and deletion' shows a lack of good faith, a requirement for participating on WP. I have never vandalized any page, and the only page I nominated for deletion I have helped you to improve. So? MakeSense64 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) So?? So get on and do some constructive editing??? You fairly wondered and I fairly answered, so in the light of good faith, what more is there to say? I am not the one complaining about you left right and centre, issuing warnings to you left right and centre, and placing blocking and potential banning notices to you on your user page, like you have done to me in the past (which an admin then said was unnecessary and revealed an unacceptable level of aggression on your part) and again today (now removed but still visible in my history for the record. I have explained why the policy was not broken IMO and that I don't wish to generate unnecessarily negative discussion). If you have any problems at all with my edits or discussions then raise them on the appropriate talk pages where the relevant exchange can be scrutinised in one place. I have not been uncivil to you. I have not been unreasonable to you, nor about any editorial matter you have commented upon. No doubt at some point in the future you will refer to this discussion as an example of how you have had to complain about my harassment previously. Well sorry, but I would much prefer to not engage at all in anything that is not relevant to contributing towards and improving the quality of WP content. And where I do, I think my comments can be publicly observed to be rational, relevant, reasonable and civil. There is surely better things to do so this is my final comment here unless an admin or someone else requires me to comment. If so, please place a notice on my talk page as I will not be following this discussion further. Zac Δ talk 15:15, 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)

In the case of Mark Henry, I would suggest putting an entry not in the main part of the disambiguation list, but a "See also" entry at the end, saying something like:

See also

• Mark Henry, a professional wrestler who wears a "WSM" logo on his costume

This would indicate that "WSM" does not refer to Mark Henry, but if someone goes to Wikipedia wondering, "What's the name of the wrestler who wore 'WSM' on his costume?", they will be able to find the answer easily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is not where to put this: it is if it is important enough to bother with. I would wager not, given the context. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Using rollback and putting vandalism templates on the IP's talk page in a content dispute is definitely bad form. It doesn't matter how destructive or wrong you think the edits are: Vandalism is characterized by intentional efforts to damage article content, not disagreement or misunderstanding about policy and best practices. Rollback and vandalism warning templates should only be used for incontrovertible vandalism. Since the IP was including good-faith rationales (however misguided we think they are) in the edit summaries, you should have known that it was not vandalism and that it was inappropriate to treat it as such. --causa sui (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-compliant signature

No admin issue, only one user on the complaining side and this really needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Signatures or on user talk, not here. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 [37] [38] 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) If that is the rule then I would like to open a complaint against TreasuryTag. Specifcally his the colors wrapping his signature are different every time, and the pointed to is different every time. This causes me to be annoyed when I look for a specific color or pattern. Perhaps this is pointy, but it does make for an interesting comparison. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) While I personally don't like it, I have a non-breaking-space before my signature so that it never shows up by itself on a new line, I don't see this as disruptive, and think this is a classic example of were the principle of the rules is more important than the letter. WP:SIG is a set of guidelines to avoid disruptive signatures, it is not a hard-set list of rules that leave no wiggle room. Personally, I see nothing disruptive about Ohms law's signature. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As much as I'd very much rather that all but the most absolutely basic sig formatting were banned on paid of defenestration, a line break? Seriously? You know that there are plenty of editors who habitually add line breaks before their sigs manually when placing them? A <br /> even has the advantage that it doesn't break list formatting. This thread reads exactly like a petty attempt at oneupmanship based on some perceived slight elsewhere, and TT should know better than that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC) To TreasuryTag: Why are we at AN/I? You posted a request on his talk page ([39]) and then immediately jumped to AN/I. Your initial AN/I post came just eight minutes after your initial request on Ohm's talk page, which suggests that you were drafting your complaint pretty much simultaneously with your post to his talk page. Instead of making a good-faith effort to engage with this editor, you decided to edit war on the Village Pump over a line break that – while not technically compliant with the signature guideline – represented a pretty minor harm to the project as a whole. Bickering over trivial formatting issues is unlikely to be a priority for most Wikipedians, and for something like a (single) line break in a signature that has been ignored for at least a year it's basic common sense to give someone at least a day or two to respond. Your needless and inflammatory zero-to-AN/I-in-ten-minutes escalation has made this issue dramatically more difficult to resolve. I would strongly support any administrator who moved to block you if you should abuse AN/I for frivolous requests like this one in the future. Further, Hasteur makes a rather compelling point above about glass-house dwellers and the throwing of stones. The fact that your signature changes color each time it appears makes it more difficult to recognize as belonging to a single editor. An argument could readily be made that your attention-grabbing but inconsistent signature style falls afoul of our signature guidelines as well—but I note that no editor here has taken it upon themselves to edit war with you over it. To Ohm's Law: TreasuryTag has gone about this in the most unpleasant and least constructive way possible, and I won't blame you for not wanting to hear anything else about it. Nevertheless, I will mention that there is some reasoning behind the guideline, and I would ask that you take it into account. I hope that you might voluntarily bring your signature in line with the guideline's best practices if provided with a reasonable explanation and polite request. Broadly speaking, putting your signature on a new line is discouraged for two principle reasons. First is a matter of consistency and ease of use. Everyone else signs at the end of their comments, on the same line as the body text. Other Wikipedians are conditioned to find a signature in a particular location, and it's mildly disconcerting and distracting to see what appears to be an unsigned remark followed by a floating signature. It's not egregiously difficult to parse threaded discussions containing your sig and figure out who said what, but it does slow down readers (most of us) who aren't used to seeing comments signed that way. The second reason is that it does take up a bit more space on the screen. Many Wikipedians are probably editing using computers with large, high-resolution displays. An extra line of text is no big deal, since we hardly ever have to scroll down anyway. Some editors are using older, lower-resolution hardware, tablets, netbooks, or mobile devices. These editors don't enjoy the luxury of nearly-unlimited screen real estate. It becomes a genuine inconvenience for them if a participant in a threaded discussion is needlessly adding an extra line to each comment he posts. (It gets worse if other editors see that you're doing it, and start doing it themselves.) So what do you say? Did civility and reason triumph where bluster and rote recitation of rules failed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) If it's really an issue I'm certainly willing to listen and adjust, if needed. It doesn't seem to be an issue though, considering the fact that I've used this signature litterally for years now (since late 2007). Also, as I said above, where the line break actually gets in the way I make it a point to remove it (for example: added supoprt, removed break). Honestly, I wish that more people would put their signatures on their own (single) line because it allows for easier identification of who's saying what on talk pages, but... *shrug* This doesn't seem like the best place to be discussing normal signature practices, regardless. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Well, I for one am in complete agreement. Placing one's signature on their own line should not be disallowed. You may want to chime in at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Linebreaks. — Edokter (talk) — 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) To be clear, I'm not saying it's a disaster either way, but for the reasons I've outlined, I think it's most courteous to your fellow editors to take out the line break. It will be an improvement for some of them, and it comes at no cost to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Support Ohms law - I don't buy that the signature "lengthening pages needlessly" is disruptive in any way. I also don't agree that the guideline needs to be amended to somehow bring the letter of the rule in line with every possible case. We're not about letters of rules here, we're about their spirits. We should all practice that like we mean it. I kind of like the idea of a line break for the signature, and may start using it myself, hmm.... The extra whitespace might even improve readability, on a cluttered talk page such as this. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) *facepalm* We're never going to get the toothpaste back in the tube on this one, are we? Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't buy that the original complaint has anything to do with a signature in the first place. --64.85.216.235 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, but an IP with their only edit being a groundless allegation of bad faith doesn't really have a leg to stand on... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I agree completely with TT that OL's signature currently contravenes WP:SIG; but I also completely agree with the sentiment above that OL's signature is not disruptive. Conclusion? Change WP:SIG, not the signature itself. No admin intervention required. GiantSnowman 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Proud Serbian Chetnik

Resolved

 – Blocked by Hersfold after checkuser results confirmed sockpuppet--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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.[40] 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,[41] 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 [42] 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)

If I may add one more remark. I generally second Bobrayner and Doug. It appears this is not a serial vandal and definitely not every edit constitutes disruption. There has been some copy-editing. Discipline will do the trick for certain. My concern however is something else, the user has been accused of stalking and that is wholly unacceptable. I need to see where this has happened as I would like to judge it better for myself. Although Wikipedia protects anonymity, it can still be harassing for an indvidual if he has been posted ill-founded and personal remarks or personal threats. So editing nature, fine, this can be fixed but the stalking must be stopped forthwith. Evlekis (Евлекис) 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Evlekis, the user was "accused" of stalking (on Wikipedia this is called WP:HOUNDING) because that is exactly what the user did, and you were asked to review the contributions Since you require diffs, I would be happy to provide them. Proud Serbian Chetnik began at 08:40, 7 July 2011, by attacking User:Anna Frodesiak on her talk page.[43] Please note, he refers to an edit war being waged by IP accounts on Talk:Fluffer and Fluffer, and the comments by Proud Serbian Chetnik mirror the ones made by disruptive IP User:71.255.142.25. After Proud Serbian Chetnik posted on Anna's talk page several times between 8:40-9:01, 7 July, he then reviewed Anna's current contributions, finding that she was actively engaged in a discussion on Talk:China, with her last edit at 00:56, 7 July 2011.[44] Seeing this, Proud Serbian Chetnik followed her to the Talk:China discussion page, making a comment at 9:20,[45] fifteen minutes after last posting on Anna's talk page.[46] Up to that point, Proud Serbian Chetnik had never edited the page.[47] To make matters much worse, Proud Serbian Chetnik has restored his talk page in violation the user page guideline[48] and he is continuing to harass Anna.[49] This user appears to either lack the WP:COMPETENCE necessary to edit to Wikipedia and/or appears to be too immature to understand it. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I know the do's and don'ts and I'm sorry if I made some bad edits. I'll try harder in future not to. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disbelieve that claim, given that 3 minutes after you made it, you left this message on a user's page (note to others: read the context for the discussion for clarification). I didn't look into the Balkans issue, but the conversation on Anna Frodesiak's talk page sure doesn't look like one of a good faith contributor. Either you're just a troll (maybe, maybe not), or, alternatively, you're just not fit for the culture here--on Wikipedia, we require that people edit neutrally, not attempt to apply their own biases and prejudices to articles. There's nothing really wrong with that--the Internet's a big place, and there are plenty of places where they welcome posting and editing from a specific worldview. This just isn't one of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me????? We were talking about Fluffer. Have I once restored that filthy image you clearly approve of??? Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who grabbed at the word "troll". And grab it, I did. Perhaps it was not appropriate but it seems to me actually to be the "least worst" interpretation of what is developing on that talk page. The image in question is, in any event and in my opinion, not particularly likely to cause offence when compared to plenty of others used elsewhere. The reaction is extreme even in presumed ignorance of the "not censored" policy. In any event, and with no particular knowledge or opinion regarding the matters that have been raised there, it seems likely that some sort of culture clashing is going on generally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but here we work as a community and that particular discussion is not helpful to the community. It was also not merely initiated by PSC but has been continued by that contributor when, perhaps, the best course of action would have been to simply drop it. I am somewhat concerned about the attitude issue and whilst cultural issues are inevitable there seems to me no reasonable basis for the diff linked to by Qwryxian. I should declare an interest: myself, Q and Anna Frodesiak have had some fairly substantial dealings of late regarding a now-banned editor, but that situation was not remotely similar to this. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(I've gotta get off AN/I, dammit. This place just seems to suck you in... argh) Just skimmed through all of the above, and looked at Anna's talk page. The whole pointed questioning of someone else's sexuality is not only disturbing, but is something that I find to be rather offensive. I tend to agree with the "not fit for the culture here" train of thought. Just glancing over this user's contribs real quick, it seems as though he's causing us (much) more time and effort then he's adding to the encyclopedia. There seems to be hardly any mainspace editing, and the edits that have been made seem to be predominantly non-neutral. With all of that, I'd say it's about time to work up a community ban proposal.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since you like consencus. Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get an immediate block on this account? In apparent acts of revenge, he is now vandalizing (blanking of content) Viriditas' user page:

