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

Harassment by User:Lihaas

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

---

Resolved

 – interaction ban in place Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lihaas is harassing me at my talk page and spreading information about me to another user I have been in dispute with to try to get me in trouble. I told this user to cease posting on my talk page, I do not want a discussion with this user because I fundamentally do not want to converse with someone who is a self-described fascist and a self-described National Socialist (aka Nazi) on his user page, I know Holocaust survivors and I do not want to be faced with conversation with a neo-Nazi. I told the user to stop posting on my talk page, he has persisted with threats to get me in trouble over a statement in which I informed users on an issue involving discussion of the Albanian-Serb ethnic conflict in Kosovo that he is promoting a POV because he represents an extreme perspective on the issue - he staunchly supports Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo as stated in a userbox on his user page as well as other controversial taking-sides on multiple nationalist conflicts, and mentioned that he is a self-described Nazi. I left that discussion a month ago, the issue is over. I do not want Lihaas commenting on my page, out of respect to the Holocaust survivors I have met and respect - I have heard from an elderly Polish Jewish man I knew who survived Treblinka as a 12-13 year old boy who worked there as a slave labourer and saw his friend of the same age have is face and body smashed to a bloody pulp dead by Nazi guards because he was a few minutes late for a routine in the camp. I demand the right to not be harassed on my talk page after I have told the user in question to cease, by a person who fundamentally stands against every moral value I hold dear and out of the respect of Holocaust survivors and their relatives that I have met who survived horrific brutality by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas' infoboxes, whilst ill-advised, are clearly meaningless. He has many contradictory infoboxes, including being from India and Pakistan, being supportive of Palestinian independence and a single state solution, and being in favour of self-determination for all and the resurrection of the British Empire, being for Scottish independence and a federal UK. Despite this you have repeatedly accused him of being a Nazi in this discussion. He also has one claiming that "Lihaas totally supports world peace and loves everyone!" I don't see why he should be forbidden from your talk page, but I think he needs to sort his infoboxes out as this has caused other editors to make similar attacks before. Number 57 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

57, Lihaas's user boxes are not the problem here (though I grant you that it's an electron-consuming 223,181 bytes-long mess). Please don't muddy the waters. A user has a right to ask another user to stay away, and that should be respected. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think this is exactly the problem. Based on the infobox, R-41 has repeatedly called Lihaas a Nazi. Lihaas then issues a warning not to make personal attacks, leading to this spurious claim of harassment. If it wasn't for the stupid infobox, none of this would have happened. Number 57 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox? There's a million there. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The one that says "This user is a National Socialist". Number 57 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're shitting: there actually is one like that? I'll have to use Ctrl+f to find it. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, 57. I've asked Lihaas on their talk page to remove that. I have no objection to anyone being righteously offended enough to take it down. Honestly, I didn't think there were people stupid enough to have shit like that out in the open somewhere. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] [Also, all the Nazi-calling confused me: I reworded my comments.] Let's please focus on the issue. One should not derive Naziness from user boxes, unless on has a "I'm a Nazi" user box. But even that is beside the point. The issue is this: please point to a precise diff where you told Lihaas to not post at your talk page again (preferably you told them on your talk page). Also, I don't see harassment in their posts to you yet. I have the feeling this is going to end with "please both steer clear of each other" or a more formal interaction ban. Please show us that diff, quickly, so we can move on and see what possible violations of that request may have taken place. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He is a self-described fascist and a self-described "National Socialist", look at the userboxes - yes there are many, but they are there. I am asking for the right for me not to be harassed by a user - I told the user to cease posting on my talk page and he has refused to accept this. I have deem moral sympathy to the Holocaust survivor for his suffering by the Nazis, and I do not want to be forced to accept harassment by a self-described fascist and national socialist. I want him to NOT be able to post on my talk page because he has violated by request to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but he is not harassing you. On the other hand, you seem to be creating a lot of drama recently. Number 57 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True, 57. Enough already, R-41. Bringing Holocaust survivors into this is totally unsavory. You have not been able to provide a diff in which you clearly ask them not to post on your talk page again, and this stuff about what their user boxes are supposed to say is a. neither here nor there and b. irritating (even more so than the million user boxes). Here's what I propose: You place a note on your own talk page and on theirs asking them not to post on your talk page again. You don't even have to ask nicely. From then on, Lihaas will not post on your talk page again. Simple. Lihaas, if you're reading this, please do not post on R-41's talk page again. Let's close this thread. Oh, R-41, one more thing: stop calling people Nazis (unless you can prove that they, or God, say that they're one) or be blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whaddayaknow--here's the notification. If I understand it correctly, you said in the post before that that you never wanted to post on their talk page again, and then you posted on their talk page that you didn't want them to post on your talk page again or have any other conversation with them anymore. And then you called them a neo-Nazi and a fascist (and maybe some other things, but who the hell is counting). R-41, you have given yourself a complete interaction ban with them (voluntarily!), which may be enforced by any admin who sees you interacting with Lihaas. Wonderful: this thread can be closed. Just to make sure, I'll post on Lihaas's talk page, ahem, that R-41 et cetera. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Lihaas has a collection of infoboxes which in toto are obviously self-contradictory/sarcastic/amusing, but in isolation can be read the wrong way. Nothing surprising here. WP:SARCASM and other subtle hints may backfire on the internets. R-41 brings drama to the main drama board. Again, not terribly surprising. As you were! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aahwooo! Drmies (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So you are calling me a "drama queen" and say that this is "not terribly surprising". The user is a self-described National Socialist harassing me. If I was a Jew would you laugh off a National Socialist posting repeatedly on my talk page after telling them to stop. Go ahead and laugh, go and try to laugh off National Socialism as not significant here, even though many people are more than offended tha it killed millions of people because of their ethnic background, if you think it is a joke of the sufferings upon this Jewish man I mentioned - who used to be a neighbour of mine - are insignificant to my moral objections - then I wonder if you take anything seriously. Bottom line, I learned my education about the Holocaust by that elderly Jewish man who survived Treblinka before I learned it in school, and I do not want to talk with a person who in their userboxes says they are a fascist and a National Socialist.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, Lihaas has objected to anachronistic and European-centric understandings of the phrase "national socialism". Americans who remember President George H. W. Bush leading crowds in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should recall witnessing a nationalist socialist revival.

  There were discussions of Lihaas's contradictory user-boxes and his objections to mono-semantic understanding of nationalism & socialism before at ANI, my RfC, and even (in a particularly dull moment for WP administrators) in my block record.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? He insults me on his presumptious whim and im harrassing? I was simply bringing (in polite forms) to his attention that there was hypocrisy to his ACTIONS in that HE harrassed said user with restating a section on the ta;lk page simply because he wanted to see it...not that it was his right.

From harassment he goes on to a nazi accusation and he says IM harrassing him? is thta serious?! I duly brought it to hsi attention of whathe did, he also posts on my page and then says im harrassing him?

Then he brings about a new call to carry out some personal vendetta that he is offended by the CLAIM (unsubstantiated) that im a nazi and he should get offended he were a jew? Then in that case anuone whyo proclaims to be an australian, from the americas or from an imperialist state with a record of killing MILLIONS in a genocide far bigger should get offended with the offensive userbox being removed?!Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Retirement following violation of interaction ban

User:R-41 has announced retirement, following placing another rant against Lihaas on my talk page. *Sigh*  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another rant has been deposited on my doorstep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself

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

---

The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a divisive username and putting a userbox proclaiming your political orientation, controversial or not, on one's own userpage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The use of the National Socialist userbox is highly problematic, divisive and should be removed. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nearly any userbox which exists should allowed be placed on userpages. If you think the userbox violates those policies, you should propose the template itself for MFD. If the userbox is hard-coded, then it should just be removed. NW (Talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was hard-coded in this instance. I can't imagine a userbox template like that to survive for long. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas. Probably not much else for admins to do here now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington seems to misunderstand that soapboxing is for user pages vs. articles. What is the pt of userboxes? One can remove all userboxes in that case. Or delete all articles of offensiv content (a la Mohammed cartoons), regardless of whether the euro worldcview deems itokey then,.

Unstead of meaningless arguements over someone think-skin need to censor what is not likes it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this user permitted to edit? Hipocrite (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? does that comment firther anything. Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The entire user-page was disruptive

A 220kb user page, consisting mainly of transcluded userboxes (*spit*) is disruptive in and of itself, and I have blanked it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The userboxes were not the problem - the massive wall of text, on the other hand... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the blanking. I checked out the userboxes and found that they tended to contradict each other, making their use almost meaningless. 220kb userbox pages? That's absurd. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm there are numerous user pages and subpages that go on and on and on. If you dont like dont read it, its not an articleLihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly are not getting the point, Lihaas. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No YOU areclearly not getting the pt. 1 . its not unrelated to WP if you see thae page, 2. size doesnt warrant disruption, 3. blanking is vandalism especially per IDONTLIKEIT.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have just demonstrated that you are not getting the point. →Στc. 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the comments about Lihaas above, e.g. "Why is he allowed to edit?", per WP:NPA and WP:Civility.

Lihaas spends most of his time writing about contemporary political events, always with a great concern for the weakest or worst treated, as a traditional humanitarian. His conflicts often have arisen because he has been outraged by a lack of attention given to non-European and non-Biblical victims (in comparison). In word and deed, he is obviously opposed to the fascist celebration of humiliation and degradation of the weak and the nihilist worship of power.

In the past, Lihaas has reminded us that nationalism and socialism have been intertwined before, after, and outside of the (German) Nazi party, especially outside of Europe. The user-box was, ineffectively and counterproductively, part of that legitimate exercise, I believe.

In this light, please consider whether the hysterics (apparently exclusively by men) were needed or constructive here. Lihaas has been editing some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia for years, and really has made a great contribution to the project. (Nobody has claimed that he or anybody else is flawless, of course.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Coda

I suggested that Lihaas rephrase his user box, and he has, now clarifying that he is "a democratic national[ist] socialist and not a Nazi", etc.

Most of us are more responsive when approached in a conversational manner by a colleague or friend, and few of us respond well to shouting or being denounced.

I wish that those who have written impulsively or wrongly consider apologizing to Lihaas (who has been called a "Nazi" on many pages now)---or help edit one of his articles as private penance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Evidence that what I stated about Lihaas was honest from what I observed from his user page and that claims that I personally attacked him are false

