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

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: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. 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?[[5]] 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)
• Support indefinite topic ban. After being banned for one week in October 2011 [6], Cybermud is back to the same problematic behavior. Not only does he continue to accuse various authors of misandry [7][8], but he also refers to them as "gender ideologues who support the feminist view that all men are rapists" [9]. His fellow editors are also misandrists [10], according to Cybermud. I find his agitated rhetoric very unhelpful. That he calls a male editor "princess", goes beyond the pale. Back in 2010, he wrote that Kimmel and Flood are considered "manginas" [11], so this theme is not new. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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 [12], 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. [13] 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)

FYI: With that article being monitored, other articles are now also having the link added. I was glancing through this link, and spotted this edit. adding archive.org/details/PleaseMisterPostman to the article Please Mr. Postman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to simply block each IP sock after a single instance of re-adding any of the offending links rather than go through a more lengthy process of warnings? Sure it's whack-a-mole, but I've had some success with persistent vandals using this approach. In the long run, the effort to breakt he rules is much greater than the effort to undo the damage and block an IP. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary section in an RFC

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

---

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.[14]. 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)

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)

I consider it closed too, and I finally got the answer that he felt it was "cluttered" after the block, which he could've definitely said beforehand and it didn't have to get to this point at all (usually I've engaged in discussion and it's all worked out before I ever need to get to ANI). I don't know whether making changes to the template further to de-clutter in a compromise is OK or not though, so I don't hit 3RR. If it isn't I will cool down at your suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, they changed to "your" version, so one can only assume that you are at liberty to edit to your heart's delight. When you edit it next you're not reverting them, so you can't be edit-warring--in my opinion. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does, thank you. I am going to reduce it down, and we can consider this closed. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 10 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)

That section about capped collections looks fine to me (informatively describes something unusual enough to be worth mentioning). It is pretty typical of how articles about software and programming languages are written. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the tags themselves can be discussed on the article talk page. I'm discussing Jasper's behaviour in getting them on that page. There seems to be a whole slew of poor edits made around this situation over at MongoDB. In addition to forcing the tags onto the article without explanation, and assuming bad faith, he also made edits like this which are clearly against our policies [15]. Altering others comments is a no-no. The IP tried to engage him on the talk page, Jasper reverted it. I'm beginning to think if we really need to block the IP out of this situation, it shouldn't be the only one.--Crossmr (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't know this discussion hasn't ended yet, was trying to discuss. Yep, I admit my faults here, and I won't try to fault the IP. I just don't like it when my name is mentioned in a section header on an article talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but if you're going to edit an article in that manner, it's almost inevitable that you're going to end up being discussed on the talk page. You don't have any rights over your name on wikipedia, other than to ensure someone doesn't impersonate you, and others are free to refer to you as necessary, which may include using your name in the header of a section, especially when it directly concerns the edits you've been making. You had zero business removing another person's comment from the page as it contained no excessive personal attacks, and even then you're limited to removing the personal attack itself.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 10 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

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

---

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)
  • Only 26% of your edits in the main space. Any plans to do anything fully productive yourself in the near future? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 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. [16] 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)

• 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: 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)
• 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)
• 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 "preventative measure". 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)
• note - at this point the consensus for an unblocking is twenty four in support and six opposes. Youreallycan 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • mumbles something unclear about 4 to one not being consensus, involved admins, and various randomly-directed obscenities--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Given how contentious this series of unblock/block/unblock/block has been, I would really recommend that we stay away from calling an early consensus about anything and let the thread run for a minimum of 24 hours, especially since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have had a chance to weigh in yet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I unblocked her. Let's get on with our lives. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can hear some more mumbling... Youreallycan 20:55, 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 [17] [18] 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)

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

Editor redacting another's comment on this board

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

---

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)

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

ARS Canvassing at AfD

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

---

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)