• "that is not exactly right is it? How do you like it?"
• Undid revision 438325979 by Viriditas (talk))

He's also harrassing Viriditas by inserting a picture of George W Bush on Viriditas (whom I assume Viriditas is not a fan):[50][51] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I tampered with it that's all. He or she has blanked or daubed accross mine the whole of the last 24 hours. Why not block him/her? Proud Serbian Chetnik (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits like this are not an encouraging sign at all. And this is just incompetent. "Sporting her nice legs"? Groan. Doc talk 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This edsitor is now looking for pages which I have edited, and reverting my most recent edit, even if that was some days ago and others have edited since: [52], [53]. RolandR (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) They've been blocked for a week by User:Ironholds. See User talk:Proud Serbian Chetnik#Blocked for more. —GFOLEY FOUR!—

Great unblock request - "My remakrs and edits will now be ALL Anti-Serb, I promise." From a proud Serb to an anti-Serb within seconds. Doc talk 01:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He also writes "I stopped editwarring on Gay Pride a long time ago" -- having made two reverts on the article within the previous forty minutes. RolandR (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be a sock/meat involved - see this, and note the previous contributions of CHAK 001. The timing is fortuitous ... - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks as though it may be another sock of Sinbad Barron. See Tex with X Ray Spex, and particularly this unblock request. RolandR (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Community Ban

I came across this thread this morning I thought that this might result in some nasty edit wars, incivility and lots of disruption. And now as I check up on it at night it has already gotten worse! much worse!! and with speed. This is an disruption only account and I suggest a community ban. Also I suggest a checkuser on User:Tex with X Ray Spex, User:Proud Serbian Chetnik and User:Sinbad Barron because these two edits are just harebrained stupidly obvious by the same person: [54] and [55]. noclador (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what a shocker!!! It all happens when you're fast asleep in the night!!!! It was on my mind all day yesterday, a Serb jingoist who preached irredentism and yet he brandished a photograph of Slobodan Milošević on his user page and what's more, hailed him "the greatest leader". Normally the Sinbad litter is spotted very quickly as there are two of us that know all the tell-tale signs, I being one and User:WhiteWriter being the other. But how was I to realise it this time when his first block of edits were seemingly pro-Serb and the anti-Serb editing that he was building up to just came far too late for him! No sooner did he start than achieve a block! I just want the users on this section to know one thing. I am not introducing politics into ANI and what follows pertains to this user in all his accounts. User:Sinbad Barron is a certified Serbophobe. The world has plenty of these individuals in almost every part of the world. Save for heavyweight Croats and Bulgarians, you are guaranteed never to find a Serbophobe anywhere in the world with a true knowledge of the nation he so dislikes. This is why they all throw every element of Serbian interest into one basket. Milošević led a Yugoslav entity comprising two republics, one of which was Montenegro and this union is not acceptable to anybody who can be a Serb jingoist, just as no Serb nationalist worth his salt countenances the recognition of Macedonia, because both Macedonia and Montenegro are seen to be integral parts of a Serb kingdom (not republic). And nobody favouring the kingdom would have their nation led by a former communist. Today, visitors to Belgrade see street stalls which sell Serbian nationalist insignia which range from photos of Draža Mihajlović and Momčilo Đujić to posters praising the Serb hooliganism in Italy in 2010, but nowhere is there anything devoted to Milošević. Some months ago, I asked the man selling the items (in Belgrade) as he stood there in his dark beard, decked out in black, if he would sell anything of Milošević' to which he replied, "I wouldn't urinate on a picture of his face". This in turn is consistent with Đujić revoking Vojislav Šešelj's honourary award after the latter joint forces with Milošević in the 1990s. So Milošević may have had his "hands in a few pies" in the day but linking him to traditional nationalism is wholly inaccurate. The revelation that Proud Serbian Chetnik was Sinbad Barron solves the puzzle. Sorry I could not blow the whistle earlier. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Socking and disruption = ban. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ... I was just thinking this pattern of jokey-trolling reminded me of a couple of "editors" Chacha gurl B and Hielman that I SPIed back in March, who turned out to be socks not only of each other but of somebody called Wikibrah. Sharktopus ^talk 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron now open. noclador (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support a community ban. Yesterday, in an AGF mood, I considered offering mentorship - I dodged a bullet on that one... bobrayner (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71

Resolved

 – No further administrative action required. Requested relief is not possible here. RfC is the appropriate forum and is necessary to resolve the issues. ScottyBerg now has a second certifier, nothing else we can do here but continue to talk about what needs to happen elsewhere. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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