Please, drop the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please read through all of the following, it is a clear revoking of the claim that I personally attacked Lihaas by "slurring" him as a fascist and a Nazi. I have decided to retire from Wikipedia because of administrators' mishandling of the report I put in, in which I took most of the blame for accusations that are false. Drmies, you accused be of personal attack after I stated to Lihaas that I had nothing in common with him because of his stated association with fascism and National Socialism that I refer to as "Nazism" as it is on Wikipedia. Now you and others claim that maybe he is misrepresenting himself - that he meant to say that he is a "democratic nationalist socialist" - - first of all he states on his user page that he is a fascist - and bear in mind that National Socialism as on Wikipedia and in many scholarly works is recognized as a form of fascism. If there is any question as to whether I falsely claimed he was a fascist and Nazi (in the sense of the broader "National Socialism") - look at this userbox on his page: User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist The infoboxes repeatedly state "National Socialist" as "NS" on multiple infoboxes. He also has other infoboxes that support far-right ultranationalist political parties- that indicate even further that he is aligned with fascism and National Socialism (as in Nazism), such as: This user supports Jobbik. - Jobbik is a far right Hungarian ultranationalist movement with a paramilitary movement called Magyar Gárda (Hungarian Guard) - it is anti-Semitic - it accuses Israel of "buying up" Hungary and its paramilitary group attacks Romani (Gypsy) people. Hungary's former Prime Minister described Jobbik's Magyar Gárda it as "neo-fascist" and "neo-Nazi". This user supports Attack. - Ataka - Greek short form for National Union Attack - far-right Bulgarian nationalist movement - acknowledged by all parliamentary parties as a xenophobic movement and a national threat to Bulgaria's ethnic minorities, it known for hate speech, the Ataka's leader's son sent an anti-Romani email to members of the European Parliament - sniding that Hungary is "full" of Romani. This user supports LA.O.S. L.A.O.S. short form for Popular Orthodox Rally - a far-right Greek nationalist movement - it opposes any immigration from outside the European Union True, he has contradictory userboxes - it may mean he is politically confused or has mixed opinions. Bottom line, from the statements of his userboxes, he is not merely a nationalistic socialist, his userboxes make clear that he is a fascist National Socialist and that he supports multiple far-right ultranationalist political parties - two of which have promoted xenophobia towards ethnic minorities - Jobbik towards Jews and Romani, and Ataka towards Romani. When Lihaas started confronting me, I stated on Lihaas' userpage that I fundamentally opposed his views and do not want to associate with him or talk with him because of those views - that is my choice and my right not to be forced to accept unwanted postings on my talk page. I don't care whether he wants to keep them or not, I think he has the right of personal liberty to post his political views - but he should not expect everyone to respect his stated support of fascism, National Socialism, and far-right ultranationalist movements - as I said, I do not want to talk with a person who adheres to such views. I am preparing my final retirement from Wikipedia so please respond here, but I want an apology for administrators' mishandling of this, I was honest and stating what he himself posted on his user page when I said he was a fascist and a Nazi, his userpage says that he "is a Fascist" and that he "is a National Socialist" and his support of Jobbik and other far-right ultranationalist parties - just put those together in your mind and take note where the term National Socialism redirects to on Wikipedia: Nazism - and I referred to Nazism in its general form of an ideology and its continuation in a general form as neo-Nazism. Lihaas may claim that he does not support German Nazism, but when I first noticed these tendencies on his talk page - I noticed the anti-Romani, anti-Semitic Jobbik movement first of all, then looked on and saw the other two infoboxes I mentioned. He is a self-described fascist and supports the exact kind of political movements that advocate the very elements of Nazism that I find morally reprehensible in my opinion - I do not want to talk with someone who supports far-right ultranationalist movements like Jobbik or Ataka that promote xenophobia - that is my choice not to talk to the person and my right not to have the person talk to me after I have told them not to.--R-41 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

obvious sock 76.118.180.210

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

---

Resolved

 – :blocked for 1 week for trolling by Future Perfect at Sunrise, then indefinitely blocked as open proxy Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

76.118.180.210 (talk · contribs) seems to be someone logged out to post to ANI. Would someone uninvolved in the discussion above take a look please? Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I am a trolling sock. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It also appears I am not worthy of being notified of this thread, as it utterly required. My talkpage is still a redlink. Todd, what gives? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the DRAMAZ PLS. Buffs (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Drmies had a good idea above. Full protect ANI? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's times like these when I am reminded what "ani" means in Italian.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Spam and Open Relay Blocking System has flagged this IP address as an open proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You cant close somethign with a block when you initiated and are hence involved. Furthermore, this is for the SOCK board to investigate not ANI.

And more so with the link posted above.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:SandyGeorgia

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

Resolved

 – The OP has withdrawn the complaint. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Two days ago, User:SandyGeorgia removed one of my DYKs from the main page and posted at WT:DYK [1] and in several other places [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] accusing me of being a serial plagiarizer and copyright violator. Her explanation at WT:DYK also included the accusation that my articles were each copies of a single source "with a few words juggled", which is simply, factually false (See, for example, one of the articles she named, which has significant content from at least nine different sources), and some gratuitous complaints against DYK as a whole.

Though I responded to her concerns on each article within minutes [7], SG refused to engage with me directly, pointing me instead to her post at WT:DYK [8] which denounced me in the third person, offered no specific examples, and no constructive suggestions of any kind.[9] She also denounced me on the talk page of another editor [10] before being willing to speak to me about the problem directly, dismissing the good-faith questions I was trying to ask her [11]--and which she never actually answered-- as my "continued resistance".[12]

After a preliminary review, the consensus at DYK appears to be that my articles are fully within Wikipedia policy. (See, for example, [13], [14], [15]) Even SG's requested arbiter, User:Moonriddengirl, examined one of the articles and found that while it could benefit from minor changes, even in its present form, it "would be very unlikely to rise to the level of a copyright concern".[16] The articles in question remain untagged and unaltered by any editor who has looked at them.

I don't blame SG for having not having a full command of Wikipedia copyright policy; I'll be the first to admit that I don't either. But even if I had been found to need work on close paraphrasing, I'd be unhappy with her refusal to engage me directly and civilly as a good faith editor, and her insistence on seeing my "case" as part of a broader DYK battleground. Her focus on bashing DYK editors as a whole instead of discussing specifics of my edits was notable in every forum she posted in (review any of the diffs in the first paragraph). Even in a later post to my talk page, she said that she was sorry I was taking her accusations personally, but that I needed to see it in context of her ongoing struggle at DYK.[17]

SG appears unwilling to take this advice from anyone involved at DYK, so I ask at a minimum that an administrator speak with her about her responsibility to AGF by engaging other users directly and constructively rather than "exposing" them in public fora (particularly until she herself develops a better understanding of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM). I also ask that she stop behaving as if DYK is a battleground. I was a long-time good-faith user (28,000+ edits, 100+ new start-class articles, 60+ DYKs, a GA, etc.) and didn't deserve to be called a serial plagiarizer across the wiki without direct and polite discussion, nor did I deserve to be dragged into SG's "War on Plagiarism". I'm glad to have my name cleared, of course, but it shouldn't have come to that in the first place. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Plagiarism is a serious issue, so our first task is to determine whether or not SG is right in that plagiarism remains a problem at DYK. If it is, then she needs some backup. If not, then she needs some persuasion to back down, but since questions of plagiarism is the heart of the matter, we should address that first. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I don't mean to stop SG's plagiarism investigations themselves; she's exposed some serious violations in the past, and I would hate to see her stop working in this area. What concerns me is the way that she conducts them. No matter how pervasive she thinks the problem is at DYK, at least a part of her response should be to directly, respectfully, and constructively engage the editors she believes to have issues with citation or close paraphrasing, especially if she wants to pursue borderline cases along with the egregious. WP:PLAGIARISM suggests that "plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger", and I think that these are words SG should take to heart.

It would also help if in borderline or disputed cases, she sought a second opinion before going into full public denunciation. Had she done so in my case, that denunciation would likely never have taken place, since her requested second opinion (as well as community consensus) cleared me of wrongdoing. This solution was proposed at DYK, but SG has unfortunately already moved to oppose it.[18] 184.59.31.77 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Another example of Sandy having made a false accusation was here, where Moonriddengirl was asked here and said no problem. Sandy never did apologise or redact the accusation. --LauraHale (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy has a very high standard for copyright issues and a very high degree of certainly that her bar is set correctly. I think she needs to acknowledge that while having a high bar is a good thing, she should realize her bar is both higher than legally required and probably higher than needed (though not higher than desired!). Certainly higher than I expect of my students (as long as they cite the source). Having someone else double-check her before she does more than discuss (politely) on the subject's page would seem ideal. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So why is this here at AN/I? There appears to be no incident requiring our janitorial services. Rklawton (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

::shrug:: Maybe I am in the wrong place, but three days ago I was casually and falsely denounced for a serious offense, without a second opinion or a moment's discussion; my accuser then dismissed my attempts to ask clarifying questions out of hand, implying that they were evasion and that my plagiarism was clear. It seems to me that's a breach of WP:AGF, but I've never been good with the policing side of Wikipedia. Coming from an academic background myself, I don't take this accusation lightly; I've failed a lot of people for plagiarism, and in one unfortunate case, seen it destroy the career of a colleague. Do I really have no recourse here? All I ask is that someone in authority talk with SG about what she's done here to avoid repetition of the problem; call it a formal warning, I suppose, if that's the language that's needed to get consideration here. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, SG did post this message on your talk; to me that seems to be an attempt to engage with you. Are you sure that this isn't mostly a case of you guys talking past each other? henrik•talk 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see that you already linked this, I must have overlooked that link. Still, I don't interpret her message quite the same way, it seems to be an effort to do exactly the sort of engagement and talking directly to you. Mistakes are sometimes made, and intentions are hard to convey over text. I'd hate to see you go over this. henrik•talk 21:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, while I did appreciate SG's message, she posted it five hours after accusing me at [{WT:DYK]], and after evading and mocking all of my earlier attempts to directly discuss her accusations (see [19], [20], [21]). It was only after I had posted that I was leaving Wikipedia that she made any effort to talk directly. My point is that talking to me directly and respectfully about my editing should have been her first step, not her last; instead, she leapt straight into making a serious false accusation on a project page and 4-5 other places. I appreciate your efforts to give SG the benefit of the doubt, but this is behavior that she needs to reconsider, regardless of motive. 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really possible to talk directly with you when you've demanded that I not. [22] In fact, asking me not to post to your talk again-- and then coming to ANI because I don't respond-- doesn't look very good. I'm very sorry to hear about your chronic fatigue syndrome,[23] again, and I wish I could help, but if you refuse to let me speak to you, I don't see why we're here. And, for the person who asked if there is a real problem at DYK:

1. It predates but includes the time before the Rlevse resignation, and has not changed at all: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page
2. This is a list of only the ones that one editor is catching, after they are passed: Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi SG, if you'll review the above, the whole of my complaint has to do with your serious false accusation and your posting it across multiple boards without substantively discussing it with me first or seeking a second opinion. I posted here because of your initial behavior only. If you would like me to acknowledge that you behaved better six hours later, I will readily do so, but again, it took my leaving Wikipedia for you to take what should have been your first step. Other editors have already suggested that you pursue these cases differently in the future, including me; you've not agreed to do, and there didn't seem any point in pushing this further without an outside opinion that you would listen to. Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Well, that strikes me as a failed AGF-o-meter, particularly since I did try to talk to you and you rejected attempts. So, from my seat, it looks like you're doing what you accuse me of-- that is, spreading something across the Wikipedia, in spite of me attempting to discuss with you. And now I'm actually confused about why I'm here talking with an IP, when I'm prohibited from talking with you on your page. I asked that you wait for MRG to weigh in, but when she did, I was forbidden to discuss with you. Following a discussion across multiple pages is time consuming; consolidating it on one DYK thread made sense to me, although I see it didn't to you. I still don't know why we are here, at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SG, what you say is fair enough, and I do apologize for not continuing this conversation more directly when I was on with you yesterday; you're right that I owed it to you, no matter how you'd been behaving before. I'm willing to withdraw my complaint, then, but I do want to again urge two policy suggestions on you. First, that you consider engaging editors directly and respectfully before making an accusation as sweeping as yours was; second, that you consider getting a second opinion in borderline cases before making a public accusation on project pages, not after. I realize you're unlikely to accept these suggestions, but building a Copyvio "best policies" page at DYK as others have proposed and you've resisted [24] would be a benefit to everyone. There's no reason to have unfounded accusations like this flying around when we're all doing our best to work together. All the best, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Oh, and the IP is because I already scrambled the password to my account to remove the temptation to get to my watchlist. =) Cheers, 184.59.31.77 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the IP explanation makes sense (hadn't occurred to me :) So, if we can figure out now where to carry on the conversation-- or if you even want to continue-- we can resolve the remaining. If you're really leaving, and considering what you've said elsewhere about your health issues, I'm not sure you want me to continue to take your time on this (that was the clear message I got from your posts yesterday). The real issues are at DYK, the failure there to put processes in place, and are not and should not be individual or personalized. I'll note that I didn't pull the article from the mainpage (that's not in my power) and attempted to consolidate a general discussion of the Plagiarism Dispatch on the talk page for increased awareness of the issue, and I'm sorry you interpreted that as something aimed at you (discussions about paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism et al are always sensitive). Again, I did not remember we had spoken before, and it was not my intent to single you out. It's curious that someone in this very discussion is suggesting I'm supposed to have a shorter memory, while others prefer a longer memory :) If I kept a list on Wiki of every DYK editor with whom I've discussed paraphrasing, that would be against some policy or another, and if I kept a list in my head, that would be a grudge, so again, I'm sorry for not recalling we had past interactions on this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't just an isolated incident. A couple weeks back SG came storming into WP:FAR making all sort of unfounded accusations against myself and another editor and also spread those accusations on multiple talk pages. SG uses editors' diffs to produce synthesis to make the case. There's also a large amount of snarky edit summaries. Sure ok; everyone has a bad day now and then but this appears to be trend. Brad (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean about the time you called Bishonen (talk · contribs) a Bitch during a FAR, causing her to turn in her tools and leave? [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit admirably demonstrates Brad101's point. If anyone wishes to propose sanctions against SG, I'd support them. Wikipedia works best when its editors keep short memories. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify what you find troubling about my response. "Accusers" give no diffs, I query and give diffs and direct responses, and Brad101 is allowed to accuse, but I'm not allowed to respond? And I can't respond on Khazer's talk, but she can come here and expect me to respond here, but when I do, there's an (as yet unspecified) problem? Please explain to me why Brad can say I "came storming in to FAR" without providing any diff to the incident, but when I diff the incident (which by the way arb Risker agreed with), that's a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not about my behavior but yours. Yet you just gave another classic example of your synthesis of events. I did not call Bishonen a bitch during a FAR and you're the one who decided that my behavior at that particular FAR is what "drove Bishonen from the project". It does seem to be true that Bishonen turned in the tools; I saw the request but there was no reason posted as to why the tools were being turned in. I am not responsible for the behavior of another. If you would like to continue believing your version of events that's fine but these accusations being spread all over talk pages is unwarranted. Anyone who chooses can go over to WP:FAR and WT:FAR and see what has been going on over there. You've attacked reviewers and the FAR admin for not carrying out things the way you want them to or think they should. As a former FAR admin you should remember that "former" is the keyword. Brad (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked Bishonen? You might do that. FAR has instructions; following them will help articles and editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't defending, you are attacking, and if you persist, I will recommend you be stopped. As for Bishonen, there were significant health issues involved with her winter hibernation, but you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she left over a single world. Shame on you! Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is are no apologies in the offing for understandably offended editors, so I am proposing as a remedy that SandyGeorgia stays away from DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear, preferably from a party not directly involved in this dispute (or any other with Sandy), what her involvement with DYK is before we go on to considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Does Sandy contribute to the DYK project? If so, in what manner? Does she write, review, or submit hooks? Does she actively patrol hooks for copyvio problems? Is she a regular at DYK in any fashion? Or does she pop in randomly when she notices copyvios? If she does, what is the manner of her engagement when she apppears at DYK? Is she collegial? Accusatory? Was the behavior reported on above standard for her when she's at DYK, or was this an anomaly? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing a topic ban? It appears that Sandy and the IP (former user) have solved the issue. This should be closed and archvied.--v/r - TP 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sandy Georgia" closed and archived already? I only just found out about it! :-(

Please see section above. There may be nothing for admins to do, OK (or I would have just re-opened that section, I'm not shy like that) but there's such a thing as natural justice: the kinds of accusations injected by Brad101 into an unrelated complaint can't be simply left uncontradicted to poison the air against an editor. As barenaked of diffs as they were, I wouldn't have thought Rklawton would find them persuasive, but apparently it's possible. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

I see some of Brad101's favoured far-reaching accusations and no diffs in the above section. Sandy's "storming" into FAR, by contrast, was accompanied by careful diffs. ("To produce synthesis"? Qué? That's a new one. "Editor's diffs" are a bad thing now? Because… what? You never said those things, is that it?) Here's one of Sandy's diff lists, not so much for your benefit, Brad101 — presumably you know this stuff — as for that of Rklawton and others. (Yes, I know Sandy already gave the same diff that I do, but did you click on it, Rklawton?) It should do away with any notion that I left "over one word". And I'd like to personally do away with any notion that I left over any of Brad101's fratboy talk, even though it's very regrettable that we get that type of attack on Wikipedia, as Risker said ("Is it any wonder that we have a hard time attracting and retaining female editors? I just shake my head.") when Sandy took the issue of the sexist attacks to Risker's talk in the hope of getting them, and especially the role of the admin who pretty damn much encouraged them, dealt with under the Civility Enforcement RFAR which is currently (still!) awaiting some proposed decisions.[26] I left much more over the admin The ed17's blatant partiality in defending the person he knew (= the MilHist reviewer with all the barnstars from the MilHist project, of which Ed is a coordinator) at the expense of any, even the most token, respect shown to the stranger (= me). I still, and in defiance of a lot of stuff I've seen on Wikipedia and even on this page, expect better from admins. Ed's notions of these things, and of what makes an insult sexist, can be seen in the same interesting section on Risker's page. About handing in my tools: I'd been thinking of doing that for some time, to experience life on the other side of the railway tracks. :-) (Report from the white portion of the map: as I suspected, it turns out to be very frustrating for a nosey person not to be able to read deleted pages any more.) But certainly turning in the tools right when I did was quite pointless from a practical point of view (taking a wikibreak plus, as an afterthought, a break from the tools? How does that work?), and was meant as a demonstration. Something snapped in me when I saw The ed17 discreetly redact Brad101's creative name for me ("Bitchonandon", tee hee) and simultaneously urge him not to stoop to my level.[27] I mean, if my level is something that guy would have to stoop to reach down to, it would have to be some level, right? I decided I no longer wanted to be a member of the club Ed was in: admins.

Rklawton apparently knows more about my health than I do myself. Have we met..? The truth is that my health is much better right now than it has been at any time these past five years. (Always barring the temporary glitch of a flu that's been keeping me in bed for a week.) Are you going by tea-leaves, or by Elen of the Roads' note on my page?[28] Elen wants to help, and to be nice to me, but she doesn't know. She's guessing, and not getting it right. Probably my fault for not being more open, but I really dislike publicising these personal matters, and regret having to do it now. On ANI, of all places… However. I really can't have uninformed opinions about my health used as a club to beat SandyGeorgia with ("You would deliberately deceive people here you would deliberately deceive people here into believing she [Bishonen left over a single world. Shame on you!"]). Some people know more about it than others, and Sandy is one of them. Here goes, then: I was in a fairly parlous condition right after my liver transplantation on 15 September 2011, and certainly there was a gap in my editing then. That's major surgery like you wouldn't believe. But it was five months ago! (Four months ago, when Elen wrote on my page.) By now, I'm feeling all the benefit of having a healthy liver in place of the one that had been poisoning me for years. It's sad, in a way, that that was the very moment I came to grief on FAR to an extent that put me off Wikipedia. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it's nothing. I have plenty of other things to do. (Like what? Lying in bed with flu? Most impressive.) Btw, I notice with appreciation Brad101's classic "ANI boomerang response" above: "The issue here is not about my behavior but yours." As he says, anybody can indeed go over to FAR and see for themselves, though the link he gives (WP:FAR) is no more helpful than saying "anybody can go to WP:ANI and read about it". Let me give a link that'll take you to the right part of FAR: [29] Also, though I acknowledge regretfully that' most people's curiosity about Restoration comedies and squabbles about them is rather quickly satisfied, if you want to really do justice to this, and (holds out irresistible inducement) to see me bitch on and on, this section on the article's talkpage is also very relevant: [30]. OK… I need to get back to bed. I hope this isn't too incoherent. It would be a kindness if somebody would tell Risker, Elen and The ed17 that I've mentioned them here. I'm not coming back for any more over-long chatting, myself, you'll be glad to hear; this is it. Talk amongst yourselves. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

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

Admin needed to act on article probation violation re: Men's rights

User:Cybermud has repeatedly engaged in incivility, violating the terms of article probation described at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. He was warned about the incivility by User:Kaldari and User:Kgorman-ucb on his talk page, and he responded with "...do whatever floats your boat princess...", calling Kevin Gorman, a campus ambassador for UC Berkeley, a "princess". Kevin and Kaldari were pointing out to Cybermud the following infractions of the probation: [31], [32], [33], and [34]. In response, Cybermud told them to "STFU on my talk page".

I see the foul response by Cybermud as a signal that he is unwilling to follow article probation terms. Cybermud should not be allowed to continue in this vein. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have placed Cybermud under a one-month topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you frequently find evidence that supports the exact opposite of your contention and put it forward to advance an argument anyway?!--Cybermud (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deja Vu Binksternet?[[35]] In any case, it's all about context.--Cybermud (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the diffs speak fairly well to why sarek was justified in topic banning cybermud, especially this one and this one, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves.

Cybermud has continued to edit the article on Michael Kimmel, in violation of his topic ban, even after being warned that continuing to do so was a violation of his topic ban. (Michael Kimmel is a sociologist whose work frequently deals with men's rights issues, and the use of his writings on the men's rights page was one of the major issues that cyermud disagreed about.) Although disagreeing with an administrator and questioning their actions is fine, choosing to ignore a topic ban - especially one stemming from community sanctions on an article - is not fine.

I think that Cybermud's responses to this post have demonstrated that he cannot be a productive editor on men's rights or related issues at this point. I would request that Sarek's one month topic ban be extended to indefinite with the option of appealing at some point in the future if he can convince the community that he now sees what was wrong with his behavior, and convinces the community that he will not repeat his former behavior. I would also request that he be blocked if he continues to fail to respect the terms of his topic ban. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also support an indefinite topic ban, as Cybermud's edits are a clear example of POV-pushing and his incivility related to those articles has been disruptive. Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not support an indefinite topic ban. While I agree that he was uncivilized in some regards, he brings up some valuable points. I admit I haven't contributed to this article in awhile, I think the 1-month ban is enough, and if he re-offends after the ban to re-evaluate. TickTock2 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban. Cybermud is clearly a POV warrior that is not going to contribute anything uncontroversial on this topic, ever, judging from the talk page. It's time for such folks to pick another topic and to get busy improving the encyclopedia or get the hell out of the way. All this perpetual drama/verbose talk page war garbage needs to be snuffed, not coddled and enabled. Ya want adrenaline, buy a video game or grab a soap box and head for the nearest streetcorner. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP user

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

---

User:Sascha30, who now exclusively edits under IP addresses, has been posting personal attacks on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan.
There was this post [36] by User:79.233.36.155 where I was accused of being an "Internet-tyrant" and the "Putin of Wikipedia". Sascha was then warned about personal attacks by User:Chipmunkdavis: [37]. I was then called a b*****d: [38] by the same IP address. Later, User:79.233.36.19 (almost certainly the same person) called User:Kudzu1 a "m*****f***ing a*****e": [39].
Sascha has previously edited on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan, Talk:International recognition of South Sudan, and Talk:Foreign relations of Montenegro (mostly with erratic and uncivil posts) under the following IP addresses: 79.233.4.25, 79.233.36.185, 79.233.2.90, 79.233.36.12, 79.233.21.71, 79.233.2.77, 79.233.37.101, 79.233.38.100, 79.233.34.238, 79.233.5.109, 79.233.35.25, 79.233.13.117, 79.233.23.167, 79.233.16.120, 79.233.38.2, 79.233.21.151, 79.233.5.130, 79.233.25.104, 79.233.22.42, 79.233.10.51, 79.233.33.133, 79.233.20.211, 79.233.37.176, 79.233.37.94, 79.233.16.157, 79.233.32.198, 79.233.9.73, 79.233.36.56, 79.233.36.214 (where he referred to someone as an "arrogant jerk": [40]), 79.233.16.226, and 79.233.6.9.
I request that an administrator blocks some or all of the above IP addresses due to the personal attacks. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Usually signs his demands rants posts with "Sascha,Germany". His last comment to Kudzu1 was particularly disgusting. Nightw 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Surely some clever person can apply a range block here. No doubt, the half dozen edits I looked at are disruptive. How does the cabal (and the peanut gallery) feel about semi-protecting those talk pages? I hate doing that all by my lonesome, since (for some odd reason, maybe) I find it more drastic than protecting articles (I've seen IPs post tons of good suggestions on article talk pages)--but perhaps we have no choice here. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • To quote a wise admin: Give into temptation. You have my blessing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If the rangeblock is successfully applied, no lock is needed. CityOfSilver 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, but if I knew how to do a range block I would have done it already. I don't want to risk a virtual Armageddon--I'm already a menace to the security of the first world with my "block" button. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The relevant range to catch all the IPs quoted above would be 79.233.0.0/18, which would block 16,384 addresses. Unfortunately the collateral damage would be rather excessive, so as the lesser of two evils I've semiprotected Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for one month. I (or Drmies or any other admin I expect!) would be willing under the circumstances to extend that to other talk pages as necessary. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth creating a Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sascha30 and tagging all the IPs accordingly, as we have done with perennial nuisance Zombie433 and many others. His list grows almost daily. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As a largely administrative matter (in the bureaucratic sense) I've indefblocked the Sascha30 account and tagged it as a sock-puppeteer. There has apparently already been a previous SPI, now archived, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sascha30. The IPs just need tagging now with {{IPsock|Sascha30|blocked=yes}} and the category you've redlinked should self-populate. I'll make a start from the beginning of the list :-) EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. EyeSerene^talk 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Another external link to Beatles music