You aren't going to keep doing this every few days whenever someone disagrees with you on anything are you? The last ANI addressed this issue didn't it? [19] The arguments made by people, not the numbers that show up, are what are used to determine whether the article stays or goes. Do you believe the administrator Drmies is conspiring against you somehow? If he was truly up to something wouldn't he not participate in the AFD, but instead wait until it was time to close it and close it as keep? How many articles have you sent to AFD so far, and how many of them have ended in keep even when the ARS wasn't around? Dream Focus 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could simply create an ADS (Article Demolition Squadron) and template AfD nominations they see as valid accordingly. In fact, they could use the ARS page in order to save time reviewing nominations for possible tagging. This would keep the playing field level without actually creating even more rules. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see that WP:ADS is already taken. So I propose calling this new group "Article Rescue Squadron Exterminators" instead. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• [Sorry AQ, but I'm venting for a moment.] I may lose my temper here. The Devil's Advocate may not know me, but I am the mortal enemy of Dream Focus (BTW, DF, well put, above! thanks), and a longtime collaborator with Milowent. I am friends with User:MichaelQSchmidt, whose RfA I supported, and with whom I have turned many an all-too speedily nominated article into DYK. I am also, I guess, a deletionist of some sort--though Wikipedia Review lists me somewhere as an old ARSer. I participate occasionally on their pages, usually playing the devil's advocate (yes), most recently here. I got close to a hundred thousands edits on my belt. The Devil's Advocate seems to think that I'm some kind of pussy who purrs keep when poked by Northamerica1000 (I think our dislike of each other is well-established) or when some article appears on a list. Bullshit. (Anthony, I pre-dacted myself--I wanted to say worse.)

  That this list would be "canvassing" is total crap. I don't see why the ARS shouldn't have a right to list some (not all!) articles that they think are worth saving. Every WikiProject that's current and active does that, and Northamerica has every right to make this list and maintain--I can only hope that they do a decent job of selecting what's worth saving; some of you will recall they got slammed for tagging every other article with the Rescue tag, for which I took them to task as well. Devil's Advocate, I don't give a good g-----n for your concerns, and if you had been conscientious you would have looked around to see the other "votes" I engaged in following from that list, such as a "Merge" and delete (but I would leave that up to the closing admin) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leopard (newspaper). Or you could use Snotty's tool to see how I vote in AfDs, or some other fancy tool that says how I close them. I find this accusation directed at me repugnant, and I find the whole issue, of this list on one of their own pages, to be moot, vindictive, and baseless. Grrr! I'm sorry if I lost my temper. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing consensus for close. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#archivetop_and_collapse_tags Nobody Ent 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "ARS is canvassing" claim has been brought up repeatedly at AN/I recently. It's time to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if the problem repeatedly being reported was not continuing, there would be no need to keep reporting it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a user conduct dispute. It more than likely requires some form of mediation. However, ANI is not the place for that. There is no immediate administrative action needed. The Devil's Advocate needs to actually try to discuss the issues with the other involved parties before running off to ANI to file complaints. He keeps filing reports, and he keeps getting told that ANI is not the place to discuss the problem. He still has not discussed the problem with the other involved editors outside of ANI and he is still filing reports. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing is an ANI matter as it's disruptive, and admin action may well be appropriate. While one might view repeat filing as redundant, another might view it as providing evidence as to the scope and seriousness of the problem. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, canvassing can be dealt with. With that said, this editor has filed three reports in the past three weeks. A new report is opened right after the previous discussion closes. He has been told that there is no alleged canvassing, and that if he has a problem with a particular ARS member, he should bring the issue to their attention. He has not done this, he just keeps filing reports. This unwillingness to engage the editors in a talk page conversation, running straight to ANI, is disruptive and a waste of other editor's time. On the top of this noticeboard it states: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." He is yet to follow that requirement. There is no immediate concern here that requires immediate administrative action. If he can't resolve the dispute through reasonable discussion, then he should try a dispute resolution process. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As Rk notes, WP:CANVASS is very much a user conduct issue that is something for admin intervention, especially when it comes to repeat offenses by an editor. Your comment about discussion is not accurate. When I first brought ARS up on ANI I did try to discuss beforehand to no avail and clearly the discussion a few weeks ago at ANI and the TfD have not gotten across to North. An admin, Salvio, suggested that I file a new report here following the close of the last one that focused on the specific case regarding the AfD above and so I did. I must say that a member of the group that is being mentioned here should not be jumping in to close the discussion ten minutes after it opens, then reclose it four minutes after an editor re-opens it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At some point NA1K is going to get himself blocked. I don't know when that day is, but his conduct wears even on his supporters as I've seen on WT:ARS. Just be patient. At some point, the ARS itself is going to open one of these threads about him.--v/r - TP 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's possible (that block)--but I thought (though I might be wrong, it is hard to tell) that this was a complaint about the very existence of the list. If The Devil's Advocate wants to accuse Na1000 of canvassing, they'll have to do better than point at the existence of the list. As it is, they seem to be arguing that because Na1000 posted something on the list and Milowent and I voted for something, therefore it's canvassing. But as far as that concerns me and my behavior, they'd have to prove that I am likely to vote keep on things I'm being canvassed for--and that I have a reputation of voting keep. Anyone with half a brain/memory knows that most of my votes on AfDs are directly opposed to An1000's. In fact, if Na1000 would contact me, directly or indirectly, about some AfD, they'd be less likely to be canvassing. You'll note the glaring absence of Na1000's messages on my talk page. I've been on theirs, to give them a piece of my mind about those rescue tags. Now doesn't that prove that the current complaint, in all its vagueness, simply holds no water? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you made two comments on January 11th in attempt to resolve the first issue, which ultimately failed. The issue did not require immediate administrator action, and should have been taken to WP:WQA. If that had failed, then it should have been taken to ANI or to an RFC/U. Instead you have filed thee different ANI reports on the Article Rescue Squadron, rather than a particular editor.