---

See User:causa sui's excellent summation, below. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I reported this user for canvassing, and also mentioned possible abuse of administrator tools here at the Administrators Noticeboard. An editor there points out that since an administrator is involved, it should be reported here. To avoid duplication, might this post suffice, so that administrators could review the situation at AN? Or, in the alternative, can the topic be moved to ANI? My apologies if I went to the wrong forum, but I don't have much experience with this type of situation. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In case he didn't know, I have notified User:Marine 69-71 - Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. By the way, I'm troubled by the "Wall of Dishonor" appearing on one of this administrator's user pages: a list of Wikipedians he wants dead.[56] I mentioned this in the AN topic but I wanted to highlight it here, since one of them has my initial "S." Is it appropriate conduct for an administrator to keep a "death list" on one of his user pages? That, combined with canvassing and abuse of tools, is quite a combination. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Discussions regarding this user are open on multiple noticeboards. I'd suggest consolidating everything on one so others don't have to chase discussions and comments between several pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps someone can physically move the entire AN discussion here. ScottyBerg (talk) Moved from AN An RfC that I initiated is underway in Talk:Irish immigration to Puerto Rico concerning original research in the article. An editor who is on the "losing" end of the discussion has mass-posted to his wiki-friends an identically worded, angry message that I believe is contrary to WP:CANVASS[57] [58][59][60][61][62][63]: "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia. I would like for you to check out the link here and if you wish express yourself." He then links to a Puerto Rico Wikiproject posting entitled "Urgent participation requested." [64], also anything but neutral in tone. Friendly, neutrally worded notices to past editors of the article on both sides of an issue are perfectly OK, but this is anything but and appears to be vote-stacking because he is aiming it at editors who have supported him in the past. None of them appear to have edited either the article or talk page in the past. If he was trying to be neutral he would have included in his long list of recipients User:Varlaam, who actively participated in the article in the recent past, but disagreed with this editor. The user in question is an administrator, which only compounds matters, and I've asked him to revert and he won't. [65]. In this post he explains that he was notifying the "Puerto Rican community." [66]. I don't think it's appropriate to cherry-pick editors on the basis of national origin, evidently in the hope of influencing the outcome. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Although soliciting past participants is considered an acceptable practice, the main purpose of RfCs is to solicit opinion of uninvolved editors. In any case, can Marine 69-71 provide his/her selection criteria? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I was as much concerned with the wording of his notices to these editors as his selection criteria. He was making perfectly clear his strong an angry feelings concerning this issue. He left no doubt whatsoever that he was soliciting support for his position, especially since he was on the losing end of a similar RfC discussion just a few days ago.[67] This was far more than a "wink and a nod." The best way to get uninvolved editors is to let the RfC run its course, not to run to the Wikiproject in which he is active, in the hope of getting support for his position. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You can rest assured that the wording of his notice has not been ignored (at least by this editor). I asked about selection criteria because that seems to be the most ambigious at this time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) All but one are on Marine69-71's official listing of his Wikifriends, his "Wall of honor." [68] ("Here I honor some of the Wikipedians whom I consider among the best and whom I've had the pleasure of interacting with.") ScottyBerg (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am a long time contributor in Wikipedia. My contributions speak for themselves. I am not canvassing. I am not asking anyone to be in favor or against anything. I am not asking for votes, but for opinions be it in favor to my opinion or not. User: Scottyberg himself posted the "An editor has requested comment from other editors for this discussion.", however for some unknown reason he has twice failed to notify the Puerto Rican community for their opinion at the Puerto Rican Project page considering that this is a Puerto Rican related article it is the proper thing to do. Yes, in accordance to his own request, I have also requested the opinion of other editors who may be interested in the matter. This does not mean that I will recieve any opinions the same as mine since everyone is free to express themselves. I have even suggested to User: Scottyberg that the subject should be discussed in the proper forum where others "not" conected with him and myself can clear the situation. User: Scottyberg has been known in the past to team up against me with another user in subjects which are related to my contributions for reasons only known to him as evidenced here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd nomination) Revision history of User:Marine 69-71/Tony Santiago Talk:William Walter Kouts Talk: List of Puerto Ricans he even has my "talk page" in his "watchlist" to watch my every movement. No, I am not canvassing, just requesting opinions. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC) An RfC is designed to obtain the widest possible opinions of uninvolved editors. There is nothing in the RfC page that requires editors to notify the Wikiproject. Your implying otherwise, in your posting on the Wikiproject page, is part of the problem with your approach here. You still haven't responded to AQFK's query concerning your selection criteria. Apart from their being predisposed to side with you, all being your wikifriends and all but one being on your "Wall of Honor," what possible reason would you have to solicit their opinion, considering that the wider community had just been solicited via this RfC? The RfC began only a few hours ago. Why not wait for it to run its course rather than sending out a distress signal to people you expect will support you? You know perfectly well that the wording of your notice to the editors ("I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia") was such as to seek to elicit support, not a "neutral opinion." What was so "urgent" about the situation apart from the fact that you were losing the argument on the talk page of the article? By saying "urgent participation requested" on the Wikiproject page, you were making perfectly clear what outcome you wanted, which was help. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You seem to not understand Scotty, this is not about soliciting "support" for anything, it is not a consensus. It is about requesting the opinions of those who wish to do so. There is no thought of a losing argument since there is no valid consensus involved. Of course my "BS" stands for what you make it out to be because that is what I feel that it is. I am entitled to express my own opinion especially when in the past you have teamed up against me. Sorry for the choice of words, if they offended you, but I’ve seen worse. Your implication that I am a power player in amongst those whom I have had the pleasure of interacting with and who are in my "Wall of Honor" is totally unfounded as evidenced by the fact that the article which my son wrote about me and which you depleted and nominated for deletion, was deleted. That fact is that I have not violated policy and I am not have canvassing for votes nor support, I am requesting "opinions" from parties which may or ay not be interested in participating. Simple as that. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Of course it's about soliciting support. Why do you keep denying the obvious? And why won't you respond to AQFK's question? ScottyBerg (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Your canvassing has had the desired effect. A member of your "wall of honor" has arrived[69] and, surprise surprise, he is the only editor to support your position. I'm sure there will be more, thanks to your vigorous canvassing. Per Collect's comment in the RfC, I request that whichever administrator closes this RfC take WP:False consensus into consideration. ScottyBerg (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine: What was your selection criteria? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) They appear to be select members of Wikiproject Puerto Rico for the most part, with two others being Puerto Rican but not listed as members. IMO that message is not neutral and this is quite clearly CANVASSING.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) There's nothing neutral about saying, "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia." -- Atama頭 16:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine's an administrator??? Pretty bare-faced case of canvassing...and his defence is "I've seen worse". As he's an admin this should go to AN/I, IMO. DeCausa (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Your point is well taken. I've posted a note on ANI [70] referring to this discussion. My apologies if I went to the wrong forum, but I don't have much experience with this kind of thing. My reporting his abuse of admin tools, see below, appears to clearly belong in ANI. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Up to this point, this was originally posted on ANI before I moved it here. Hans Adler 19:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Abuse of tools? I also request that administrators review Marine 69-71's use of his administrator tools in Irish immigration to Puerto Rico, in addition to his canvassing. A user named Varlaam had moved a list to the talk page that he felt was not warranted because of WP:OR[71]. Marine responded on the talk page[72], which is what he should have done. But then he abused his tools by fully protecting the page for three months because of ostensible vandalism: "consistent removal of content."[73] But as can be seen from the article history, there was no vandalism, there was only a content dispute between Marine and Varlaam. Before he took that action, his son, an administrator named User:AntonioMartin, protected the page, but there was some kind of technical problem so his father, Marine 69-71, stepped in to protect the page. AntonioMartin had no justification for protecting the page. There had been no vandalism, just an editor disagreeing with his father. However, I am less concerned about his conduct because he was not a regular editor of the page. Marine is very much a regular editor there, and he should not have used his administrator tools on a flimsy pretext to fully protect his "favored version" of a page in a content dispute. Another editor and I raised the issue on his talk page, and he unprotected the article [74], but showed absolutely no understanding that he had improperly used his tools in a content dispute in which he was involved. Ironically, after an RfC I initiated, Marine later removed the list in question, an action he had previously called "vandalism."[75] Marine needs to be, at a minimum, cautioned to properly use his tools. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Something's gone seriously wrong with this admin. Isn't AN/I the appropriate venue? DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC) As I noted above, I've brought this to the attention of ANI. Perhaps it can be dealt with here, or the entire topic can be moved to ANI? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Marine 69-71: Can you please explain why you used your tools in a content dispute that you were directly involved in? Are you not familiar with WP:INVOLVED? The community entrusts admins with the tools on the condition that they not abuse them. I note (as Scotty did) that Marine 69-71 undid the protection the next day[76] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC) He did unprotect, which is why I did not raise the issue sooner. However, he is totally unremorseful, refused to pledge that there would be no repetition of such misuse, and has in fact lashed out against myself and the other editor who saved him from himself (see the snide remarks and attacks in his earlier posts above, and also [77]). The blatant canvassing indicates to me that he is behaving abominably for an administrator and that action needs to be taken. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) By the way, I'd suggest treading lightly with this editor. It just came to my attention that he he has a list of editors, who he does't name, who he wishes were dead. I'm not kidding. See the "wall of dishonor" on one of his numerous user subpages:[78]. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to have on its roll of administrators a person who wants other Wikipedia editors to be snuffed out? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Actually I just noticed that one the tombstones has the letter "S." I guess I'd better double-lock my doors tonight. He intiiated this "wall of dishonor" two days ago. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't now be the appropriate time to move this into a WP:RFC/ADMIN proceeding? I don't recall any direct interactions with this user, but the above commentary brings me to question whether he should continue to hold a mop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I don't think stating on your userpage "here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead" is consistent with being and administrator on En:Wikipedia! DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) RFC/ADMIN is only for misuse of admin tools -- the "wall of dishonor" doesn't qualify, and should be addressed in a normal WP:RFC/U.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) The original issue ScottyBerg brought to the noticeboard was regarding potential misuse of admin tools; that, in combination with the questionable conduct noted above, is what caused me to suggest WP:RFC/ADMIN. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Holy shit! His page says, “ Here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead ” . However, it doesn't seem to list anyone. He's taken it down saying it was just a joke.[79] Jeez...what's going on with this admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It was no joke. It is/was appalling; an expression of his anger, specifically at me, an attempt to intimidate, part of the "tough guy" shtick that you see on his pages. That, canvassing, abuse of tools, a death list - seriously, what kind of thing is necessary to wrench the tools away from an administrator who shouldn't have them? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) he's obviuosly reading these postings (and reacting by taking down his wall of dishonor) but not posting any responses. The behaviour gets stranger. It's more a question of whether he should be blocked rather than just loosing the tools. He must at least explain himself and undertake not to post anything like the wall of dishonor again per WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I can see the wall being an issue if anyone had ever been listed there, but as far as I can tell, both from the above, and the page, no one ever was. While still in bad taste, I don't think the wall is really actionable. You should be happy he is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and remember that he isn't required to respond immediately. Monty845 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I disagree. I don't think that Marine needs to name names for a "list of editors I want to see dead" to be extremely problematic on the part of an administrator. What I see is an administrator who feels that he can get away with anything: canvassing, abuse of tools, even wishing unnamed Wikipedia editors dead. As one of the editors who has indeed crossed this person, and whose name does indeed begin with "S" (one of the letters on the "tombstone") perhaps I don't see the alleged "humor" in this. I see an editor with tools but no scruples. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In context this edit as good as names an editor as the one he wished dead.[80].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Under the assumption that this is still the same person who was made an admin many years ago when rules were still a bit more relaxed, and who then continued to use an extremely weak password until the account was hacked [81], the discrepancy between the user's ethics and what the project expects of an admin seems to have reached the point where he is no longer tenable. To me this looks like a case for a quick Arbcom motion. Hans Adler 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In case it's not clear, the problem here is a an editor who presents himself on his user page as a former New York gang member ("The Man with the Gun") who later became a soldier and calls himself "Tony the Marine" on Wikipedia. Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so. And this editor, right after giving in in a dispute with another editor, creates a symbolic graveyard and puts the other editor's initial under a tomb stone. In my opinion this kind of behaviour requires an immediate block. Hans Adler 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Up to this point, this subsection was originally posted on ANI and I moved it here. Hans Adler 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry for the "Wall of Dishonor" thing. It was meant as an experimental joke and realizing that it was of bad taste, I have removed it. The "S' was not directed at anyone it was meant to be a symbol of stupidity. Yes, I did commit a mistake with my tools and I realized that. My public apologies to Varlaam, who is a very good editor. I did what I believed was right at the time, but realized later that my actions were wrong and undid the "protection" which was the issue. In regard to what seems to be canvassing, it was not intended that way since according to my knowledge canvassing is an act of asking for "votes" and I believe that this was not the case. The reason that I notified these people is because they have been contributors to Puerto Rican related articles and most of them do not follow RfC. Yes, it may have been in bad taste to post "I sick and tired of this "BS", however I let the fact that Scotty has been constantly on my case get to me and there is no excuse for my actions. I know that the discussion at "Talk: Irish immigration to Puerto Rico will go in favor of Scotty's nomination because the logic of the arguments seem to indicate it and believe it or not I am leaning to agree as I did with the argument in regarding a certain section. Yes, I messed up because I let my stress get the better part of me and I will refrain from doing so in the future. I apologize. Hans, your choice of words "Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so" is very inapropiate and insulting. Do not accuss me nor insinuate that I have commited such criminal acts. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I just don't buy this. According to WP:VIOLENCE (which in my opinion should generally not be taken too seriously as it can lead us into hysterical reactions), we would have to contact your local authorities. With all the background that you have given on your user page, you are the last person we can allow to make death-related jokes involving other editors on Wikipedia. I am not saying we should contact the authorities, but it is just not reasonable from the point of view of editors who get into conflicts with you and live in the same country that you should retain your editing privileges. If you present yourself as a Vietnam veteran on your user page, then don't complain when people assume that you are a Vietnam veteran. It's fine if you are ashamed of your role in the killings, but if you bring it up it's entirely your own fault. What did you get the "Rifle Sharpshooter Badge" for, for example? Hans Adler 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I just wanted to point out that it has taken Herculean efforts to extract from Marine 69-71 a grudging and mealy-mouthed admission that he misused "committed a mistake with" his tools, one that he was not willing to make without the threat of a block, and after previous ferocious denials. He's now willing to admit, hallelujah,now that he faces a block as well as desyssopping, that, gee, keeping a death list on a subpage is not a good thing. He still shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the rules on canvassing that any non-rookie editor learns. I don't for a second believe his feeble excuse for putting my initial on a tombstone. I agree with Floquenbeam[82] that he needs to "man up" on that, and hasn't, and that the real explanation for his putting my initial on a tombstone is that "it represents a real person, but I did it that way so I'd know who it was, and they'd know who it was, but I could have plausible deniabiltity if called on it." How many more times are we going to have to disrupt our lives because this administrator doesn't know, or care about, basic Wikipedia policies and behavioral standards?ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Unless you can provide good diffs, I am not sure you are taking this in a fruitful direction. I am personally much more concerned by the question whether we want to suffer a person whose behaviour is most consistent with lasting dehumanisation due to war conditions to continue editing. Right now he even appeared to deny that people were killed in the Vietnam war, presumably under the rationalisation that if it's legal from the POV of his country then it's not killing. Hans Adler 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (multiple ec's, I type too slow and events keep overtaking me. This comment was somewhat revised after Hans Alder's comment 10 minutes ago, I don't have to energy to revise it for Scotty's (or any others I'm going to find out about when I try to save this again)) Let's not get too sidetracked; this is ANI, we should focus on the real issues (waits for laughter to subside). Tony's assurance that this is not going to continue is temporarily enough for me, personally, although I strongly urge him to take a voluntary break from here for a while. I'm disappointed in the explanation that S stands for "stupidity", as that seems extremely dubious. But as long as we have an assurance that it won't be repeated, I'm inclined to wait and verify that, and overlook a face-saving alternative explanation. Note that this is only regarding the wall of dishonor issue; I don't have time to look at the other underlying issues. An RFC or RFAR may or may not be warranted based on overall problems, I don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Scotty, I already stated that the Wall situation was not directed at you, if it were I would have posted "SB" or something. I am sorry if you misunderstood this. I apologized, yet now I am subject to personal and false attacks. I am surprised at how concerned you are of my mistakes yet, you say nothing when another editor attacks me with false accusations of "killing people, or at least helping to do so". Do you not condemn personal attacks such as Hans, attack towards me? Tony the Marine (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I don't see a person attack from Hans. I see concern. Someone who has most likely killed in the line of duty posts threatening stuff about people he'd like too see dead. The former aspect makes this situation much more grave and I think Hans has every right to point this out. Do you understand that it is not OK to have lists of people you want dead, and do you understand that it is even more threatening coming from a former Marine who served in active duty during a major war?Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony the Marine: According to my knowledge canvassing is an act of asking for "votes". As an Admin you should be aware of what WP:Canvassing says. Some quotes from the policy defining canvassing: Firstly, "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." Can you explain in what is neutral about beginning your message "I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Wikipedia."? Secondly, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors". Why did you only notify editors from your hall of honor and omit the editor mentioned by ScottyBerg? DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: I've had to file two content RfCs within the space of two weeks on account of this one administrator's lack of basic knowledge about policies. (Except for the editor he canvassed, not a single one supported him, and he is now "graciously" admitting that he is wrong.) I had to come to AN because he willfully disregarded the rules on canvassing. This editor is a time sponge who behaves like a new editor, not a Wikipedia administrator who has been here for years. I don't know, or care, why that is so. I do not believe that his promise to do better has much value when he clearly doesn't understand, or care about, the policies he violated, and when he only makes such a promise at the point of a gun (pardon the expression). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that I really hope that Tony is not being singled out due to his service as a Marine (there's a saying that there are no ex-Marines). I do agree that military experience might make a threat of violence slightly more credible, but suggestions about "lasting dehumanisation due to war conditions" and other remarks that might be discriminatory are disturbing to me. -- Atama頭 20:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC) It is your right to be disturbed by my remarks. I reserve the right to be a lot more disturbed by the underlying historical events, and somewhat disturbed by the fact that an editor is vigorously taking them into the user space of this encyclopedia, making death threats, and then implausibly denying them instead of apologising for them. A person who got a sharpshooter medal is obviously trained to kill. Such a person has no business making comments about wishing other people dead in a collaborative online environment. Hans Adler 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Comment 1. Do not accuse me of "killing people, or at least helping to do so" or commiting a crime. Unless you have proof of an accusations it is a personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy. 2. There was no "list" of people that I wanted dead. Show me proof that there was a list with names. An "S" was an experiemntal symbol. 3. I already explained my mistaken actions as to why I notified the members of the Puerto Rican community. 4. I already explained that Scotty notified other editors with the RfC "tag". 5. I have publicly apologized. I'm sorry, but I am not perfect and may make a mistake. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I thought "S" stood for Stupidity?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, "S" was a symbol to represnt stupidity. Stupidity that I should have even joked about such a thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) More blame shifting. My "notifying other editors with the RfC 'tag'" does not in any way, shape or form justify/explain his canvasssing. Again, this editor does not understand or care about a simple behavioral guideline. He didn't understand it when I pointed it out to him, and he doesn't understand it now, or give a damn. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) You have outed yourself as a Vietnam veteran, "Tony the Marine" alias "Marine 69-71", and not in a subtle way either. I don't care about your rationalisations for participating in that slaughter. What matters is that you don't bring similar potentially lethal us-versus-them attitudes into Wikipedia as you did here. If you deny that people were killed in the Vietnam war, how are we supposed to believe your protestations that you were not going to kill the editor you put under a tomb stone? After all, you appear to see him as only an enemy as well. Hans Adler 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, you acusse me of killing people, please provide us with any deniable proof that I have killed someone. I did not make any death threats nor do I have a list wishing other people dead. Show me the list with the names of other people. Please stop assuming and the false acussations of me and stick to the issues, thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Hans, that's really pushing it. Nobody is denying Tony's service, but you're making personal attacks due to your obvious distaste for the Vietnam War and those who participated in it. Per WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX you should drop this. -- Atama頭 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony made a threat of violence. The military setting of his user page, which looks extremely credible and shows an obsession with at war that left a lot of veterans a danger to society, makes this thread a lot more credible than it would have been otherwise. If you want to play hardball and defend Tony's behaviour, I can do so too and initiate the standard procedures described at WP:VIOLENCE. In my 3 1/2 years with Wikipedia this is only the second time that I encounter a threat of violence that I would consider sufficiently severe to consider this. Hans Adler 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Tony, you put the following on a user page: "here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead." Then you had tombstones, one with my initial on it. Please stop denying the obvious. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) Stop misquoting me. Here is what I said: "Plenty of rewards displayed on his user page that were presumably obtained by killing people, or at least helping to do so." Clearly you were pretty active in the Vietnam war, and clearly you are still obsessed with it. I don't have to prove that people were killed in that war, and it would be ridiculous to assume that someone who carries his past as proudly as you are doing thinks of himself as some kind of resistance fighter who tried to subvert his army. So stop this nonsense already. The real question is whether you can control your urge to kill other editors. Unfortunately your impulsive, irrational behaviour in this thread does not inspire much confidence. Hans Adler 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (ec) My concern about the "death list" that Tony is now trying to sweep under the rug is that his behavior is bizarre enough, and he takes things personally enough, to make it troublesome. I was disturbed by this comment he made in an exchange with me on his talk page[83]: "Look, for some reason to unknown me, you seem to hate me, you have been on my case for a long time..." WTF? "Hate me"? I shrugged off this bizarre remark, but after seeing my initial on a tombstone yes, I think it needs to be taken seriously, whether its posturing or a sign of something worse. No, I don't think that a weak, grudging, half-hearted, insincere apology is sufficient in light of all that has gone on. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) There are three potential issues here: (1) "the wall of dishonor", (2) possible abuse of tools, (3) canvassing. Neither Tony's status as an ex-Marine nor his service in Vietnam has anything to do with this discussion, as neither violate any Wikipedia policy. Hysteria over those issues needs to stop, and continued investigation of the three legitimate issues should continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC) In the event of an RfC on his conduct, there are also unresolved questions, not previously raised here, concerning COI issues. I actually first became involved with this editor when I became aware that there was an article on him, written by his son, and that he spammed photographs of his son throughout the project. The article was deleted based upon my nomination, which might partly explain his obsession with me as evidenced by his "S" tombstone. I agree with you that his Marine service is neither here nor there (except perhaps to the extent that he has multiple user subpages that are biographical and self-congratulatory in nature.) However, I think that Hans does raise a valid point in expressing the view that his implied/explicit death threat against almost-unnamed Wiki editors needs to be taken seriously. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Sweet jesus, ANI is irredeemably ridiculous. Let's at least be clear about one thing: this was not a death threat. It was an unacceptable personal attack that has been removed, with a half-hearted apology and a promise not to repeat it. If you consider it more proof of being unfit to be an admin, by all means take it to an RFC or RFAR; desysopping is not going to happen here, it never has and it never will. If you think he should be blocked for making a personal attack after he's withdrawn it and promised not to do it again, because the apology was not sincere, then be clear and say so, you have a decent chance of finding an admin that shares that view. But please stop posturing that this was an actual death threat of some kind, and let's not re-fight the Vietnam War. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, but stating on your user page that you want other editors dead, and putting out pictures of tombstones, one with an initial that refers to me, is a death threat by any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, it was an insincere apology. That much is obvious. If this wasn't an administrator I am sure he would have already been blocked - that's also obvious. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