There have been previous discussions here regarding external links to copyrighted Beatles music. In this edit 78.106.83.130 added a link to [41], which appears to have copyrighted Beatles music. I reverted the edit, but it was restored by 176.15.136.73, stating "Vandalism: Internet Archive can not contain illegal material - this is impossible". What is the appropriate next step? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert again and issue a warning to the IP, then take the link to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I should assume good faith instead of assuming these IP addresses are related to those who added inappropriate external links in the past. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP editor has had our copyright policy explained to him/her over and over and over and over again and still refuses to accept it. The IP may come from a country where flouting copyright law is a way to stick it to The Man, but that's irrelevant: s/he is not ignorant of policy but deliberately acting in contravention of policy. We don't assume good faith indefinitely, not when faced with evidence that an editor knows s/he's contravening policy and does not care. --NellieBly (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nellie. I don't see much reason for good faith here--unless it's that the IP only added one of those links instead of dozens. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, the IP in question is one of a series used over time by some guy in Russia who won't listen to repeated assertions that these are copyright violations. I thought they were going to set up some kind of edit filter, but maybe the Russian guy figured out a way around it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Baseball Bugs' concern; this is not a complete newcomer, and he has been told repeatedly to stop this for quite some time, now. See his various discussions on Jimbo's talk page over the past month:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 95#Request to make Warning
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#CULTURE OF THE BEATLES UNDER THREAT
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 94#APPEAL TO THE PROFESSIONAL (COPY)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 93#About man, who makes lobby for EMI or Apple Corps.

His response to my last (umpteenth) attempt to tell him to stop, which has failed miserably. Now, I understand there is some sort of a language barrier, as English is not his first language, but that still does not excuse one from blatantly and freely ignoring everybody else's concerns. --MuZemike 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since at least November 21, when 128.68.192.115 (talk · contribs) started posting this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we were supposed to have a filter. MuZemike, that's the same guy, judging from grammar and style, if memory serves me right. What can a rangeblock do in this case? Bugs, can you dig up the last ANI thread? (While I crawl in bed with Thomas Mann?) Drmies (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, make a list and post it to the meta spam blacklist (this needs to go there if this is a copyright violation - other mediawikis should also not be able to link to this stuff then). That should deter this quite a bit. I wonder why the original website does not exist anymore, and why this is only available from the archive - that already should give a hint that this is a copyright violation.

Even besides the copyright problem, I wonder whether these are external links in the spirit of WP:EL (they are certainly not 'must have' type of links, and except for the copyright violation they are also not really 'must never have' type of links), and when questioned, this should go onto the talkpage for further discussion. Alternatively, we could use User:XLinkBot to bash some sense in this - hard override and overruling of standard warning practice for this specific set of links. But I would say:  Defer to Global blacklist (you'll have to collect all the links, if you give me a handful of the IPs who spammed this to mainspace for this, COIBot may be able to help in collecting the links from the last couple of weeks). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980/Archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And Special:AbuseFilter/443 - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I became aware of this situation in late November, due to having some Beatles songs on my watchlist. It's pretty clear that rangeblock is not a practical solution, and it doesn't seem like the filter is working either. Semi-protecting all the Beatles articles also seems impractical and overkill. Blacklisting the URL seems like the best solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, there are a couple of different sections in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727, from this past November. In the first, it is alleged that these IP's are socks of Ron Halls (talk · contribs), who in turn is a sock of John Torn (talk · contribs). In the second, various possible solutions are discussed. I originated a section in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive728 on this same subject. A lengthy discussion ensues, and reasons are given as to why a URL block won't work. Since I have no access to edit filters, I can't say what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're going to blacklist the URL, make it the exact URL - archive.org itself is used quite a bit (or it used to be). It would probably be best to tell archive.org that someone is uploading copyrighted material to their archive - they'll delete obvious infringements fairly quickly. Black Kite (t) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I can block it on meta, but I indeed would need specific urls - \barchive\.org\/details\/NoReply\b seems to be one of them, I guess the others have other terms in stead of NoReply, so \barchive\.org\/details\/(?:NoReply|<Term2>|<Term3>|<etc.>)\b will do the trick on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• As one who has explained the situation to the editor multiple times on OTRSN and on my talk page, I assert a positive DUCK test. Best we can hope for is RBI and DENY the editor any attention. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and blacklisted the one added by the editor in this thread, please ping me if there are more. Hasteur, RBI may here just give more frustration, some people don't do things for the kick, they simply persist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The link has returned to No Reply (song) via this edit by [Special:Contributions/2.94.173.212|2.94.173.212], who accused me of a "long pattern vandalism and war of edits" [sic]. GoingBatty (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's probably a good idea to tell archive.org. It's unlikely they want this content even with its 'impressive' list of UN treaties and conventions. IIRC someone had planned to contact them. Does anyone know if anything happened with that. Edit: I see it was User:NellieBly who said they intended to contact archive.org. P.S. [42] shows there's a lot of this on archive.org. If they expand to other articles, it looks like there's a lot of possible targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

They do get those reports all the time and they act on them. They don't have 1000's of admins online 24/7 like Wikipedia does, so it may take them a little longer than we're used to here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

749 currently active admins out of barely 1,500. Many of them work odd volunteer hours and don't deal with reports to begin with. Doc talk 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User: FRANKBISTORY

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

---

Was reluctant to come back here so quickly but i believe this may warrant something. I came across him in this edit that removed protection templates, tags and reverted MOS dates. He then reverted a title that TWO other editors added without explanation (as is the norm for his edits). Another editors' changes were reverted (As his right, i agree BUT he shopuld explain) (this too. He then has these 3 simultaneous edits repeating the same thing (confusingly enough) without reason:[43][44][45]Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're dealing with an uncommunicative and somewhat amateurish editor who presumably is of good will, but I'm trying to look at this positively. There's nothing for an admin to do here at this moment--problem edits should be handled first, on an individual basis, and, second, if they persist should be treated as disruptive, at which point WP:AIV is an appropriate place; IMO, persistent, unexplained, anti-MOS, and anti-consensus edits are vandalism. But they may also fall foul of the 3R line. Right now, all seems well with the world; I propose someone else look at this report and either correct me or close it per WP:Fluffernutter. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left them a note but I agree with Drmies that it's perhaps too early for formal admin intervention just yet. EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Suspected as such but was at loose ends as to what to do because it seemed more than dodgy with the repetition. ALls well that ends well.

Pretty much all that was sought anyways.Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas, I hope this helped. Might as well keep an eye on the situation; drop me a line for individual edits, offenses, and repeat offenses if you think that's necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Talk:Rind et al. controversy and user: Radvo consistently failing to comply with talk page guidelines

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

Radvo (talk · contribs) blocked. Contact arbitration committee for details. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Radvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a fairly new editor who has been editing Rind et al. controversy and posting frequently on talk:Rind et al. controversy. I, and other editors, have spoken with him regarding the length of his posts and his continued insertion of irrelevant material: 1 2, 3, 4, 5. He continues to post exceedingly lengthy posts, so bad that the article talk page in question is now very difficult to read due to many walls of text.

He recently posted on the talk page what I think is a draft of a welcome notice for editors to the article. I know it's a long read, but I saw it as very problematic and battlefieldy, and in my eyes, should not have remained on the article talk page (for a start it suggests that any new editors editing the article will be accused of being a pedophile) so I moved it to his talk page along with a message, a decision I do not regret although I understand that Radvo is much displeased with me. He posted on the article talk page here saying that my removal of his post was a violation of etiquette and copyright law. I initially responded there, then realised that it was simply further clogging the article talk with off-topic mess and moved my response to Radvo's talk.

I think my handling of the situation has been less than perfect and messy; I'm not at all experienced in this area. I would really, really appreciate it if some seasoned editors could look over Radvo's talk page posts and the post which I moved. I believe he does want to improve the article but his attitude I find greatly troubling and problematic. Many editors have referred to and linked the talk page guidelines but he shows no signs of having read them or complying with them. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have informed Radvo of this thread here. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a hot mess. A few seasoned editors are already involved, but this may warrant some attention here. Radvo's edits are at the least soapboxy, containing possible legal threats. That welcome message is very inappropriate and I'm glad you removed it. Perhaps WP:COMPETENCE is applicable here. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Radvo has left this on my talkpage. He is apparently quite convinced that I was wrong to move his post from the article talk. I rather get the sense that he does not hear anything I say to him. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw it--totally unacceptable. But I gotta run, really. I'll leave it to others for now--but don't worry, Bugs is in charge. You and him should get along like a house on fire: I smell a carrot party coming up. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am involved, and am concerned about recent trends which show that my efforts to explain procedures have failed. The article in question concerns a scientific paper which has been misused by pedophilia advocates and their opponents. I am hoping some enforcement procedures can be enacted, although I don't know what. A topic ban would do the trick, but that's a blunt instrument and would prevent Radvo from explaining exactly what the article needs (in this comment, Radvo stated "I have contacted Bruce Rind about this article in the past month", and Radvo has detailed knowledge of the topic). The extent of the problem can be seen in Radvo's recent message at User talk:Johnuniq#Stop teasing. What is your agenda? (my "agenda" had been questioned at the article talk, and I had responded that such a question should be on my talk page). There are several severe misunderstandings in that post: talk of agendas; accusation "your getting User: Ohbunnies to do your dirty work for you"; misinterpretation of other stuff. Text like "And hit you hard and make it painful, so you think before you take me on a second time" indicates that further responses from me are not going to be helpful.

To explain the mention of OohBunnies and dirty work: Radvo posted the "draft of a welcome notice" mentioned in the report above, and I responded by saying that the message would have to be moved to userspace, but it might not be suitable even there. Ninety minutes later, OohBunnies moved Radvo's post to the user's talk (OohBunnies had posted on Radvo's talk last December, before I was involved). The timing makes it look as if I had some arrangement with OohBunnies, but of course I was totally unaware of her at that stage. I have put a lot of time into attempting to explain procedures at Talk:Rind et al. controversy and User talk:Radvo, but unfortunately my first contributions involved confrontation with Radvo: My first post was to support WLU who had removed links to websites that advocate child rape (apparently the links had been provided because the sites host relevant material) (diff). My second post was to collapse another TLDR off-topic violation of the talk page guidelines (diff). Radvo's response was to post another rambling and off-topic wall of text, complete with two images with captions that read (in part) "Mastodons stopped trampling around on Wikipedia approximately 10,000 years ago" and "Ottoman surrender, bringing an end to WW I" (diff). I removed the last-mentioned post, and Radvo restored it.