While the user is a member of the ARS, the problem is with a particular editor, and the report should be on that particular editor. As was discussed on the last ANI thread, the Article rescue squadron is not about canvassing keep !votes, the purpose of the project is to cleanup articles on potentially notable topics. There are quite a few WikiProject that use Article Alerts, which notifies the entire project of project related articles up at AfD. It allows editors interested in the topic to work on potentially notable articles up for deletion. Sometimes it results in the article being kept, sometimes it results in the article being deleted.

The concern you originally brought up on the 11th had nothing to do with ARS canvassing. The issue you brought up was over the fact that he notified all editors that contributed to the article's talk page which is technically canvassing. With that said, the problem was not the ARS, it was a particular editor. The other two incidents you reported did not even attempt to resolve the dispute first. The list you are so concerned about being a canvass board was taken to MfD. There was a strong consensus there to keep the board and that it did not constitute canvassing. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at that again, I said plainly that the rescue tag skewed the discussion and requested that he notify other outside editors to balance the discussion. That editor's response was to say there was nothing wrong with using the tag. Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. After looking over the MfD for the list I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be re-opened. Five of the twelve keep votes came from ARS members like yourself, one vote was nothing more than a keep vote with the comment "you've got to be kidding me", two votes from non-ARS members claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion (even though in the TfD on the rescue tag the closing admin plainly said canvassing was such a reason), and two other voting editors do not appear to be impartial. That these votes were used to close the MfD within two hours is an oversight I think. Of course, it helps to demonstrate exactly how an AfD can be quickly dispensed with by a flood of editors and why "immediate" action should be taken.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. Apparently it's also a reason to assume bad faith, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get an assumption of bad faith exactly? North created the list and is using it essentially as a way to canvass keep votes. Saying an editor is doing something wrong is not assuming bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies North's addition of it to the list clearly had the result of skewing the voting towards at least no consensus away from a delete vote. You can say that it would be up to the admin and that consensus is not about counting votes but the reality is that enough votes one way tend to be more convincing than a few good arguments in the other direction. Rather than waiting to see if the result of canvassing is as desired or if a closing admin sees through the canvassing, when it is not plainly noted is not something that should be expected of any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you prefer that this perfectly legitimate list (your arguments about that MfD are silly) be written in invisible ink? Better yet, shall we keep the log secret so that those ARSers don't know what's up for AfD? Invisible AfD templates? Or maybe a topic ban for Northamerica? and me?