At this point, it looks like several editors are objecting to Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s alleged canvassing, alleged abuse of sysop tools, and alleged abuse of userspace pages. Though he apologized for the bad taste of the userspace page and removed it, he doesn't agree with the objections about canvassing and his use of sysop tools and believes he's done nothing wrong. Both sides have reiterated their respective positions many times and aren't budging. Therefore, further discussion on AN/I is likely to accomplish nothing but getting people really angry about these things. I suggest we follow dispute resolution and start a WP:RFC/ADMIN for administrative conduct. Dispute resolution offers the possibility of centralized discussion in a controlled environment and a path to a remedy to the situation.

Since I'm not a participant in the dispute, I won't start such an RFC, but I urge everyone involved to look to our established methods for reaching an actual resolution. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Stifling this discussion or proposing to turn to a process that lasts weeks if not months strikes me as entirely the wrong approach here. But given that a desysop is obviously required, I have asked the functionaries-en mailing list for guidance rather than undo the hatting. Let's see what happens. Hans Adler 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you feel this situation is urgent, but desysopping takes time. It is important that all the issues and evidence be considered carefully and in a controlled, dispassionate environment before serious sanctions are handed down. I don't think you would want to argue that the process should be rushed. Finally, as AN/I discussion cannot result in a desysop anyway, I thank you for not re-opening the discussion, and urge you a second time to pursue established dispute resolution channels. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd. An editor can't behave so egregiously with impunity just because he is an admin. If he wasn't, surely he would have been blocked hours ago. We are not supposed to have such a two-class system, but I guess the feeling that it's kind of absurd to block someone who is technically able to unblock himself creates just that because it prevents the impulsive, and often (not always, obviously) beneficial quick ANI-response blocks that we often see. In this case the right point for such a block was missed, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been correct.

Random editors leaving random threats against no one in particular are indeffed with little fanfare. And then we should spend months debating whether an admin may talk about his wish to see an easily identifiable specific editor dead, and then deny it instead of apologising and promising not to do it again? Let's wait what Arbcom says. Hans Adler 22:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That discussion got out of hand in large part because you, Hans, introduced a massively inflammatory red herring about Vietnam. If anyone stiffled the discussion, it was you. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if you bring this before ArbCom, they have a recent history of inaction against admin misconduct. Revently there was an admin who vandalised as an IP to prove a point and ArbCom did nothing. Before that, there was an admin who wheel-warred with another admin and then blocked said admin to "get their attention" even though they were directly involved in that dispute. Guess what ArbCom did? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As the editor who was the target of Marine's death threat, I admit to a degree of frustration at seeing him walk away scot free without so much as a slap on the wrist, after making an insincere and half-hearted non-apology. I think that this sends the wrong message, or the right message perhaps, that there is an egregious double standard that allows administrators to get away with conduct that would result in immediate disciplinary action if committed by anybody else. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: Marine 69-71 did not make a death threat against you. Instead, he said he wish you were dead. There is a subtle but important distinction. You are not doing yourself any favors by overplaying your case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that distinction to be a material difference, and I don't think it's unreasonable for Wikipedia to have a zero-tolerance policy toward death fantasies directed toward other editors. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If the editor in question wasn't an administrator, I would do two things... I would leave a strong warning about canvassing, and also threaten to block indefinitely unless they made a clear statement that there is no implied threat of violence. I believe that Tony has made it clear that no violence is being threatened. So if this weren't an administrator, I'd leave the person a stern warning. On the other hand, this person is an administrator, and they have at least once misused the tools. With the other conduct problems added to that, I don't see an RfC as inappropriate. So I suppose I see this the opposite of Hans, I do agree that there is something of a "two-class system", but I believe it's to Tony's detriment. What I do agree with Hans about is that there is a problem here that should be addressed. An RfC is the proper way to go about this. I won't initiate one, because my involvement has been restricted to a couple of comments here and at AN, but I'd be interested in participating if someone else is willing to start it. -- Atama頭 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded from start to finish. --causa sui (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of this closure, but I understand why it was done. ScottyBerg, if you really want to send the right message and prevent this from happening again, I would recommend going through with the RFC/U. At the very worst, it will allow ArbCom to more easily judge the situation if it comes to that.

Tony, if you really don't understand that your posts were in violation of WP:CANVASS, you need to do two things. First, you need to read the policy over again. Second, you need to stop doing anything similar to what you did without first contacting a single uninvolved senior editor and asking if your proposed notifications are acceptable. You are responsible for following the policy even if you disagree with it; selecting those that you perceive to be more likely to agree with you is unacceptable. NW (Talk) 22:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm exploring that possibility right now. If any other editor is willing to certify the RFC/U, they should let me know. There need to be at least two editors who attempted to resolve the issue with the user. I'm one. Who else? If it doesn't make it to RfC, given the unusual circumstances and clear-cut conduct here, it may be a good idea to take this straight to arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find even a single other editor who can certify an RFC, it is definitely not ripe for Arbcom. But in this case, I don't think you'll have much trouble. --causa sui (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm all ears. I've emailed one potential candidate and have yet to hear back. Any other potential certifiers are free to bring themselves to my attention. I have to admit that I read through the RfC rules and they are not exactly models of simplicity. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It can seem complicated, especially the first time through. Unfortunately, the formalized process is the price of ensuring that the discussion is orderly. I would offer to help you work through the process, but I'm going out of town for several days and won't have access to a computer. Still, since I don't see any suggestion that abuse is ongoing, I wouldn't feel too rushed about getting this done within the next 30 minutes. I assure you that the statute of limitations for allegations of admin abuse is longer than this, and taking some time to understand dispute resolution procedures will not change the result of the RFC. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer; it's appreciated. Right now my problem is mathematical: I need to count to two. To be continued. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop wasting your time on the RfC/U red herring. It was totally inappropriate to dismiss you from here in the first place, and sooner or later a critical mass of reasonable editors will arrive here. This isn't so complicated that it needs an RfC/U. Not even close. Hans Adler 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of any process that will result in getting this resolved. Meanwhile, I urge that this further discussion not be hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wow! An editor has differed with an admin, and that admin puts the initial of the editor on a tombstone under "Here are some of the Wikipedians whom I wish were dead" (diff). And the remedy? Hat the discussion ASAP and make the victim spend hours writing a deadend RFC/U. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  Regarding the hatting of the initial discussion, I did it in support of causa's suggestion at the top of this sub-section because it's obvious that anything that AN/I can do has now been exhausted. It's here for people to see, but there's nothing more that can occur at AN/I to resolve the dispute. So, other than allowing people to throw poop at each other for a week or so, there's just no point in leaving this open here. Sign on to the RFC/U if you think that something needs to be done.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  He has a point. AN/I is specifically supposed to deal with administrator misconduct. If it can't deal with a situation as straightforward as this one, why bother to raise admin misconduct here at all? ScottyBerg (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Marine Rifle Sharpshooter Badge, one of "Tony the Marine"'s user page decorations.

Editors Tony likes are listed under such a star.

File:Andrew Drake.jpg

Grave, created and labelled S during the dispute with ScottyBerg.