Particularly in view of things like the "hit you hard" mentioned above, admin monitoring would be greatly appreciated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my timing made you look suspect to Radvo. I do believe we've never even spoken before. I'm afraid I simply read over Radvo's welcome message draft and decided to "be bold" or whatever it is and move it from there straight away - article talk pages are often happened upon by the curious reader and there were some very troubling things in it. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 07:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow. Reading Radvo's contributions, I see personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, assumptions of conspiracy, borderline legal threats, assertions that other editors have no "standing" to challenge him, and demands that other editors jump through hoops and complete his recommended reading list before he will engage with them. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the manner in which Radvo is editing is antithetical to that.

Radvo, here's the deal: either you can follow our rules and treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a war zone, or you can go find another sandbox to play in. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to continue on as you have been, raging at and attacking everyone who you perceive as lesser than you. Please acknowledge here your intention to edit collegially from now on, or I will block you until you are able to make such an aknowledgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Revdel

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just redacted some comments from a discussion. Would an admin please peruse and revdel if appropriate? [46] Sorry, I haven't read that policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think it should be revdeled; I don't even think you should have removed the comments of numerous other editors at all. GiantSnowman 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC) OK GiantSnowman. What are we meant to do when someone does that to an editor? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Speaking to the editors in question, to see if they will remove/re-word it themselves - if they won't, and you still feel it's inappropriate, bring it to a noticeboard for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) One of the editors has already offered to remove his comment. The other editor appears to be offline. For now, given the nature of the comments, I've removed the subthread and will respect whatever consensus emerges once that editor has had a chance to comment. He is a supporter of the subject and I expect that he'll facepalm and agree, given how the subject has responded. Thank you for your advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) No, I agreed to the removal of section on the conditions that the other editor agreed and that the section requesting removal was also deleted. Removing one without the other will just cause people to assume that I was the one who attempted to introduce the content in the first place. Fæ is an admin - I think he knows how to get something revdeleted. This is simply drawing more attention to the questioned material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I agree with your last point and regretted posting here but when I came back to delete the comment, Snowman had already responded. (Can I delete this section, Snowman?) I doubt anyone would object to removal of Fae's thread, DC, especially Fae, if removal of Wnt's thread is contingent on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Let's not delete this thread - instead I've closed it so that will get automatically archived within 24 hours. Hope that's a good compromise. GiantSnowman 14:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro looking for a reversion to another's edit

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

---

In Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro an edit was made here that i do not agree with [47]

i seek to have the edit reverted.

the following is the talk page discussion:
"== Name and details of those arrested =="

There is much explicit detail given of the criminal history of those charged. I am mindful of WP:BLPCRIME which states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." In what way is Wikipedia enhanced by such explicit detail at this stage of criminal proceedings? I am interested in the opinion of other editors. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i could agree with you but to me the matter is too include details since it shows the nature of each of the accused crimes and their proximity to the victims--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

plus, unlike most crimes - this one accuses many perpetrators and the story told on wiki would not be accurate if al those involved were not included - think of the Charles Manson murders and try to tell the story with just manson himself alone - it would not be an accurate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the disclaimer is "those relatively unknown" but all have criminal records and thus none were unconvicted (thus their names were part of the public record by their own actions and signed guilty admissions) before this week--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i believe that "For people who are relatively unknown," is the conditional part of an if-then clause and that the crimianl history of the accused is a matter of public record and thereby excludes their anominity since the first part of the sentence in the if-then clause fails--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK folks, this one belongs on the article's talk page and not here. If you'd like more opinions, you can submit a request for comment. This page is for action that only administrators can take - such as protecting an article or blocking an account. Rklawton (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible returning sock

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

---

Although currently refraining from posting here, Mistress Selina Kyle has suggested on her talkpage that User:MichelleBlondeau may be a returning sock of User:Cataconia, per this discussion. I have already filed an SPI on this user, thinking s/he was a sock of User:Lihaas; it seems I may have been mistaken. I will update the SPI as soon as I've notified the above parties of this thread, but it seemed as though this might be worth bringing up here again. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it; Versageek blocked them whilst I was posting the above message. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible WP:AE issue

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

---

203.213.94.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IP is an WP:SPA account who has made a total of 11 edits to Wikipedia in the last year of which 1 was to article space and the rest were to talk pages. All articles edited are within the scope of WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 and all edits are inflammatory an WP:SOAP-y in violation of the above mentioned ARBCOM cases; there has not been a single constructive edit from this user. I didn't file anything at WP:AE since this editor has never been active enough to actually receive a warning regarding their edits being in violation.

Is there an administrator willing to issue a formal ARBCOM warning to this IP? If they stop being disruptive, great. If they continue with this type of editing, we can report them to AE but at least they'll have been warned. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I issed a formal warning and then logged the warning on ARBMAC. -- Atama頭 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

unnecessary section in an RFC

No attacks worth the name were made. Section has been collapsed.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)}}

The above was the original closing statement, but as Cla has reinserted his comments twice, I've unhatted the section.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we need an uninvolved admin to come in and close (or delete) a section in an RfC. One of the users has decided to make a list of all the users who have made personal attacks during this rfc. They then list about 10 editors who have generally disagreed with the editor (or another editor who hold similar views) and labelled every comment that disagrees with them as a personal attack. Start at the bottom of the list and tell me how many of those comments are violations of NPA? I see the whole section as one trying to intimidate or squelch people from having free dialog as any comment that is negative about the users/view in question might land them on the list of people who have made personal attacks.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking it over. I haven't participated at the RfC (not interested in it) and while I've had contact with various people involved in that discussion over the years I don't think anyone would consider me biased towards or against anyone. If I don't see anything worth warning about I'll collapse the section. -- Atama頭 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that there might be a few that breach NPA, a lot of discussions have breaches, but not enough to warrant a whole section/discussion. But thanks for looking it over.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Atama, I started reading the diffs without posting here that I was on it. I agree with Balloonman here that the diffs provided either are not personal attacks at all, or are so microscopically resembling of a personal attack that the list is to be intended for a chilling effect rather than to address any real civility issue.--v/r - TP 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

One hot mess leads to another, doesn't it. I wonder how much harm comes from people saving up diffs and collecting them into lists of grievances. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just ask Malleus...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have to. ;) Drmies (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I wanted to do it, but that would have been a clear COI.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Going through these, at least one of these "attacks" were supposedly done on my talk page, in response to a comment I'd made, so I don't know if I'd be considered "uninvolved" after all. In my opinion though I agree that these aren't personal attacks, most of them were done in very public discussions and have been witnessed by multiple people (including a number of admins, they were at AN after all) and if they were actual attacks they would have been responded to already. TP if you're already reviewing them, please continue, you're not stepping on my toes in doing so, for sure. -- Atama頭 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor continues

I have notified Cla of the ANI report---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, the person who started the initial thread has decided to summarize the hatted edits, again, I think it would be better if an uninvolved admin responded. The reposting of the summary is essentially a violation of the warning provided by TParis.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Cla inserted a summary of "the personal attacks" after it was hatted above. TParis issued a Final Warning. Tryptofish chimes in that Cla should "drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good". To which Cla responds that "There is a method to my madness." He has since reinserted his edits claiming personal attacks.[48]. I encourage you to review the "personal" attacks to which Cla alleges and consider whether or not they are personal attacks or whether his insistance on claiming that they are is a personal attack?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) NOTE: My concern isn't so much about his list as personal attacks per se, but rather the effect his list has on open discussion. His lists of "attacks" are more disagreements and by calling different opinions "attacks" he squelches peoples desire to stand in opposition.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some slightly more nuanced responses to this. While Cla's going about it the wrong way, were it not for A) my already unfortunate involvement in the RfC and 2) The generally poor quality of the overall discussion, several of these diffs are the types of comments that I'd give "don't make personal attack" warnings for in other situations. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Try this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, astute as always ASCIIn2Bme. The problem is that Cla has not been told that raising this isn't helpful, he's been told that these aren't attacks. That's a subjective issue. (Well, an even more subjective issue that "raising this isn't helpful.")

• To my reading it's pretty close to a personal attack to accuse someone of harrasment without a clear, tenable reason.
• It's totally an attack to accuse someone of homophobia (or any kind of xenophobia) with an very clear reason.

While I'm pleased not to have been watching this degenerate, someone *points bone at admin corps* should have been playing nice police way before Cla did his nanna. There's enough bile in this RFC to digest a horse.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors on Cla's list. Naturally I don't have a problem discussing that particular edit of mine, and I believe it to be a justifiable edit. But currently it is mentioned in three places, none of which are appropriate venues for me to edit. It exists in an AN/I archive of a discussion which closed with no consensus to ban a certain editor. It is linked to in the discussion which TParis hatted, and I'm on Cla68's list. If it is OK for CLa68 to list me as someone who has made an edit that he considers questionable then I would like the opportunity to respond. But it would probably be more sensible to put the list within the hatnote - the community had a difference of opinion as to whether a certain incident merited a ban for a certain editor. I can't say I'm happy with the result, but I can accept that the result failed to agree a ban and that the incident is thereby closed. What I'm less sanguine about is being listed as attacking someone without having the opportunity to respond. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Threat of violence

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 72h by Reaper Eternal -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:84.50.17.185. Estonian vandal responding to warnings. Jojalozzo 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked without talkpage access for that bit of trolling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin action requested - closures at TFD

Any change of a friendly lady or gent closing the deletion votes for userboxes I nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4 with a keep, the rationale something like WP:SNOW - nominator has decided to Keep based on the arguments of others, and everyone else agrees. Or other mots of votre choise

(I know I haven't provided said rationale there, but ANI Egg Centric is the same guy as TFD Egg Centric) Egg Centric 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm merrily clicking away on those happy little 'keep' thingies, but don't rightly see how to add a rationale. Ha, if I screw it up someone will fix it, no? Isn't that the spirit of Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have no way of telling if I did it right or not. Someone please fix it. I'll take a wikibreak, so I can claim innocence. Oh! the doorbell is ringing! Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've closed both discussions. -- Atama頭 00:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• I missed the third one, closed that one too. -- Atama頭 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a manual? I deleted one, I think successfully (please check--no, I deleted the template but didn't close the discussion). The little buttons, what do they do? I assume, Atama, that you closed it the same way you close an AfD? Drmies (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've never closed a TfD before, but yeah it's basically the same as AfD. I just followed what was written here. -- Atama頭 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy

I have been having problems with TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs), who refuses to engage with anyone using his talk page in any manner about any issues, unless it involves removing fair use images from his user page, which he was blocked for a week last week and involved one revdeled threat (last ANI incident). I have begged, pleaded, asked for a compromise and reason for why he continues to revert my template on Milwaukee Public Television over the last three months, which I feel is needed for explanations of what exactly airs on their station's subchannels, but he continues to ignore me and revert me blindly, even when I asked him to post what he feels is wrong with it and trying to compromise by removing cable channel slots, just reverting and refusing to respond on my talk page, as I asked (I'm scared to modify further because of 3RR). He refuses in any way to discuss anything on his talk page with anyone, which I feel is absolutely needed to build up Wikipedia. I also feel he violated his last block by using a college computer under IP 152.43.1.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to round his block. I would like to cooperate with RCG, but without being able to discuss anything with him via his talk page in any way there is no way I can compromise with this user. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice on his talk page has been blanked and disregarded without any comment. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I left them a note on their talk page. I'm still looking into their behavior, but it's worthwhile noting that the suspicion of socking while blocked is easily confirmed per DUCK. I'm not sure what the consequences for that might be, but I'm not entirely done yet with snooping. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Well, it's the typical uncommunicative editor who knows everything better, so they don't have to explain anything. They reverted themself on that Milwaukee article (probably after you either asked or started this thread, I don't care enough to check) and they possibly think that's all there is to it. There's a few things here. First of all, if they continue to revert you on that article, report them as an edit warrior--were they warned at 3R? Second, another admin may come by and comment on the block evasion: perhaps the original block should be reinstated. Third, well, I don't have a third just now. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• One more thing. You are both guilty of edit warring on that article, 3R or not. I am going to give you both a warning. You reverted them a couple of times before you explained in this edit; to your credit you have continued to try and explain yourself, while they haven't. Still, you both deserve a warning, and that suggests that next time such a revert happens that editor can be reported for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Understanding on the warning (it is deserved), all I'm asking for from RCG is an explanation of why they want it that way, that's all I ask. I try not to edit war, but it's frustrating to edit and try to figure out what's wrong with my template's style when the other editor will not even communicate why. I also was discouraged to report to the 3RR board due to the lack of communication. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. And 3RR can be tricky anyway, but it's a lot easier if the other user has been warned (and in this case, by someone who is not you). Drmies (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally have a response. "I reverted it. Now please let me be. Thank you." When I asked for further elaboration..."You liked it the old way, so I changed it back so I could stay out of trouble, okay?" I don't really know what to make of that. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (original timestamp of 5:55 UTC removed to reflect latter edit.)