I don't know why you're talking about a tag, up above. The tag is gone. I didn't participate in the AfD; I don't think it was so canvassy, but I do think that Na1000 used it haphazardly, inappropriately, and uselessly. But the tag is gone. So now the poor ARSers have nothing but a list, and you want that taken away? Drop the stick, The Devil's Advocate: this is getting tedious. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• What a misguided ANI to bring. DA's beef has to do with the ARS flagging an article for further examination that has in turn improved the quality of the AfD discussion, instead of leaving it to the random fate that awaits many borderline articles depending on which 3-5 editors show up to comment. This article, in fact, is likely to be deleted and at least it will be deleted after a fair hearing. DA claims: "Milo leaves a comment (at the AFD) that is clearly pushing for a keep." Really? If I wanted to keep the article I would have !voted keep. My comment, in fact, pointed out that some of the delete votes were weak on their rationale and incorrect about the amount of local/regional coverage of the restaurant in the press. And my transparent comment at ARS pointed out that the ability to rescue the article was questionable. I stated "As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [20] does show local popularity." If this is an incident of horror to be condemned, please shackle me, dear comrade editors. I ask DA to assume a little more good faith; he is free to comment in any AfD regarding any votes he think were "canvassed," but I think his real fear is that his nominations might sometimes be proven hasty, otherwise what does one have to fear from examination?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Another discussion is also occurring regarding the WikiProject Article rescue squadron rescue list, located here: Village pump (policy)–Use of the article rescue list for disputing a spinout/merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now that ARS follows the same conventions as other porjects (i.e. off the article page, manual list, notification of listing in the Afd) all my concerns have mostly vanished. I take into account the effect that this listings have when closing an AfD, and beleive that this would be common practice in any closer who is not simply counting noses. Propose this thread be closed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem with ARS (including with this specific complaint) now that their obnoxious tag is gone. The solution here is for everyone who hates ARS to simply watchlist the list themselves. If you think they are crusading to save a bunch of crappy articles, just put your own opinions on the same AFDs (within reason, of course). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - For shit's sakes, this is the stupidest ANI whine in recent memory. AfD is not a vote. 500 vapid "votes" for keep SHOULD be defeated by one intelligent argument for deletion if the closing administrator is doing their job. And, by the same token, 15 people braying "delete" should lose a debate with a well constructed defense. AfD is not a VOTE, it is a TRIAL. Five attorneys do not trump one if their case is weak and the judge is following the law. Why does it matter if ANYONE "canvases"? It shouldn't. The facts of a situation are the facts. Sources are sources. Rationality would deem some things necessary and others inappropriate. Have a little faith in the system, please. ARS has been kneecapped by a very bad decision to eliminate their Rescue template lately. It will take some time for them to reestablish themselves on a new basis. Give them a break. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Time to close. There is nothing here that requires administrative action. I suggest that ARS be set up with a delsort page just as do other projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Firestoned

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

---

[moved from WT:BIO Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ]

Since IDK where to take this, let me make a request here to an Admin. User:AndrewFirestone777 has, to date, repeatedly added Diego Firestone to the Firestone dab page. He's done (literally) nothing else since June 2011. He's ignored repeated requests to stop, or create the actual page. IDK if this rises to vandalism, but advisorys or warnings appear futile. Can somebody do something? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (FYI: not watching this page, & not looking for an answer here if action gets taken.)