This discussion is surreal. Here is a reminder of the events that we are talking about:

• User:Marine 69-71. According to his long-standing user page, this user is the former New York gang member "The Man with the Gun", who then became a Marine and fought in the Vietnam War.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (3rd_nomination). ScottyBerg is responsible for the second nomination (first was for an article on a different person) of an article on "Tony the Marine". The nomination was successful.
• Tony feels harrassed by ScottyBerg. [84] ("Look, for some reason to unknown me, you seem to hate me, you have been on my case for a long time, therefore I am not interested in conversing anymore with you.")
• Tony ends his editing session on 5 July as follows: [85]
  • Archives a discussion at Talk:Irish immigration to Puerto Rico, in which he had to concede a point to ScottyBerg and remove material from the article.
  • Tony adds a "wall of shame" to his "wall of honor" in the form of a graveyard.
  • Tony labels one of the graves "S". Graveyard now looks like this [86] (bottom of page).
  • Editing stops after one more tangentially related edit. [87]
• ScottyBerg discovers the graveyard and links to it. [88]
• 9 minutes later, Tony removes the graveyard, claiming it's a joke not directed at anybody. [89]
• 19:14. Tony: "I am sorry for the 'Wall of Dishonor' thing. It was meant as an experimental joke and realizing that it was of bad taste, I have removed it. The 'S' was not directed at anyone it was meant to be a symbol of stupidity."
• 20:09 "There was no 'list' of people that I wanted dead. Show me proof that there was a list with names. An 'S' was an experiemntal symbol."

An editor with a violence-themed user page that leaves no doubt that he can use a gun creates a virtual grave for a user he is in a dispute with, and instead of a proper apology and guarantees that nothing like this will ever happen again we only get a half-hearted apology and implausible attempts at denial. And then the target of this attack is asked to find certification for an RfC/U? The lack of decency that can make an admin comment in this situation, "If you can't find even a single other editor who can certify an RFC, it is definitely not ripe for Arbcom" – that's just mind-boggling.

The extreme bragging on the user page, the agressively defensive reactions to my probing concerning possible long-term effects of the Vietnam experience, the absurdly incompetent recent admin activities by this user, and the message left on ScottyBerg's talk page are each individually cause for concern. Taking them all together it's just criminal to let this situation smolder on and dismiss the victim. For all we know "Tony the Marine" is a ticking bomb. There has been no reaction from Arbcom yet, but I hope and expect that they will handle this competently, either on their own or by leaving it to the Foundation. (Obviously, if I didn't live on a different continent I wouldn't dream of touching this case given the convincing threat scenario that the user has set up.) Hans Adler 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to second the statement by Ohm's Law above. To reiterate: the closure of the discussion on AN/I most definitely does not reject any complaints, condone any disputed behavior, or preclude anyone with allegations of abuse from pursuing ordinary dispute resolution. Further, since there are no indications that abuse is ongoing, there is nothing else that can be done merely as a result of an AN/I discussion.

It might help you to think of AN/I as more like a town hall than a courtroom. To follow the analogy, that you've made allegations of murder in a town hall, however well founded, does not make it the venue to pursue something as serious as capital punishment, again, however well founded. You would do well to separate your insistence that something be done from your insistence that it be done as a result of this discussion only. Signing off. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Egregious and obvious offences are dealt with quickly all the time. When was the last time we had an RfC/U on a serial spammer or a penis vandal? Normally the main problem is that some admins are too trigger-happy. The opposite problem only arises with people who are very well known and have lots of friends, and with admins. Hans Adler 00:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I realize that you're feeling threatened (that's how it appears to me, at least), but... calm down for a sec, OK? I understand your point that "Egregious and obvious offences are dealt with quickly all the time.", but the thing is that those offenses are issues that any administrator can handle. You're proposing desysoping someone, which nobody at AN/I can do anything about. In the meantime, Scotty is still looking for a second certifier, and there's a separate issue above that appears to require immediate attention from any admin which is being lost in the deluge of posts to this section. O_o
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the intimidation at work here, and the vindictive attitudes exhibited, it is by no means guaranteed that I can get a second certifier. So far I cannot. Remember that there are actually two rogue administrators at issue here. One is Marine69-71, the other is AntonioMartin, his son, to whom I alluded earlier as placing an unwarranted full protection on the article in which his dad was engaged in a content dispute. Here is a sample of what happens when you cross this father-and-son administrator team. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) In bad cases such as this it is normal to block admins. They are not allowed to unblock themselves, and if they do (wouldn't be the first time), they are just making things worse for themselves. By not dealing with this problem, the Wikipedia community creates the impression that this is, in fact, how low our behavioural standards have sunk – that we aren't really sure whether Tony has done anything wrong. It's amazing how all of the hysterical civility police can disappear in their holes when someone really breaks fundamental behavioural norms. Hans Adler 00:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@Ohms law: Sometimes the voice of reason is bureaucratic twaddle. Of course we know that no one here can desysop an admin, but hours are spent discussing nonsense on this page, so when an actual issue like this arises there should be some clear guidance presented by the community. Please come out and say what you think about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have to second what Hans is saying about double standards. I've seen lowly editors flogged at AN/I for much less than this, often at times when they were vindicated in the end. Yet before that they were blocked, bullied or made to feel completely powerless while they were dragged through the mud by other admins. But that doesn't happen when an admin goes rogue with his tools and then puts some very tasteless and threatening shit on his userpage? Of course not. I've said this many times before but there are many editors here who feel rather justifiably that since they are not admins they have no recourse when they run into admin bullying. And everytime something like this happens that feeling is reinforced.Griswaldo (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Put down the torches and pitchforks and take a chill pill. Given that we know there is no overt threat (which is the only thing we would take action on) what is there to block about? If I were to block Tony, what do you suggest I put in the block log? "Blocked for being a killer who participated in the Vietnam War?" This rhetoric is getting over the top even for this board. -- Atama頭 01:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How about "canvassing," for starters. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It slipped my mind, but this is actually not the first time I've had to come to AN/I concerning Marine69-71 on an issue similar to the canvassing one we discussed earlier. Here is a record of the first time. Note the links in that archived page, especially 165 and 166. This is not the first time this editor has sought to distort the consensus-building process by bring to the attention of his wiki-pals discussions in which he had a direct personal stake. In this case the stakes could not be higher: the article was about him! ScottyBerg (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the previous ANI discussion, there was no canvassing, in fact you said there was no canvassing at the time. When I run across an act of canvassing, and it is the first instance of a person doing it, I assume ignorance. In fact, I'm guilty of canvassing myself once early in my time on Wikipedia, I didn't realize until later what I'd done and I'm ashamed of it. It's especially disappointing to see this kind of behavior from an administrator who should know better, and is another reason why they may be unsuitable to have the bit (which is another reason why I still support the suggestion that de-adminship proceedings should continue). For anyone, administrator or not, if I see canvassing I issue a warning and only block if it's repeated. So yes, canvassing can be a blockable offense but in this case I don't see it that way. By the way, I'm not covering for Tony, I'm not interested in defending him, and I'm of the opinion that his conduct here casts into doubt whether he should be trusted with the tools from this point on. But there's nothing that warrants a block right now. -- Atama頭 01:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I said that and I was wrong. It was canvassing. He was seeking to distort the consensus by getting his wiki-buddies to flock to his side. It didn't work, but it was still canvassing. I subsequently posted this note[90]. He did not respond to it, and later deleted it.[91] ScottyBerg (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the previous ANI discussion, there was no canvassing. I disagree entirely. You mean that those who commented did not think there was any canvassing. When you are the subject of an article, and you post a message to a group of people who you consider your closest compadres on Wikipedia about your article being at AfD it no longer matters how you word your message. It is understood, clear as day, what the desired effect there is. That's just common sense. Claiming that since the message was technically worded in a neutral manner it is not canvassing is absurd. I think Scotty was entirely correct to have raised that concern back then.Griswaldo (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the nice strawman. What's so much better about a threat of violence that it must be handled more leniently than a legal threat? Nothing, I guess. In both cases it's the chilling effect that counts. What matters is not whether the threat is overt or covert. What matters is that other editors feel that they cannot act freely because, if they do, e.g. the last thing they see in their life might be a madman with a gun.

I argued vehemently against WP:TOV because it treated credible and obviously ridiculous threats all in the same way. The Foundation apparently sees things differently, and officially we now have WP:VIOLENCE which is as potentially hysterical as TOV would have been. But this is one of those cases where it actually makes sense. If tomorrow ScottyBerg suddenly stops editing, we may never suspect that it is because he cannot edit any more, and if the police have not been notified they may never think of looking at his Wikipedia activities when looking for his enemies. I still don't think we should notify the police even in this situation; but we need to drive it home to Tony that he is just wrong. Hans Adler 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To be frank, I view it less as an actual threat of personal violence than as a cowardly and juvenile attempt at intimidation. He has been an administrator for six years, has flouted the rules on a number of occasions - WP:OWNing a dreadful autobiography sourced to Facebook and Wikipedia Signpost - and even managing to beat off the first AfD of that horrid article with the help of his wiki-pals. He feels immune from consequences and so far he has no reason to feel otherwise. He thinks this will die down and it will go back to business as usual, until the next time. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm loosing all interest in this really quickly amid the hysterics, and I'm probably hittin' the hay now anyway, but... blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Y'all are obviously in the midst of a personal dispute... I'm not really sure what you guys envision happening by comming here and shouting, stomping your feet, and throwing fits, but whatever. If it make you feel better, who am I to stop ya?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, if graveyards for hated fellow editors are getting socially acceptable hereabouts, I will consider you once I get my own. Hans Adler 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This form of unethical intimidation is (normally) sufficient to trigger serious consequences. To take the legal threats analogy again, the graveyard was like a page where an editor lists law cases against other editors for their various infractions. E.g. "Antonio Santiago v. Scotty Berg". Established editors have been indeffed for legal threats way, way below this and sometimes even for statements that were firmly in the range of ordinary discourse. Hans Adler 01:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans, please drop the stick. Do you know how we handle legal threats? We block people until they are retracted. In this case, there isn't even an overt threat, but Tony made it clear that there's no threat. Of course, you choose to ignore that, and it's obvious that you personally dislike Tony because he was in the Vietnam War. There's no straw man there, you were very clear about it. Just like Ohms law, though, I'm done with this. If someone decides to actually start an RfC, or any other legitimate process, I might participate. But this discussion is getting pretty repetitive and silly. I'm too tired at this point to even bother. Have fun chatting with each other about this until someone else closes it. -- Atama頭 01:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One reason that AN/I can be so ineffective at dealing with behavioral problems is that people would rather indulge in emotionalism rather than deal rationally with concrete problems. The canvassing was wrong, the misuse of tools was wrong, the "wall of dishonor" page was wrong, but we've been derailed from a clear-headed and reasoned discussion of exactly how wrong, and whether the misbehavior rose to the level of desysopping, because of the totally inappropriate red herring about Vietnam and being a Marine. At this point, there's no chance that anything serious will be done, and that's largely the fault of the hysterics. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely that Tony has a user page that shouts KILLING! KILLING! is very relevant in the context of his death phantasy, and he initiated the distraction by claiming that by fighting in Vietnam he didn't support killing. Some editors here seem to have a black spot for the military that amounts to an entire eye. Hans Adler 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being emotional, and I was the target of the death fantasy (I've been told "threat" is imprecise. whatever.) Those issues still can be addressed. An RfC is likely to be more of a zoo than you're seeing here. While I'm prepared to go ahead with one if I can find a co-signer, I do not for the life of me understand why community consensus cannot be achieved on the issues you state. No, canvassing is wrong, especially by an administrator. No, misuse of tools is wrong. Ditto on the Wall of Dishonor. This administrator has had the bit for six years. He should know the rules backwards and forwards, and we've seen instead a calculated cluelessness that is mind-boggling. And I am excluding the past COI record when I say that. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think some of the Marine veteran comments were out of line. But I'm somewhat confused as to how the RfC/U was supposed to work, that is, whether an effective solution was ever possible. From what I can tell, you can only do it if two users have tried to discuss it on the talk page without resolution. When the editor is not insisting on their changes, I would assume that the resolution is an apology? Admission of guilt? If this is the only way to take any formal measures regarding admins, it can't be that the process is blocked because the admin admits their fault each and every time they do something wrong, and can simply do it again with impunity a week later. I understand that the processes are generally preventative rather than punitive, but the idea of behind blocking is that users have shown they cannot be trusted, and someone can show themselves as not being trustworthy enough to have the tools without leaving more than one victim or doing something that lends itself to being resolved on their talk page. I'd be happy to be the second to certify, but it seems as though even this particularly arduous method of doing anything regarding an administrator is useless if the bad conduct does not take a particular form. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 02:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I share your confusion. I view an RfC as pointless wheel spinning, one that will degenerate into the free-for-alls that often take place in RfCs, assuming it is certified. There is no assurance that will happen. For example, canvassing. I was the only editor to ask him to stop that on his user page. So how can the RfC deal with canvassing. I need two certifiers. I and another editor sought to get him to not misuse his tools. He unprotected, even while insisting that he was right. Was there still an ongoing dispute that can be dealt with in an RfC? The "wall of dishonor" arose in the ANI. I'm not sure that's "certifiable." I wonder if passing the buck to an RfC will do anything more than give this administrator yet another free pass. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The latest dispatch from Marine 69-71. Nuclear Warfare had asked him to facilitate an RfC by waiving the certification requirement. He's completely blameless, is a victim of persecution and lies, has made piddling "mistakes" of no consequence. He knows an RfC is toothless, and he knows nothing is going to happen here. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What is an RFC going to accomplish? NW calls AN/I "drama central" but the first, and probably last, RFC on user conduct (also of an admin) I've participated in became the worst dramafest I've ever experienced. My experience is that in situations like this the most probable answer you'll get it is "not our problem." Any venue you might discuss this matter in could turn into drama central, but if you remove it from this venue then those who have commented here already and don't want to deal with it can pawn off responsibility to someone else. If Atama and Co. think RFC is the place to go then why not co-certify with Scotty? I'll tell you why, because they don't want anything to do with this.Griswaldo (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I explained previously in some detail, it is unclear if any of Marine's misconduct can even be properly certifiable. He knows that, and he is counting on nothing to happen here. He knows that he does not face consequences. And just to make it clear, he will not facilitate bringing this to RfC by waiving the certification requirement.[92]. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'll comment again here but only on the RFC/U. One requirement of RFC/U is, "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." The problem is that I wasn't involved in the dispute. I wish I was because I would be more than happy to help certify it. RFC/U isn't completely toothless, it's a formal procedure that can be used at a later date as evidence. It's like mediation (which I also used to be heavily involved in once). Mediation isn't binding, but if mediation fails (or if people come to an agreement then fail to follow through with it) then the next step can occur.