• OK, here's the deal. I've reverted the blanking of their talk page to respond to that teenage comment. I am blocking them for a week--the period they were blocked for in the first place, during which they used an IP to continue the edit war on Milwaukee Public Television and to reinstate non-fair use images on their user page, the very thing that got them blocked in the first place; note that the war on Milwaukee Public Television was waged by the account, then by the IP, and then by the account again: persistent disruption. If any admin disagrees with this block (now their fourth), I invite scrutiny. Thank you Nate, and let's close this thread. I hope the editor will come back in a week with a more communicative attitude, though I doubt it. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving of Deleted Articles

Resolved

 – I'll userfy for her. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My article was recently deleted for Vivid Racing. Are deleted articles archived somewhere, and is it possible to get it back or have it emailed to me so I can correct it?Betty Merm (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• They are in a very mysterious place that's probably best referred to as Limbo. It was User:Fastily who deleted your article. Leave Fastily a note on their talk page (you've been there before) and ask them to "userfy" it for you. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggested that User:Betty Merm post here, but that was before I read Fastily's response. Based on that, all I can suggest to the original poster is that you start again from scratch. – ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of Fastily's terse responses. More words would have been welcome, yes--but if Betty Merm asks again I am sure Fastily will give her the time of day and a copy of the article. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for Betty to jump through hoops; I'll restore the article to her user space, and leave some suggestions on her talk page. It will need a lot of work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and removal of opposing comments

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

---

JasperDang is putting SEVEN tags on the article MongoDB without any rason multiple times WP:OVERTAGGING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MongoDB&diff=475893466&oldid=475892060

And when I'm trying to ask him the reason, he is removing my comments from talkk page and warning me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

This is ridiculous. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. The reasons are plainly obvious. This board is not for bringing in a content dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a content dispute. I am not opposed to tagging of the articles with RELEVEANT tags. I am questioning your bad-faith tagging without given ANY reason whatsoever - your behavior in putting 7 tags and when others post a detailed point-wise talk page comment asking for reaosns - you remove their commets - not once but twice. Then you attack me mock me for using capital letter for emphasis and paradoxically warn me for personal attacks. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. WP:AGF. Tagging is a content dispute. Speedy close now please.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see the 203.99.208.3 is up to a level 3 warning for issuing personal attacks. Are there any diffs giving evidence of violations of WP:NPA#WHATIS? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This was for #1, and this for #2.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT, anyone? I generally frown when researchers do not disclose things to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Given my recent block, I'll refrain from commenting here, beyond suggesting that so-called 'research' based on such behaviour is not only unethical, but worthless. Actually, I'll ignore the block, and suggest that it blindingly obvious to anyone that either (a) this isn't 'research', but trolling, or (b) the 'research' is a waste of time, money, and entropy, in that it tells us nothing that anyone but a total halfwit couldn't have figured out without engaging in such idiocy. If you are engaging in this 'research' as part of a course of study, I'd ask for your money back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What research, affiliated to what academic institution? Where is your plan? Where is the approval from your institutional review board? Where has the Wikimedia Foundation and the community agreed to your research project? Where will you publish your results? You should cease your "research" immediately and answer those questions instead. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest it's either sarcasm or a rather naive self-construction to get out of tense situation. I can't imagine any legitimate research would take that form (and I've seen some fairly odd stuff at university) and the edits don't look like those of a troll or one seeking to provoke an outcome - they look like the edits of a very inexperienced newcomer entering into conflict for the first time (and we've all been there!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• ...and like clockwork, another "social experimenter" appears on Wikipedia. I strongly reccomend an immediate block here per WP:NOTHERE. As has been said before by those wiser than me: we're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please also see WP:HOSTAGE, and feel free to expand. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Now that we've thoroughly shot and hung the messenger out to dry, the tags on MongoDB were in fact excessive, and Jasper Deng was being unnecessarily combative and uncooperative in his placement of them. Jasper did nothing to really explain his placement of the pile of tags in the first place, and when he was reverted, he responded with a further unhelpful and combative edit summary. He further claimed that all 7 tags needed no further explanation on the talk page, which is just absurd. 7 article level tags on an article of that size certainly do need further explanation. Always a proud moment when I see one of these.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the relevant article talk page - I for one don't think that a section like this should appear in a Wikipedia article:

Capped collections

MongoDB supports fixed-size collections called capped collections.[8] A capped collection is created with a set size and, optionally, number of elements. Capped collections are the only type of collection that maintains insertion order: once the specified size has been reached, a capped collection behaves like a circular queue.

A special type of cursor, called a tailable cursor,[9] can be used with capped collections. This cursor was named after the `tail -f` command, and does not close when it finishes returning results but continues to wait for more to be returned, returning new results as they are inserted into the capped collection.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be best I think. I'm not necessarily convinced by the experiment explanation although of course we have to treat it as though it's true—we have nothing else to go on. There are some obvious problems with the article, but I too feel that Jasper Deng could have made a more convincing effort to explain the tags promptly and courteously, and treated the IP user with a little more good faith. EyeSerene^talk 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:CourtChru

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

---

Sorry, I should be in bed (almost 7 am here), but I think that someone needs to explain that adding the same WP:OR to multiple articles isn't helpful - see Special:Contributions/CourtChru.. I can see little point in just reverting. Can someone with more tact than me (i.e. almost anyone) explain that this isn't what Wikipedia is for, point CourtChru in the general direction of Wikiversity, and then revert the edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeek. I just finished removing their other edits (before I had seen this report), and hoped that someone else would engage with the user because my patience level is currently a little low. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just left a feedback response on the user's talkpage which pretty much covers Andy's suggestions above. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 78.154.126.122

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

---

WP:3RR broken here - no discussion on that talk page or reply on IP's own, unreasonable behavior. Suggest block. SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNB is the place for this. Doc talk 07:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits with deliberately false summaries at NoScript ?

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

---

Looks like deliberately deceiving abuse of edit summaries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475831790&oldid=475806721 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoScript&diff=475846198&oldid=475834476). Both IPs are in Italy so there may be some COI as well. Richiez (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected it for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Reblock of User:Mistress Selina Kyle