I've given them a two week attention-getting shot across the bows (hopefully long enough for them to notice, given their sporadic editing patterns). EyeSerene^talk 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:70.119.58.72

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

---

70.119.58.72 (talk · contribs) is posting threats on a couple of pages, not that they seem truly serious, but thought I should just mention it... Calabe1992 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Twomorerun

Twomorerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Username is created at 3:13, 8 February 2012
• Like Athena from the head of Zeus, user arrives full-grown, with full Wiki-knowledge
• First edit: 03:14, 8 February 2012, with edit summary: "clarity/redundancy/pov fixes"
• user begins editing rapidly (eg. 51 edits in the first hour and six minutes)
• most of the user's edits are to remove descriptive adjectives from the lede sentence of articles, even when sourced [21]
• other editors revert Twomorerun's edits, put warnings on his user talk page [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]
• templates are removed as "vandalism" [28],[29]
• Twomorerun "retires", puts "retirement" template on user page [30], redirects talk page to user page [31]
• "Retirement" last 6 hours and 9 minutes, plunges into undoing other editors' reversions of his edits, without discussion except in edit summaries, continuing new edits per his previous pattern
• more warnings on his talk page [32],[33],[34], plus a suggestion that he needs to talk about his edits on the talk page not just in edit summaries [35]
• the editor tries to have his talk page deleted, [36],[37], but his speedy is turned down [38]
• editor has still not responded to any comment on his talk page

This editor has a long history of editing with precisely the same pattern, as an IP, beginning (at least) in August 2008:

• 67.36.58.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 69.218.254.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • blocked by LHvU for not discussing edits
  • AN/I thread here
• 75.41.6.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.79.133.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.212.57.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • blocked by Barneca for not discussing edits
• 69.208.77.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • AN/I threads here and here
• 24.11.246.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • this IP's response to every comment on their talk page was to delete the comment without responding
  • Thread about this IP on WikiProject Visual arts here

That takes it up to October 2011

So far as I know, this editor has never responded to the many, many requests for discussion made on their talk pages. Discussion between editors is an essential part of the collegial Wikipedia process. I can certainly understand that discussions, once started, can become unproductive and are sometimes better shut down than continued, but never talking to any editor who has problems or concerns with your editing is not something that we should allow to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. Also, note that the person attempting to interact with the IPs on their talk pages is me, under my original ID. (See this for an explanation). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• BMK makes a convincing case. I've checked with some IP edits, and they agree in content and style. There is no doubt in my mind that we're dealing with an obsessive editor who is likely to sock. I'd like to hear what they have to say, but I am also interested in hearing whether the community would block for the editing behavior in the first place (even without the IPs). Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor Roux insisting on biased RFC language

{{archivetop}}

• User: Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Template:Music of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor Roux created a !vote section with this language:

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template

I observed his language was not neutral and changed it to:

Should the song "God Save the Queen" be excluded as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada?

Roux reverted my neutral language. I request admin intervention to restore neutral language, and a block of Roux if his disruption persists. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look at the history. If you were to do so--I know, I know, it's a lot to ask Wikipedians to be informed before they wade in and start whining--you would note that I had not one fucking thing to do with adding that RfC tag, and the section I created was made quite some time before that tag was placed on the page. But, jeez, that would mean you'd have had to actually pay attention to a) timestamps, b) history, c) my edit summary. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I did read the page. You still have time to make your !vote language neutral before the entire community arrives and begins commenting. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I was unclear. Let's try this again:

I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PLACING THE RFC TAG. THE RFC TAG WAS PLACED BY MIESIANIACAL SOME TIME AFTER I MADE THE NEW SECTION. I NEVER HAD ANY INTENT TO CREATE AN RFC.

Do you understand yet? → ROUX ₪ 04:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A) The content issue isn't going to get resolved here, that's what talk pages are for. 2) Roux is about to get a warning from me for civility, and possibly a few more will be handed out. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a simple misunderstanding + nothing good will come out of reporting this matter on ANI. Closing. —Dark 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}