Also, regarding Mahewa's earlier comment, "If this is the only way to take any formal measures regarding admins, it can't be that the process is blocked because the admin admits their fault each and every time they do something wrong, and can simply do it again with impunity a week later." There is no difference between administrators and non-admins when it comes to behavior. If a non-admin is conducting themselves improperly, but not so blatantly that a block is in order, then an RFC/U is also the method to use.

Here's an example of an RFC/U I helped certify (actually, I pretty much wrote the bulk of it and provided all the evidence), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Femmina. This was against a non-admin, and this was long before I was an admin myself. The subject of the RFC/U didn't bother to comment (aside from this charming addition), and in fact aside from a group of people agreeing with the basis for the complaint nothing else happened. But, despite the appearance that the RFC/U was useless, the editor did move on and stop the behavior that was the basis for the complaint. So anyone who thinks that I would shy away from the process because I have no interest in getting involved in one doesn't know me. I just don't think that I can help certify it. -- Atama頭 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you see, that's the problem. There may be practical problems with having this as the subject of an RfC, as I described earlier. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I understand the process a little better now, but I think you missed where I was coming from (mainly due to my lack of clarity). I wasn't at all suggesting thatyou aren't willing to help or anything like that. What I meant to say is that I'm not quite sure of what's to be done, more of a critique of the process insofar as it's a critique at all. People seem to not think that this discussion has a point, and I don't know that I disagree, but I feel like no real alternative has been given. I don't think people are comfortable saying that nothing should happen so they have gestured at RfC, but I don't think anyone can be the second to certify.Ultimately, what I meant to say the process is broken if we all know it's wrong for this to just be ignored but that's really all the policies allow. If that's really the case, we should acknowledge it and try to fix the policies (and I realize just how naive that sounds given how much effort and time has gone into this very discussion). ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not being naive at all. I think that this situation is food for thought no matter the ultimate outcome. Who polices the policemen? That's the macro issue here. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea is supposed to be that the admins police each other when possible, and I think the role of arb com with respect to admins is to resolve otherwise irresolvable differences between them, and do the actual desysop when necessary. For there very definitely is something AN/I can do quite independently of ArbCom. We can block. It is well established that removing a block on oneself is not acceptable to arb com, and though it is impossible to prevent someone who is blocked from exercising admin functions, I'm sure arb com would regard it similarly. It's time we took action ourselves when it becomes necessary--for we can use short and then successively longer blocks to prevent further damage. Obviously no one admin should do this without clear consensus, and whether there is consensus to do it here is something I am not judging, but if there is I suggest that a short block might be the correct remedy. And without regard to this particular issue, it's time we became a good deal more active ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

Scotty, what do you want to happen here? What result are you looking for? An apology? A block? A desysop? A promise he won't use the tools for a while? A believable promise that this won't happen again? Public acknowledgement that you were right and he was wrong? What do you want? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point he hasn't acknowledged that he did anything wrong. He admits only "mistakes" and blames me for his predicament. His behavior has been uniformly arrogant, dishonest and insincere. He shows an abysmal and I think willful refusal to abide by site policies on article content and editor behavior (COI, canvassing, use of his tools, and of course his appalling "wall of dishonor"). In the recent controversy over OR in an article he twice acted like a wet-behind-the-ears newbie and not like an administrator of six years experience. I had to twice go to an RfC because an administrator of six years experience won't abide by WP:OR. He got no support except from the one editor he canvassed. Why is that? Is he really so ignorant of WP:OR or does he simply not give a damn? Either way, he is not qualified to be an administrator. His "mistakes" are enormously disruptive and I guarantee there will be more of them. I think it is obvious and urgently needed that he be separated from his tools. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're looking for a desysop. The thing is, I'm fairly sure the only way you're going to get that to happen is to go thru ArbCom. It is technically impossible to achieve that here, not because admins protect admins, but because the only people who can desysop anyone are Stewards, and they aren't going to listen to anyone except an Arb, certainly not a derailed ANI thread. The only thing I think you're going to get out of an RFCUA (or whatever the name is, an admin conduct RFC), is (a) at best, maybe community consensus that there should be a desysop, which you could then take to ArbCom to see if they'll pass a motion (this strikes me as very unlikely); or (b) community consensus that if he continues with this behavior going forward, he should be taken to ArbCom and they will quite likely desysop him (this seems very likely if the people complaining about his behavior can stay focused); or (c) a pointless time sink drama fest (this seems very likely if the people complaining about his behavior do not stay focused). So, I don't think it is likely that you are going to get what you want right away (though you can certainly try if you want); I think the best you can hope for is get a "final warning" type result from an RFC that a repeat of the problems will result in what you want. I would probably be willing to co-certify an RFC if I know we're shooting for option (b). I'm not going to waste my time if I think we're going to end up with option (c). Would you settle for that, or do you want to go straight to ArbCom, or do you want to just give up? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with going to an RfC and hope that the discussion will remain focused on the real issues. However, I do not understand how you can co-certify. I just don't know how that's technically possible, under the RfC rules. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe I can co-certify because I tried to resolve the Wall of Dishonor portion of the problem, and am not happy with the response from an admin. I'm not willing to block over the issue, nor press for a desysop over it, but I am willing to press for consensus that anything like that again will result in a desysop. I don't believe I have to have been involved in every single portion of the dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, really all you have to show (from my experience) is that you tried and failed to resolve the larger problem. The "Wall of Dishonor" issue may have occurred on another page at a different time than the problems that ScottyBerg ran into, but they are all part of a larger picture of events that happened at once, so I think that would count. I initially commented that I felt that Tony's message was non-neutral and thus qualified as canvassing, but then I was sidetracked when I tried to respond to what I saw as harassment against Tony. So I found myself unwillingly acting as his advocate. Sometimes I hate trying to do the right thing. But I'm glad you got involved Floquenbeam, and I think that's enough for an RFC/U to start. -- Atama頭 04:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm off to bed. I'll check back tomorrow morning. If you find someone else willing to co-certify, you should probably take them up on it; I've got some conditions you may or may not be OK with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Extreme personal attack

Resolved

 – IP blocked by OrangeMike. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block 75.168.243.94 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) for this remark. I realize you can't indef an IP, but please do what you can. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't get much more anti-Semitic (which actually does annoy me too for the reasons he sort of stated, though I acknowledge that most people only apply it to us Jews) than dropping the k-word. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by OrangeMike (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for severe harassment. Mark this as resolved? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As the recipient of the attack, I just wanted to pop in here to thank you all for taking care of this. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

User:RoadHouse -- general disruption, using IPs to avoid scrutiny, NFCC violations

User:RoadHouse appeared earlier this year, set up a second account a month later, and began tag-team editing in April, leading to an SPI and blocking in May[93]. Spamlinking led to a week-long block in June from User:OhNoitsJamie. Since coming off that block, if not before, RoadHouse has been using IP accounts like User:96.235.156.29, User:173.61.170.148, and User:173.72.91.154 in an attempt to avoid scrutiny, using the RoadHouse account only when editing semiprotected pages, uploading images, or otherwise editing in ways not allowed for IP users. RoadHouse's edits are rarely constructive, and then only minimally so; they mostly chop articles into smaller and smaller sections, sometimes only one sentence long, inexplicably rearranging sections in ways which separate discussions of related matters. They also rearrange sections to place more emphasis on embarassing/uncomplimentary matters. Despite objections from multiple users (User:Nymf and I seem to bump heads with them the most), the editing practices are unchanged. RoadHouse lately has been larding articles with minimally relevant free images, to the point of clear overillustration, despite, again, objections from several users. Worse, the editor disregards NFCC limits and edit wars to reinsert material which fails NFCC; note, for example, repeated attempts from different accounts to insert a Playboy cover in the Charisma Carpenter article "To show what the cover looked like."[94] RoadHouse virtually never uses edit summaries (itself a disruptive practice, given the nature of their edits). In response to some snarling from them on my talk page, I've attempted to dialog with them, to no effect whatsoever.[95] [96]
Today breaks the bank. Aside from the usual disruptive editing, RoadHouse, via IPs, decided to enhance the section of the Nancy Reagan article dealing with her reputation for "elegance and formality" by inserting a photo (undiscussed in the section) showing her, at a White House Christmas event, sitting in "Santa's" lap. "Santa" is played by Mr. T..[97] Amusing, yes, especially on April 1, but hardly constructive editing. They then decided to memorialize their favorite Playboy cover, set for deletion as unused non-free, by creating a gallery for it on their userpage.[98] Then they added a phony free-use licensing tag to the image page, identifying it as their own work.[99] Then they reverted User:Tabercil's modification of the image itself, restoring a larger-size, higher-res copy of the image.[100].
A three-day block didn't work. A week-long block didn't work. It's time for this character to take a long vacation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The user's obstinate stance regarding multiple warnings was what lead me to block. Given this new information and the continuing unwillingness to abide be Wikipedia policy, I support a longer block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