A day or so following her unblock following a five-year absence, this User:Mistress Selina Kyle was reblocked by User:Courcelles for allegedly breaching the conditions of the unblock. I found the reasoning highly suspect and unilaterally unblocked her. It turns out, however, that over two years since I last used my blocking tools, I've become unfamiliar with the processes (and will be taking myself back to WP:NAS as a result), and so have been encouraged to replace the block and attempt to gain consensus for the unblock here. I still stand by my original reasoning, however, which you can find at User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Blocked, however the brief version is that the rationale given was that she broke item 4 of her unblock conditions, which stated "Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving." Now, the incident in question, as I have noted in more detail at User talk:SalopianJames#Unblock of MSK, revolved around a report of a WP:LEGAL breach at WP:ANI and the subsequent fallout from that, where she was the recipient of a number of WP:PERSONAL attacks and attempted to deal with this. Now, the initial reporting was entirely within policy and, whilst her reponse to the attacks was misguided, it was not meant with any malice, instead representing an unfamiliarity with policy after five years of absence, for which I feel she should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I do not find the block reasoning convincing, and am not the only one who takes this view, as can be seen from the comments in the two user talk page threads I linked above. Furthermore, in the intervening time between my unblock/reblock, she took several editor's advice to avoid political pages to prevent herself getting into trouble, for instance reporting a POV-pushing editor on her talk page rather than at ANI, who was later blocked. She also spent a lot of effort spreading some WP:WikiLove, always a good gesture, and various other constructive edits. As a result, I believe the block should be lifted forthwith. SalopianJames (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An unblock of the reblock's unblocked reblock, right? Doc talk 09:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Amazingly something good did come out of all this. The BB-MSK event did shake the collective hubris. Threads here on ANI are now closed promptly with a resolution instead of being let to degenerate. Given that BB has been unblocked (although he was also blocked by an Arbitrator), I don't see a compelling need to keep MSK blocked given the subsequent developments outlined above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. We needed a kick in the behind. We may need more, but it's a good start. Manning (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll spank you as well, Manning, if you like. ASCII, I agree. I hope it lasts for more than a week. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock (edit conflict × 2) The circumstances surrounding Selina's reblock were controversial. As SalopianJames notes, Selina was subjected to attacks crafted to skirt the boundaries of what we consider 'personal' but were clearly and deliberately intended to bait her into a response. This was an agent provocateur action by editors, one of which was later blocked and nearly given an indefinite community topic ban from admin noticeboards. It's my view that Selina's response was inappropriate and she did deserve a short term block (which she got) but I don't believe it's fair to indef her again over a situation that was clearly engineered to elicit this kind of response and result. She is freshly back, has barely had time to brush up on the changes to the rules in her five year absence and was immediately forced into a situation where she had to make a snap response. I don't see anything malicious or even intentional in her technical breach of the rules here. Further, as SalopianJames points out, in the period after she was unblocked by him she showed an immediate change in behaviour and demonstrated clearly that she had listened to criticism and had taken the advice of people trying to mentor her, myself included. She reported a problem with another editor on her talk page even though it would have been well within her rights to make a report at ANI, because she responded to advice that she should ask others for help and stay away from the boards. I believe Selina is showing a genuine desire to contribute constructively to the project and I strongly believe she doesn't deserve to lose her chance because of this. This was an accident, she has acknowledged that she made a mistake and she has shown positive signs of not making the same mistake again. We don't punish people for accidents. She's gotten enough of a scare from this whole mess that I don't believe she'll misstep again. And she's aware that I'll be here supporting her block if she does. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I continue to support the unblock: after Mistress Selina Kyle was unblocked by SalopianJames, she clearly showed improvement and did begin to demonstrate that she was following the advice that myself and several others have given her. As has been said above, when she had a sock to report yesterday she reported it on her talk page and the sock did get blocked (this actually would have been a good report to AN/I just as her previous report was), but she stuck to the advice she was given and reported it on her talk page). Evidently, she has made some mistakes, but I don't believe that she has done anything with bad intentions in mind, and there is nothing that she has done so far that I consider to be too serious or that warrants re-implementing the original ban; besides, there are a few users, myself included, who are willing to work with her/help her out along the way, as we have been doing. I think she should just be unblocked and we go back to letting her edit, and when she makes any good-faith errors we help her rather than hold blocks over her head. The other night's drama has cooled off...let's keep it that way. Acalamari 10:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not have been a good AN/I report -- sock reports go here: WP:SPI. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - "He hit me first" is not a defense for bad behaviour. However MSK was IMO deliberately baited, and her inexperience led to her getting trapped in this manner. Also mitigating is the fact that the admin corp did NOT handle the matter well, any of us could/should have stepped in much sooner and prevented the debacle (myself included). As with Techno above, my advice to MSK is to stay off AN entirely, even if more deliberate baiting occurs. There are other editors who can handle the matter on her behalf, if needed. Also as Techno said, if there is a genuine transgression, I will be in full support of a permanent reblock. Manning (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock per Manning, and, well, peace really. Begoon ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock per TechnoSymbiosis; I am a little worried that an arbitrator's actions (when acting as an administrator) are seeming to be given more weight here than any other admin's actions. pablo 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock - the current situation seems a bit unbalanced. A topic ban in regard to anything wikipedia review connected might be a good resolution in regard to helping the user stay out of conflict. Youreallycan 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. MSK was targeted for harassment by one of the gadflies that constantly buzz around this page. That user was lucky to get off with a voluntary recusal and it has all led to Manning Bartlett and Kim Dent-Brown taking a stab at reining in the chaos. SalopianJames has outlined most of how this went and Mistress Selina Kyle didn't really do anything wrong here. This is a simple procedural step; MSK should be given a fair chance without harassment. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock and topic ban on discussions related to Wikipedia Review. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• first - I'm not anybody here. My observations do leave me with a concern though. I'll note that Jclemens also issued a block a while ago, one that I personally thought was excessive - I brought his attention to the unblock request - told the blocked person I'd look into it, and watched. Lets face it - a week away from this place isn't going to hurt anyone. My concern is that 2 out of 3 (arb) blocks were pretty much "I know better" overturned. Sure, all well meaning I'm sure - but it's a concerning trend. It shows a lack of unity in the admin. community. It shows a lack of respect for people who obviously have earned the respect of the community. Good intentions are fine, but maturity and common sense are needed if we're going to head in the right directions. Sorry to have troubled you folks - but my understanding is that this is an open discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ched, arbs, individually, are at least in theory no different from the next guy. They are not elected because they are infallible at adminship and are entitled to no particular deference. Indeed, the fact that they are arbs is all the more reason why they need to be really, really careful when acting individually.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I'm just saying we need to communicate more, and not be so all fired up to rush to judgment. If we take the time to talk to one another - we may still disagree, but in the end, the calm measured response is going to be a better educated one. I'm not suggesting there's a hierarchy to be feared, simply I think that judicious and prudent ways forward are always going to be the best. — Ched :  ?  11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock Unable to comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I cannot see anything in MSK's editing before or especially since their unblock that leads me to believe there's anything fully productive or collegial goign on here. I'm always willign to be convinced, but I'm still not convinced the FIRST unblock was wise in any way, shape, or form (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock at this time, without prejudice. I was the admin who declined the block review. Part of it was procedural (wheel warring concerns, and barring that, it's just common courtesy to discuss with the blocking admin first; furthermore, a block this high-profile would mandate community discussion from the getgo; thus any admin should have declined/held pending further discussion). Part of it was that any restrictions or agreements need to be worked out before any unblock. And part of it was seeing the wide-scale disruption at ANI; 4-5 quite virulent threads from the same user. I understand that she was provoked, but it takes two to tango in this situation. In addition to this, it seems that she feels that she has the obligation to report every instance of bad behavior she sees on the site; not a good thing, borderline Wikilawyering. Sometimes you've just gotta let things go. This disruption also carried over to the already badly damaged FAC and FAC RFC, where MSK repeatedly and forcefully made suggestions regarding overhauling the process entirely, where it was clear she didn't know the issues at hand. There have been suggestions that a lot of users have been visiting the RFC because they have "an axe to grind" with Raul654. I'm not entirely convinced that this will be the final discussion regarding MSK, either. I probably could add more to this, but it's 4:30 am my time and I'm going to bed. --Rschen7754 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Unconditionally, unrestricted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• O_O — Ched :  ?  12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note. I don't doubt the sincerity here for a second. I remember when Bugs was willing to extend an olive branch to CoM years ago. He is always willing to put the past in the past, and does not carry grudges. Noting just so my "holy cow" funny eyes aren't taken the wrong way. — Ched :  ?  13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock Let's not reward baiting. Consider also a topic ban from anything related to wikipedia review, so she has a clearer guidance that we are here to write articles, not to pick political fights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Courcelles' explanation for the block was cogent, clear and backed by the facts. No matter who one holds as "responsible" for the dust-up between MSK & BB, there was no symmetry between their situation. MSK was on a conditional unblock from a community ban, Bugs was not, so there is no reason they need to be treated the same in the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support unblock This is from a pure procedural standpoint. MSK was unblocked and given a loosely defined parole. After a few drama inducing threads the conditions of the parole were listed more explicitly. One admin blocked based on perceived violations of the parole. A Block appeal was denied. Another admin initiates a unblock based on no block appeal, but rather re-trying the previous appeal without consulting the blocking admin. Unblocking admin is questioned at length by blocking admin about the Wheel Waring aspect of the unblock. After several editors weigh in on the unblocking admin the admin reluctantly reblocks and posts this block review to establish consensus. Having looked at the thread so far I'm inclined to endorse the unblock with the cast in stone warning to MSK regarding the terms of their parole (Don't involve yourself with drama, neutrally report instances of harassment/baiting, let others stand up for Wikipedia Review, don't take everything as an attack on you) and they won't be in danger. This constitutes a absolute last chance. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Well said. One thing I would add is: report does not mean report in five different places and post at least ten times in each thread. (see WP:NCR) The community doesn't have the patience to build Betacommand-style restrictions for Ms. Kyle because insofar the positive contributions made by Ms. Kyle are quite modest. So, Ms. Kyle should absolutely not test the boundaries again if she gives a damn about her editing privileges here. Whether she likes it or not, Ms. Kyle has put herself in a position where from now on she's going to have to turn the other cheek to anything but the most severe transgressions of policy. And I hope her experience from yesterday clarifies where the community currently sets the bar on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock - There is some supreme and petty bullshit going on around these parts. This user was baited and harassed by one of the more egregious ANI gadflies. Courcelles' judgement was exceedingly poor. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock MSK, but other questions need answering SJ's original unblock was a text-book example of how not to use the unblock button. I disagree with Tarc - there's nothing petty going on here. MSK was unbanned after 5 years and was unblocked unstrict conditions. She has since been misbehaving. If after 5 years and a second chance MSK hasn't got it then MSK shouldn't be here. That said I agree with ASCIIn2Bme and Hasteur - in light of Baseball Bugs's unblock that MSK should be unblocked too (but by someone uninvolved in any of this thus far), but under a very very clear & final warning.
  Frankly I think that's what would have happened here anyway if SJ hadn't intervened. The unilateral reversal of Courcelles' decision, by SJ, an admin who admits to not using the tools in over 24 months & is obviously not up-to-date with dealing with DR or sanction/ban enforcement, is far more of an issue than anything MSK did--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  "She has since been misbehaving", that is the bullshit I was talking about. We have a user here who was held to a completely unreasonable, break-one-sliver-of-an-eggshell standards of the earlier unblock. If you're going to hold someone to a "one-strike" rule, then that's the prerogative of the community to decide. But to reblock, that admin best be damn sure that it is a "strike" that occurred. Courcelles was unreasonable to call that malarkey a strike. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Note to Tarc - Fluffernutter's explanation below makes it clear why your argument is incorrect.

  Note to would-be censors - It's best to leave vulgar comments in place, as they help to reveal the character of their writer.

  ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think we have to put up with his rudeness and belligerence. [49] He brings the tone down. Gets people's backs up. Sets off little wars everywhere in situations that might easily be resolved with reasonable discussion. In short, he's the last person this board needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're right. But I still don't think a user's comments should be censored unless they're a blatant and gross rule violaton (such as outing, socking, or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × tons) What happened to your self-imposed one month vacation from ANI, BB? You've made your opinion of MSK abundantly clear in multiple threads on ANI and AN. I don't think many here now want to hear your opinion of Tarc in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  Cole, mind your own business. Bugs, why are you here? Didn't you agree to an ANI vacation as a condition of your own unblock? I do not agree with fluffernutter's assessment of the situation; you and others baited her and began this whole mess. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I have the right to respond to discussions that involve me in some way. I am staying away from discussions that don't. I say again that the editor Kyle should be unblocked, without conditions and without restrictions. Ya got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm very close to having a problem with that Bugs, as we're discussing Selina's position and not yours. However now you've made your position clear, provided that is your last contribution to this thread I'm content. But the number of edit conflicts immediately after you dipped your toe back in this pond suggests your reappearance made a number of people very twitchy. You won't find the fourth power of the Sphinx mentioned on Wikipedia but it might be a good one to cultivate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock—unless or until the community agrees on terms to unblock her going forward. Mistress Selina Kyle violated the conditions of her last return from a community-imposed block. I don't condone the baiting tactics, but BaseballBugs opened a door that she willingly walked through. She must take responsibility for those actions. Until she does, and the community allows her return, she's not welcome back yet, and Courcelles' original block should stand. SalopianJames was not in the right to unilaterally substitute his judgement for that of the community; the proper course of action would have been to initiate a community discussion with the goal to set limits (including the option of no limits) on extending a new option for Mistress Selina Kyle to return. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The oddity with that user Kyle is that they were indef'd in June of 2006, yet somehow were able to edit on January 28th. Since then the block log looks like a ping-pong match. As regards "opening a door", I called the editor for making a false accusation against me. Perhaps I should have taken it to WQA instead of here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - she's not here to improve the Encyclopedia. She's here to create and enhance drama. Her contribs before and after the previous community ban should make this obvious. Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - purely on the basis that the block may have been questionable from a procedural perspective. I have seen no evidence to disprove what Raul654 above has to say regarding MSKs propensity to create drama, and see little reason to assume that a further block will become necessary. I would of course like to be proven wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, reinstate community ban. Working backwards from the present here, we have:

1. An admin who is patently unfamiliar with blocking policy unilaterally reversing the reinstatement of a community ban, which he failed to research the existence of, then repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or undo his wheel-warring and moving the goalposts until someone (not the blocking admin, for what that's worth) pointed out that admins have lost their bits for such actions.
2. A previously community-banned user, unblocked with strict instructions to adhere to our behavioral guidelines, who within day or two commences violating those same behavioral guidelines in a series of ANI threads: Wikilawyering (attempting to characterise people's commentary about a website as personal attacks against her), accusing people of harassing her by commenting about Wikipedia Review, accusing admins of giving the "all clear" for a user to "insult" her, continuing to accuse users of trolling and harassment, more trolling. Again, this entire thing was set off by her wikilawyering in an attempt to shut down criticism of Wikipedia Review by claiming any commentary about the site was personal commentary about her, which is a bit amusing in light of this claim that she is "not WR" and "WR shouldn't even come into it". Each of these behaviors - wikilawerying, accusations of bad faith, accusations of harassment and trolling, accusations of conspiracy among admins - is a violation of our behavioral guidelines. Mistress Selina Kyle was offered an unban with the strict provision that she not violate our behavioral guidelines, and then went almost directly to the most visible drama board on the entire wiki and began agitating and violating those guidelines. She is patently in violation of her unban conditions, has used up the one strike the community offered her, and as such should be rebanned. I quite frankly can't see how any other conclusion could be reached. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• and this is why any unblock needs an accompanying topic ban from any topics related to Wikipedia Review, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• fluffernutter, this is how: Don't Underestimate the Power of The Assume Good Faith Nobody Ent 15:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• AGF, as we all know, is not a suicide pact, Nobody Ent, and when a user has exhausted every drop of the community's AGF, and then five years later is lucky enough that the community is able to scrape up a smidge more AGF, and then proceeds to trample on that...AGF can be depleted, and we are not required to AGF to the detriment of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The editor was repeatedly told that criticisms of WR do not qualify as a personal attack, yet the editor continued to repeat that claim. Does that fact nullify the good faith assumption? Or is it possible the editor truly did not understand the distinction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The true power of AGF is that it doesn't matter; we can take the same action in either eventually and don't have to stress about it. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• @fluffernutter The number of support unblocks on this thread is irrefutable evidence MSK has in fact not exhausted every drop. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock: while Selina does have a rather quirky style (both in terms of prose and in terms of approach), I'm rather certain that she genuinely wants to help improve Wikipedia (IOW, she's not a member of the "hasten the day(tm)" faction on WR). To borrow a famous quote from a fictional book cover, she's "mostly harmless". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, as I posted above, having reread the policies (which I fully admit I should have done prior to this all kicking off rather than after), I realise the way I went about things was not correct, hence why we're now going through this. Again, as I said before, I'll be back off to the WP:NAS with an apple for the teacher. However, in response to the 'moving the goalposts' comment, the items I listed were what occurred, and the reasoning given for the block was violation of the unblock conditions. I failed, and still fail, so see how those two match up in any way. On another note, I know I personally would construe an attack on a website I ran as a personal attack, with a further point being that views on WR were irrelevant to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. At the very least, indef is completely out of proportions. In fact, I think we should focus more on the inappropriate action by the blocking admin here, it is much more worrisome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, as I posted above, having reread the policies (which I fully admit I should have done prior to this all kicking off rather than after), I realise the way I went about things was not correct, hence why we're now going through this. Again, as I said before, I'll be back off to the WP:NAS with an apple for the teacher. However, in response to the 'moving the goalposts' comment, the items I listed were what occurred, and the reasoning given for the block was violation of the unblock conditions. I failed, and still fail, so see how those two match up in any way. On another note, I know I personally would construe an attack on a website I ran as a personal attack, with a further point being that views on WR were irrelevant to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock The editor has been blocked for several years. She appears to be genuinely trying to follow policy. The community and policies can change over time, she just needs time to get up to date on policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I wasn't around when the original block came in so I don't have the history. But based on the last few days even the most cynical interpretation of MSK's behaviour is that she came back after her community ban, tried to see how much room for manoeuvre she had and got the message really soon that she has none. Since then she has been the model of restraint; the cynic will argue she is just biding her time but if she is, we can of course (and will, I suspect) reinstate the ban instantly and permanently. But if the cynic is wrong and she can contribute productively then for as long as she does that I have no problem. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I find the block well-intentioned but a misguided and overly strict interpretation of MSK's unblock/unban terms. It's quite possible she'll do something that warrants an indef but filing a couple of reports at AN/I isn't it. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Discrepancy between crime and punishment. The Mistress will be on a tight leash anyway (hey, that's kind of saucy--I like it) given the attention this has received. It's a good time to start creating article content, Mistress. Annemarie van Haeringen, for instance, is still a redlink. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I understand that the block was given in part because drama was really escalating, but Bugs' block was shortened and I think letting MSK back is a good idea too. While she perhaps should have acted differently, she didn't do anything that makes me think she was acting out of bad faith/trolling us. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock, obviously. Have already explained why in other places but basically there was no basis for the original block and in fact it was a good bit in the "blame the victim" (of personal attacks) spirit.VolunteerMarek 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block explanation

Moved from discussion above Nobody Ent 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see a fuller explanation of the block by Courcelles, here, at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know if he is online, but [50] [51] should be relevant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I did read all of that, I would just like a summary after consideration. My initial reaction is that Courcelles, as an arb, should have considered that if MSK's conduct was that blatant, another admin would have taken care of the matter. In addition, Courcelles is a drafting arb in the Civility Enforcement case, in which there was an admin who unblocked without consultation a user who has been repeatedly unblocked by admins who did not consult with the blocking admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And Risker, who blocked BB, is another drafting Arb in that case. Go figure! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No. It's not the same thing. Courcelles has said he's considering filing a wheel warring complaint on SJ. He is a drafting arb in a case which will be precedent for that case if he files the complaint. I see a conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I haven't checked, but I would assume Courcelle's comment about a Wheel-war case was posted prior to SJ's corrective action above. SJ has corrected his actions, so there is nothing to answer for. Manning (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Manning, this whole mess could wind up in the lap of ArbCom, and SJ's actions could be an issue. There's an appearance issue, to my mind, and possibly an actual conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) My "go figure!" puzzlement was over this part of Courcelles statement: "she [MSK] committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, (being critical, even dismissive, ofsomeone's website is a far cry from attacking the person)", which implicitly disses Risker's block as hardly justified. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • With such a difference of opinion between arbitrators, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that arbitration is done by panel, rather than Judge Dredd-style =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, I'm not that shocked seeing arbitrators bitterly divided in an actual remedy vote, but I am a bit more surprised seeing two of the Civ Enforcement drafting Arbs applying principles the committee hasn't even published yet. And the two blocks were a bit Arb Dredd-style, given that an WP:IBAN between the drama protagonists was being proposed (by me) on ANI at that time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to all - As Ascii said above, let's embrace this new world of AN/I. The topic here is the unblock review. Discussions of arb motivations, arbcom cases, etc belong elsewhere. (I'll trout myself for my earlier comment about the wheel war, not helpful). Manning (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, whether the blocking admin has or has created a conflict of interest is plainly relevant. However, this could be a separate subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters, but you'd have my full support for opening a separate discussion. I just think we all just need to work on reducing the chatter within threads. (And comments like this are just more chatter - so yet another trout for me)Manning (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) — Ched :  ?  13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• <cough>, ummm .. excuse me (and perhaps I missed something) - but ummm ... did we forget something here?— Ched :  ?  14:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to see justification for an indef block. What has MK done (diffs, please) that according couldn't have been handled by a warning, or even a short block, and instead needed, in his opinion, and indefinite block? Votes above clearly show that such an approach is not supported by the majority of the community. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's irrelevant. The nature of the lifting of the community ban was that infraction of the rules would lead to a reban. That's it. There is no mechanism to give a user a whole new set of chances in that case, and whether you or I agree or disagree with it doesn't matter; MSK accepted those conditions and then violated them. Everyone is taking some sort of moral indignation at the whole thing as the basis for unblock. Now, if MSK didn't like the conditions, she did not have to accept them. She did. For us to complain about that after the fact is pointless - if the deal was unfair, there was always a right of refusal. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is my understanding too - that, per the provisions of her unban, any violation of behavioral guidelines, etc, would result in the ban being reapplied, according to the will of the community as expressed in her unban discussion. Courcelles would have been on much shakier ground attempting to apply a time-limited ban of some sort, because that would have been voiding the community's will to impose his own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with that interpretation is that it leaves no wiggle room for cases where the blocking admin is in clear error. I think form these discussions we're seeing a general disagreement that Selina violated much of anything. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor redacting another's comment on this board

Above,

• Tarc posted that is the bullshit I was talking about. in response to a comment by Cailil.
• I replaced it with removed potty-mouth comment
  
• It was restored by Pablo X with the edit summary Grow up
• So I removed it again with the edit summary Removed insulting and inflammatory comment.
• But it was restored by Atlan with the edit summary no need for overeager language police.
• So I removed it again with the edit summary Describing an editor's comment as bullshit is insulting and inflammatory and inappropriate for this board.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's mine. You are not just censoring language. You're removing valid comment, and changing the sense of comments. You need to stop. pablo 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To restate and summarize, I concur with with you say about "changing the sense of comments." I also understand where Anthony is coming from. I just don't think he should be doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I am a only a few synapses away from filing a request for the Civility Enforcement 2 arbitration case... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment (I'm assuming it's a humor attempt?) Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I have an evil plan to make ArbCom pass WP:Discretionary sanctions for ANI (participation). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with redacting off topic comments to keep things on track (in fact did so but was reverted). Tarc's comments are on topic and best left in place. Nobody Ent 16:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony - as I advised you yesterday, you should not remove other editor's comments that you find offensive/disagree with. Instead you should have asked Tarc to remove their comments themselves, which would have been an amicable solution. Instead we now have moar dramaz. GiantSnowman 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Such censoring, redacting, refactoring of others' comments will never lead to anything but moar moar drahmazzz. pablo 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In the country where I live, the newspapers are full of the words "fuck", "cunt", and the like. This is normal here. Perhaps I'm right in assuming that Anthony lives in the USA? The point would then be that it's inappropriate to try to impose (through edit-warring, no less) American standards of public discourse. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I am in America and can say that this level of prudery is not widely-held. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio closed the discussion but I haven't finished. Is anybody going to say or do something about Tarc's behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not me. "Bullshit" is barely anything at all, and I see no reason why it should have been removed. I thought we were trying to de-escalate ANI, not re-degenerate it. Look at what this redaction, its dedaction, its re-redaction, have accomplished. What Pablo said. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What administrator action are you seeking here? pablo 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I thought Salvio's close was appropriate. This is going to generate more heat than light if it stays open. FWIW, I agree with the principle that we should civilise the language here; however we do not yet have consensus that (a) this should happen or (b) how. You were premature in starting to refactor in the way you did. Have patience, we will get there, but not by trying to force the pace. Now two admins (Salvio and I) have declined to act and tried to close this. You can of course reopen it but I suspect each time you do you'll get the same answer, as well as shortening peoples' patience. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim closed this conversation but Pablo had asked me a question. Pablo, I'd like Tarc to recognise that his comment was uncivil and inappropriate anywhere on this project, least of all at ANI. Presently he doesn't recognise that. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orderly_ANI. So, it would be appropriate for some kind of sanction to be put in place until he demonstrates that he is able to recognise uncivil behaviour and avoid it. Perhaps we could begin with a topic ban from this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good luck with that. Ho lawd. Thread's dead, baby. pablo 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, your solution (extending this discussion and continually reopening it) is worse than the problem. Tarc is not going to recognise anything of the sort, particularly if you keep badgering him. Nor is what he said sufficiently egregious for a block. A topic ban, I predict, will not fly either. The pair of you are now being disruptive here, in my opinion, by dragging this out - more particularly you, as you keep returning when you don't get the answer you hoped for. I will say no more on this thread, and will not close it again. However I invite any editor/admin who agrees with me to add their close to Salvio's and mine. Anyone who disagrees and thinks we should keep discussing this here is of course welcome to say so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not badgering Tarc. I'm asking you to enforce Wikipedia policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In before the lock: the issue of removing single uncivil words like "bullshit" does not currently have community consensus. See Wikipedia talk:TALK#RFC Removal. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't redact a word. I redacted a sentence. An uncivil sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you object to any other word besides "bullshit" in that sentence? What is uncivil about "that is the stuff I was talking about" for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you (pl) could leave this thread open for a bit to give others who are not online yet a chance to comment. It's not going to break the wiki, and I won't be adding anything but responses. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the usage of bullshit was unhelpful. But I also agree removing let alone edit warring over it was a bad idea simply because it's not severe enough to warrant such action. And I agree there's no much point continue to badger Tarc about it. So it would probably be best to just close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ARS Canvassing at AfD

Per the suggestion of an admin I am focusing the issue with the Article Rescue Squadron on the specific AfD that prompted my previous report. Here is the deletion discussion. User:Northamerica1000 voted keep within hours of the AfD being listed, but this vote was followed by two delete votes. After three days with no activity on the AfD, North listed it at the Article Rescue Squadron. Looking at the discussion it is clear what the result of this was. Within minutes of commenting at the ARS list User:Milowent and User:Drmies, the admin who closed the previous ANI thread, each comment on the AfD. Drmies makes a clear keep vote and Milo leaves a comment that is clearly pushing for a keep. At the same time these editors are commenting, User:Dream Focus from the ARS also makes a clear keep vote. The timing is pretty straightforward, that after nearly three days with two delete votes to his one keep North decided to list this for rescue seems more like he was trying to stave off a likely delete. What happens after listing is evident, a clear shifting of the discussion towards "keep" as ARS members notice the listing of the article at the Wikiproject. I don't really see how this could not be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS by North and it reinforces my concerns about this list being an inevitable tool for such canvassing. If you look at the article itself there is no indication of actual improvements to the article. Unfortunately this is the same sort of activity we saw with the rescue tag, which North was also accused of regularly using to canvass inclusionists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)