One question: has anyone done a formal CheckUser on his account to verify that he is indeed using IPs to edit? If we can prove that, then we have just cause to give him a permanent leave of absense... Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the changes to the file; it's now a day away from being speedied. Agree with Tabercil; if you can prove, via checkuser or more evidence, that the IP's are him, it would be easy to justify an indef block. But it isn't clear to me how you know that. I might be willing to block even if we don't consider the IP edits, but I have to go and can't review his contribs enough to be confident that the account's edits alone justify a long/indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed T'is he, indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Coren. RoadHouse blocked indefinitely. Going forward, IP's can now be blocked for block evasion if he uses them again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks from me as well. I'd just put together an more detailed comparison, which now isn't necessary, in the unlikely event anyone's interested. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

detailed comparison by HW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The evidence is mainly behavioral. First of all, since his last block expired, the RoadHouse account is used exclusively (maybe almost exclusively) to edit semi-protected pages and perform other tasks that IP editors aren't allowed to. This suggests that the person behind the account is editing from an IP whenever possible. RoadHouse came off their last block June 22 20:16. User:96.235.156.29 begins editing June 22 20:20, and continues until June 24 20:17. All of RoadHouse's edits in this two-day period come during brief gaps in the IP's contribution list. In order -- RoadHouse makes three edits on June 22, from 21:44 - 21:55. The IP stops editing at 21:17 and resumes at 22:02. RoadHouse makes four edits later that day, from 23:33 - 23:47; the IP breaks at 23:15 and resumes at 23:53. On June 23, RoadHouse edits from 4:21-4:32. The IP breaks at 4:15 and makes a single edit at 4:44. RoadHouse edits at 4:53 and 4:56. The IP edits from 5:04 - 5:18. RoadHouse edits from 5:21 - 5:32. The IP resumes at 5:39. Later on June 23, RoadHouse edits at 19:58 and 20:00. The IP breaks at 19:44 and resumes from 20:10 - 20:17, then edits on-and-off until June 24 at 2:22. RoadHouse edits from 2:34 - 2:41; the IP resumes from 2:56 - 3:09. RoadHouse edits from 3:17 - 3:29; the IP resumes at 3:53. Later in the day, the IP breaks from editing at 19:37. RoadHouse edits from 19:49 - 19:51, and the IP resumes at 20:04. Such a pattern might be coincidence, but it's hard to see one extending over several days, and it's hard to see any other reason why, after coming off his block, RoadHouse stopped editing pages that weren't semi-protected. The most logical explanation is that RoadHouse, to avoid further scrutiny, uses their account only for tasks he can't carry out as an IP. There are strong similarities in the contribution history. Virtually all the edits are made to celebrity biographies. Virtually all the edits are made without edit summaries. Virtually all of the edits (except those involving images) do not make substantive changes to the articles, but rearrange blocks of text, modify headers, or insert new headers to create smaller sections. The first IP stopped editing June 24 20:17. User:173.61.170.148 begins editing June 24:21:43. and geolocates to the same location. The pattern continues, with RoadHouse editing semiprotected articles during short gaps in the IP's contribution history. This IP's contributions end June 27 04:42. User:173.72.81.117 picks up June 27 18:17, same geolocation data. Same editing patterns, with an additional linkage: the IP attempts to correct the defective NFCC rationale on RoadHouse's upload of the Charisma Carpenter Playboy cover [101]. This IP stops editing July 2 06:25. User:173.72.91.154 (no surprise, same geolocation) picks up July 3 22:12. RoadHouse did not edit during the 40-hour gap between the IPs, but resumed one hour after this IP began editing, (unsurprisingly) during a brief gap in the IP's editing. Between the similarity in the actual edits and the synchronization of the edit histories, I don't think there's any reasonable explanation other than one user (already blocked once for socking) employing multiple IPs and at least one named account, in order to avoid further scrutiny. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Non Free File uploads

• Juandy004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed the number of non-free file's that this editor has been uploading and the number of times he has been notified and warned about them, can an administrator have a look and see if any action is or may be required. Mtking (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Help Needed

The user LegalEagleUSA pretended to apologize for attacking me in one talk page but refused to remove offending accusations and then proceeded to harass and threaten me again in another discussion. This user also began their Wikipedia editing history by attempting to canvas several other editors by posting accusations against me and at least one other editor directly in their user pages.

The following users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article on Marisol Deluna. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA page threatening those who edit or reverse any of their contributions on Wikipedia but and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1

66.65.66.144, now going by ElizabethCB123

These and MANY other new or one time users have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. You can verify this in the link below. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they claim to know) on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. The pages where all these accusations can be found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Deluna

Thank you! Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs)

• LegalEagleUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mrbrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Alteran1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• ElizabethCB123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was not infomed by the filer (Aa1232011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) about this so I did it here. Mtking (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mtking. I did not know I had to inform people of this. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It says it in the bright orange box at the top of the screen whenever you post here, but many people still don't see it or forget it so don't feel too bad. :) -- Atama頭 04:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it! I scrolled down straight to begin the edit but appreciate your assistance. Aa1232011 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_and_.22outing.22_threats_continue_after_debate_has_ended before feeling victomized. I cannot speak on behalf of the other editors, yet please read my comments before making any conclusions. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely something worth looking into at Marisol Deluna‎‎ there has been some threats made (and retracted) along with what looks like a little ownership going on and may be sock or meat or Tag team editing, it is also not clear what this lady has done that is of real encyclopaedic note so some more seasoned eyes to look at this would be a good idea. Mtking (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to Aa1232011. It seemed fishy at the time to me, and I was led to believe by others that they knew who Aa1232011 was in real life. I have no opinion on their identity or intentions, and no longer will be editing Marisol Deluna's article. This is my personal Wikipedia account, and I had done some small edits to the article at her request. I refused to become too far entrenched in major edit wars on her behalf, save for voicing the concerns about the intent of the edits made. I couldn't in good conscience continue editing her article for her as I vehemently agree with the philosophy of ownership and remaining neutral. Alteran1 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to Alteran1 for being pulled into wrongful questioning by User:Aa1232011 due to my remarks. Hoping you will freely edit. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Aaron Brenneman

I think it's best if we just collapse this. Nothing's being accomplished except degeneration of the discussion into a place we don't need to go to. All parties are reminded of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. That is all. N419BH 06:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Aaron Brenneman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I consider it a personal attack - Wow, aren't you the rude one? Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" Allegations of kissing my mother are serious indeed and without need at all - the user commenting is an administrator, that is not the way administrators should be commenting about users. Off2riorob (talk) 04:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) ?????? Spartaz Humbug! 04:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Aaron Bannerman uncivil comments, just because one or more editors make an uncivil comments doesn't mean that he should and the fact that he is an Admin, he should know better. Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) User says - "If you think that I should not continue to be an admin, simply ask me to step down. Get five other editors in good standing (which I interpret very very broadly) to also say I should step down and it's done." support - Off2riorob (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Another example: having been a total bastard from his talk page ΔT The only constant 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I anm not sure this user needs the tools, they are not/have never used them at all - diff - Off2riorob (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) And by the way, you made the wrong search. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I don't like to bring up the past however he did incorrectly blocked me for edit warring (for only 2 reverts), but should uncivil comments mean he should lose the tools, I'm not so sure. Bidgee (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) This isn't about his past actions, and anyway you don't have to make more than two reverts to edit war. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I think you've miss understood what I'm stating, which is that I have past history however I don't believe that uncivil comments alone should mean that he loses his tools. Fact is Admin's can't block users who have done less then three reverts unless they have edit warred on the page in the past or they have sanctions put on them, sadly some Admins abuse the WP:BP even though WP:EW (which is linked within WP:BP) states otherwise. Bidgee (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Where in policy does it state that admins can't block users who've made less than 3 reverts? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) As what I've stated, some Admin's miss use/abuse the WP:BP even though the policy states 3RR or if there are restrictions, so the block for anything less then 3RR is unsupported by policy (unless commmunity or arbcom restrictions are inplace). Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That something isn't stated in policy doesn't mean it cannot be done. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In fact you can't block anyone for something that is not stated in the policy. The fact is the block he done was punitive (a breach of the WP:BP) not preventative (since two others were edit warring), the lone editor who kept adding the content had breached the 3RR yet Adam didn't block them? Bidgee (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Do I kiss my mother with that mouth - is the community happy with administrators saying such things to users? Off2riorob (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It's an unfortunate outburst from Aaron but this is nowhere near what admins get recalled or desysopped for. Slap on the wrist with a "don't do it again", really. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That's actually a very common expression where I'm from and while it is a bit snarky it just means that the person it is directed to has said something dirty or nasty. See Wiktionary for instance. I suggest taking a breather here for a second. I doubt Aaron meant to be as offensive as you perceive his comments to be.Griswaldo (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC) For context, that which came immediately before the mouth comment was: Aaron - I was surprised you are an administrator - I was looking at your contributions - have you discovered the main issue - Wikipedia articles - ? What do you want with me , please feel free to spit it straight out? Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I apologise for being thick as two planks here, but I have no idea what this comment means. Can you say that again a different way, please? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman - what are you wanting to discuss? - your article contribution is so minimal I don't think we have any meeting place - you do realize article improvement is what this project is about? Am I missing your contributions to content improvement ? Please point me to them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) In totality, Rob bordering on taunting, Aaron responding mildly uncivilly, and a pair of trouts should just about do it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The user has never even contributed with the tools. The user is not even contributing to article improvement here, and that is what this project is all about. The admins attack on me and my mother is indefensible. Off2riorob (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, he has, and is a long-standing admin since 2006. You're overreacting, Rob. Cool down. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Fuck off with your pair of trouts - Aarons mother is a fucker Off2riorob (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Rob, you're not helping yourself here. It wasn't a personal attack, as Griswaldo points out above. It's a figure of speech. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Fuck your mother too. Off2riorob (talk) Bordering? It's pretty outright. I had assumed his post here was a bad joke. Especially since, if you want to look at what he said after being baited, the kiss line wasn't really the worst part. And none of it compares to Off2riorob's comments here. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm worried his account has been hijacked or that there is something serious going on with him. This is really out of control. I tried to leave him a message on his talk page, but he erased it and told me the same about my mother. Any ideas?Griswaldo (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Seems like any other outburst by a frustrated user. He'll get over it, eventually. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Where I come from, "Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?" is not an attack on the person it's directed to, nor in any way on that person's mother. It's a somewhat jocular way of calling someone out for using dirty language. The whole thrust of the expression is that the person's mother is deserving of respect, and that the person using foul language should speak in a way befitting the dignity of their upright mother. In other words: Keep your mouth clean enough that you can (in a chaste and filial way) kiss your mother without dirtying her cheek. I have never imagined seeing that expression construed as an attack on anyone's mother; this is a lost-in-translation problem. It's often the case that such idiomatic expressions are misunderstood in an online environment. That's a good reason to be careful using them. In the context, I think it was a pretty measured response to a rather unpleasant bit of venom from Off2riorob. Rob, if you don't barge onto people's talk pages demanding that they justify their existence, you'll probably avoid all sorts of unpleasantness. How has the encyclopedia been improved by this episode? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with GTBacchus, it's simple a jocular figure of speech, an since figures of speech are not always shared between cultures, it's certainly subject to misinterpretation. However, Off2riorob's two responses above "Aaron's mother is a fucker" and "Fuck your mother too" are not subject to misinterpretation. Would an uninvolved admin please issue a block for these? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Obviously I can't speak for Aaron or Griswaldo, to whom Rob made similar comments, but it's obvious Rob's frustrated at the moment, and I don't see how a block would help things here. I'm willing to overlook his personal attack against me. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Same here. No such action on my behalf please.Griswaldo (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) If people got that offended by comments like that where I went to middle school, they'd have PTSD; we certainly did use it to taunt people, but in the way GTBacchus is describing, not how Off2riorob took it. It's just frustration; come back when Aaron says something worth responding to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I'm still thinking something strange is going on here, stranger than "a frustrated user," but maybe I'm wrong.Griswaldo (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Will it help at all if I apologise for the unintended fillial slight, and even (as an extension of an olive branch) ask if there is an article that Off2 thinks could use some improvement for me to work on, penance if you like? I'm still pretty firm on that we're allowed to blow off a little steam on our own talk page, by the way, and am not terribly sorry for any of the rest of what I said. But I wouldn't support a block, who's really been hurt here, other than Off2's reputation a bit. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Given that, I withdraw my suggestion for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Whatever the reason for the outbursts I think you should wait to say anything to him because I can't imagine an answer at this stage that doesn't involved mothers and fornication. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) When I first saw Brenneman's comment, my initial reaction was, "Where in the murky depths of a twisted mind did that come from?" It does indeed sound like a euphemism for some kind of incestuous behavior - and despite rationalizations from other editors, I'm not convinced that it isn't. An admin shouldn't be talking that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, I hope that you and I have known each other long enough that you will take my assurance: it's just a figure of speech, there's no incestuous overtones to it. I know that it was used in a classic movie, but I can't recall which one. If I remember, I'll let you know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Mike Meyers says in in Wayne's World, in the scene where he and Dana Carvey argue while the airplane flies overhead. I know it goes back further than that, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not stir this pot unnecessarily.Griswaldo (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not rationalize inappropriate behavior from an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm sorry but whether it is a "figure of speech" or not, such comments should never be made since to me it seemed like a uncivil comment (after Off2riorob had also made a uncivil comment). I try and keep my "figures of speech" to a minimum since in some cultures see it as an attack and fair call for them too. Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Wiktionary, Slang dictionary. "Incestuous behavior"? I'm pretty sure I remember Groucho Marx using this expression; I'll have to dig to find that. Bugs, you know about Groucho, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It was used in a fucking Spongebob episode; I remember seeing it when I was 10. It was obvious what it meant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob's comments, (1): "Fuck off with your pair of trouts - Aarons mother is a fucker" (2): "Fuck your mother too." (3): "fuck you and your mother", seem to be consistent with Off2riorob's comments in other places, so I don't think that account has been compromised. He has made uncivil comments at RfC/U Cirt with a similar tone: "better if the user didn't comment at all. His comment is worthless, I think it was meant to disrupt. deliberately disruptive - there is nothing else to explain it... what a disgusting comment." Also, in edit-warring on an article consistent with his previously held positions, he made accusations of meatpuppetry with no evidence. Left unchecked, Off2riorob's incivility could get worse. Quigley (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Those comments aren't remotely comparable. I can't believe you are here trying to gain some political traction out of this mess. Shameless. I'm half of a mind to say some nasty things myself. No one who was insulted here, myself included, thinks this is worth pressing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks create a hostile atmosphere and deter users from contributing to the encyclopedia. They're not only the concern of those who were directly attacked, but also a concern of the community at large. Asserting that I am "trying to gain some political traction out of this" is also a personal attack. Quigley (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Excuse me? Why are you here? You're suggesting that two unrelated things are related so that in that other venue whatever Rob says and whoever agrees with him will look bad. As I said it's just deplorable what you're doing. Go away.Griswaldo (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Quigley, it's true what you say about personal attacks creating a hostile atmosphere. It's not clear that the best response to attacks is to quote behavior policies, because doing that doesn't create the friendliest atmosphere, either. The best response to a personal attack is to realize that it's coming from a frustrated human being, and try to connect with them and make it clear that you have no malice towards them, and that you are willing to respect them even when they don't respect you. I mean... that works pretty well, sometimes. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No one comments about my mother, full stop. Anyone who does it can expect me to defend her. Off2riorob (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Rob, that's entirely reasonable. She was never attacked in this situation, however, so your defense, while admirable, is not needed. Nobody has said anything negative about your mother, and I don't see why we ever would. Aaron used a very unfortunate idiomatic expression that did not carry across as intended. Nobody using that expression intends an attack against anyone's mother. Language can be a wonderful thing, but sometimes... whew! We all live and learn, right Aaron? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No one comments about my mother - full stop ever - no one should mention my mother at all - forget about it do not do it again ever. end of. Off2riorob (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Wren Valmont

Repeatedly adding original research, redirects, and excessive fancruft to articles when asked not to. This possibly includes anonymous edits to "Good" and B-rated articles (using the IPs 74.179.133.31, 74.179.133.31, 72.147.51.157, etc, which share his habits and editing times). Refuses any discussion. Don't know if this will continue, but I wanted to alert someone in case it does. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin burnout / talk page personal attacks

Closing this out of respect to a fellow editor. This is something that can be dealt with if and hopefully when he returns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please handle this with an abundance of caution and sympathy. However... Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is having a particularly bad day and is apparently burning out and either leaving or threatening to leave the project. In the process he's put a large, really nasty bunch of personal attacks up on editors he's disagreed with on his talk page. I don't want to make his exit (or bad day and recovery) any harder or take any action myself right now, but I urge uninvolved admins to review the situation and attempt to find a way to defuse it and downgrade or mitigate the personal attacks. Please try not to do anything that forces OM to actually leave if he were to change his mind overnight or tomorrow morning, handle him with human decency, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) MayI suggest that you read his note in full? Methinks you missed something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I've read it. I didn't want to prejudice whoever responds by trying to over-characterize it here. That the root cause is explained doesn't mean that it doesn't need attention. Also thanks to Island Monkey who notified, while I was temporarily distracted on another problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Taking over charge. And since I'm not an admin, COULD WE HAVE WIKI ADMIN IN AISLE 4??? Island Monkey talk the talk 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I suggest that observers check OM's edits over the last 12 hours or so. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) There seems to be something in the air - we've had a couple of meltdowns in the past day or two. Maybe we should give everyone a day off and just protect the entire site for 24 hours.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC) It appears that Orange is facing a life-or-death surgery, and he's channeling Mark Twain now. Perhaps God will show him more good faith than he has shown to God. Or at least we can hope. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Not everybody believes in God, you know... Island Monkey talk the talk 08:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) True, but God might believe in those who don't. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Sheesh, not the atheist-religious headbutting again. Let's not criticise each others' religious beliefs. Poor guy, emmm, I am no admin of course, but ,might I suggest a temp ban for his own protection so that he doesn't do bad things and then can come back later when all is well and return to being helpful? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) By that I mean a block not for the personal attacks, but out of kindness acknowledging that he is not himself and it is ,meant to help him out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Agreed. Some action is needed. Island Monkey talk the talk 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) OM appears to have gone to sleep or to do something more worthwile with his time than argue on Wikipedia. I don't think that a block would be useful at this point. He has made, as he said on my talk page, his swan song. Danger (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) We don't do blocks for self-protection, and we shouldn't do blocks for honesty. Fucking live with his statement. Nobody is forced to read it. If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not as if he has plastered it anywhere uninvolved people are likely to see it. I'm sick and tired of valuing skin-deep semi-civility (usually coupled with rules-Naziism, grudge-keeping, and a bit of back-stabbing) over honest discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You're right. No need for a block. Cut the guy some slack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Petty bickering over the rants of a guy who fears he's dying. Reminds me of this clip, at the 7 minute mark.[102] FYI, the whole thing is worth watching. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Pass me the popcorn... Island Monkey talk the talk 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The page is obviously full of personal attack. Why isn't it just blanked and left at that? DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC) How about waiting until Tuesday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) What for? DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Because his surgery is on or before Monday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC) You mean he'll just restore it before then, so wait till he's incapacitated? I suppose that's a practical way forward with least fuss. DeCausa (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Rethinking a bit, maybe it would be courteous to blank and fully protect. He can unprotect when he gets back, at which point he'll be in a much better frame of mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Will it be the end of the world if we just ignore it for a few days? No one has to look at it. He may be dead by Monday. Sure, if I was attacked I'd be upset, but I'm unwilling to make his life worse than it is, especially as it may be short. I am tempted to fully protect it though - that would I know stop sympathy posts but also attacks on him. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) A compromise option might be to partially blank and fully protect. That is, take out the parts attacking specific editors, which are fairly well delineated, and leave the rest of it which is commentary on Wikipedia more generally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No censorship. Either blank it all or leave it as-is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agreed. Blank his userpage and replace with {{user health inactive}}. If we have nothing on Tuesday, place a death notice on his userpage. Island Monkey talk the talk 10:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Let's not get carried away. He might have to go through a convalescence and have no access to the internet. Unless someone will have firsthand knowledge? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all blatant personal attacks from that talk page per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The lack of sensitivity displayed by Georgewilliamherbert and Island Monkey is absolutely disgusting, and I am not sure it was necessary to remove the attacks, either, even though they were quite blatant and in part untrue. Basic human decency requires us to be extremely tolerant in such a situation. What would be totally correct under ordinary circumstances can turn into insensitive grave-dancing in such situations.

It's not as if OM had a history of show retirements (at least no recent ones – after his absence of two years [103] I may have forgotten something), and no indications of anything like Münchausen syndrome. This is real. Hans Adler 11:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with the lack of sensitivity. Some sort of admin attention was needed. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 11:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Thetruthnow2012 legal threat

Anyone want to block this tendentious editor for the legal threat he made in this edit summary [104]. He is mentioned in an above thread, but this is a different issue. I'm going to bed. --Daniel 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Does saying something was unlawfully done count as a legal threat? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. :) Saying that you're going to act on that might be, but otherwise it is just descriptive. And, in this case, very much incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I also question this as well. The user is just acting in an uncivil way. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the tendentious editor bit, but not a WP:NLT in and of it's self. Mtking (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the above thread and intervene accordingly. — Yk³ talk ~ contrib 08:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Part of remedy to a WP:NLT WP:BLOCK is to retract the threat of legal action. What exactly is the threat that could be retracted here? It would seem to me that the editor is simply phrasing their objection to a reversion in somewhat misconceived legal terms. While I do understand the broader issues about the editor's manifestly tendentious conduct, and sympathise with all the aggrieved parties, I would argue that this is an unwarranted escalation of something that does not require Admin attention. To summarise: there is no legal threat here. The editor is already in a whole heap of trouble, and this discussion does nothing to ameliorate this and serves only to extend the WP:DRAMA.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a legal threat, just hyperbole (crying "Censorship!") and slow-motion edit-warring plus silly personal attacks ("your feeling of insecurity"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; also, I have been studying this user's contributions since getting involved with the thread at WP:DRN, but I have not seen anything that would count as an actual legal threat. Let's keep this discussion to the thread above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:EEMIV

content dispute. WP:DR is thataway if need be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User has shown persistent stubbornness and disruptive editing to the article Starship Enterprise. They have persistently chosen to place non-canon source above canon sources where a clear discrepancy exists between the two and have refused to allow attempts to acknowledge or reconcile the discrepancy. User persists in treating the article as their personal property and persistently reverts all edits to the article. TDiNardo (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Yeah baby! The boomerang is back on AN/I! Island Monkey talk the talk 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) That's a lot of persistence.:) --Atlan (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sahab

Resolved

 – User seems to have figured this out himself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please move Sahab to Sahab (disambiguation). Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NOT ! Please help. In fact ( contact ) 11:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You can edit redirect pages yourself. I've now pointed Sahab to Sahab (disambiguation); it would probably be better if Sahab (disambiguation) were moved to Sahab now. Do you want me to do that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If a user searches "Sahab", he/she should be redirected to the disambiguation page. That's why I asked you to move Sahab ( but not Sahab City) to Sahab (disambiguation). I hope I am clear now. By the way, I checked it again: Sahab still redirects to Sahab City. In fact ( contact ) 11:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is fixed now. In fact ( contact ) 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

AnthonyTheGamer

This user's edits are questionable, I don't know if they are actionable but I sure would like a fresh pair of eyes. They only edit talkpages, not bad in and of itself, but the edits seem trolling to me. I removed one such troll from a user talkpage. I don't really know if this is a sock or what the game is, but I would like someone to have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)