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

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles.

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

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[1] and October-November 2009.[2] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose; it is unreasonable to expect uninvolved admins to sanction misconduct in this area or uninvolved users to spend any time attempting to resolve it further. It's ArbCom they want; let them have it then. No need to continue to force the community into this impossible situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah: Discretionary sanctions are deployed against conduct, not article content, that an administrator finds to be irreconcilable with our community's policies. With that in mind, I don't see any merits to your argument. It's also worth noting that, with a pre-defined framework (namely, that disruptive conduct must be taking place in order for a sysop to be allowed to sanction), these provisions are anything but arbitrary. AGK 13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My rationale is that this is not a matter where the discretion of an individual admin is going to be accepted by all or even a large majority of the English speaking editing community. Ever. The issues relating to anything relating to Ireland and its culture for the last 400 years is steeped in cultural, religious and political perceptions of the rights and wrongs of events within that history. Any discretionary (for which, read "unilateral") action by any admin is going to be lauded by certain interests and decried by others, depending on what "faction" is being sanctioned. The few truly independent admins will soon be reluctant to act, when their efforts will be viewed and commented upon within the microcosm of (anti)Irish nationalist sentiment. It is, regrettably, an area of such potential disharmony that only truly consensual decision making is going to provide the basis by which resolution will be of any effect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree that the issue here is not comparable to Armenia/Azerbaijan or other ethno-religious conflicts. First, the Troubles are thankfully over and receding into history. Second, as Less Heard van U points out, this is a controversy between Anglophone editors for whom Freud might have coined the phrase "the narcisscissm of minor difference". I think the first thing that needs to de done here is to clearly define what is meant on Wikipedia by the Troubles and articles related to the Troubles. I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on the Troubles, which dates them from (if memory serves) 1969 to 1997 would be a good place to start. I would also suggest that every article that is determined as being related to the Troubles be tagged with the handy template Rd232 came out with a wee while ago. He's full of helpful ideas that fella. So he is.Irvine22 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
        • • The problem is that both sides of The Troubles have proven themselves incapable of solving the problem themselves, which is why we're here again. Any admin trying to help in The Troubles is viciously attacked by the "wronged" side, so most avoid The Troubles like the plaque. So it continually descends deeper into the abyss. Since they won't solve it themselves, and this applies to both sides, those few hardy enough to venture into The Troubles are about the only hope we have. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of reliable sources, and mud slinging? Rockpocket 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have you? Like the reliable source already cited in the article saying he was in custody awaiting extradition when you edited it to "sling mud" at a living person? Your edit speaks for itself, as do the actions of others mentioned. I note that you haven't attempted to do the impossible and defend your edit, and neither have you made any comment about "mud slinging" in reply to the comment made by Angus, which I posted a diff to so it's unlikely you can have missed it. Funny that isn't it? While the overwhelming majority of admins are trustworthy and neutral, there are select admins involved in the dispute who have significant history with certain editors, and the idea that those admins have access to such draconian and far reaching powers that can be employed against editors they clearly don't like isn't right. It's easy to see even right now that certain editors are being singled out while others get away with blue murder, or the admins singling out certain editors are not the ones taking actions against the others when needed. Take the editor you offered to advise (an offer which was accepted) for example. After that offer, he needlessly violated WP:BLP here (for those unfamiliar with the term see ambulance chaser, and it is in fact the third time BLP was violated) on an article you have been dealing with, and what was said? And amongst Irvine22's many POV edits, there's this one yet again on an article you've been dealing with, strange how you've said so little about it isn't it?

Just in case anyone thinks that is an Irish editor moaning about admins being biased against Irish editors, think again. I'm English and play it straight down the middle, and in fact was just responsible for the sockpuppet of an Irish editor being blocked and the currently outstanding request for Arbitration Enforcement against Irish editor Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs). Certain admins, by their actions of lack of them, are unfit to be issuing these draconian sanctions against certain editors on nothing more than their own initiative, it's that simple. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm English and play it straight down the middle. That is funny. Take the advice of your comrades and "cop on to yourself." If you have a problem with my editing, you know where to go, if you have a problem with my administrative work, then moaning about it here is pointless because its an utter straw man. You know how to sleuth for diffs (when they suit your agenda, of course), so why don't you check when the last time I did any admin work in this area? Address the issue at hand, instead of slinging mud in any and every other direction. Rockpocket 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Please use dispute resolution like the rest of us and stop calling for martial law. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - provided enforcement will be enacted in the same way as other cases, specifically, at WP:AE. Dispute resolution has been tried for years, with little really effective results. Having said that, I would like this thread to remain open for at least some days, to allow the greatest range of opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Such "discretionary" decisions can have a great impact on the direction of content. An editor comes in, doesn't like the content, an edit war ensues, the editor get "removed" and the content stays the same. The "discretionary" action resulted in the appearance of consensus and everyone editing the article is happy but the underlying content issue is not resolved. The problem is people's approach to editing (entrenched positions, suspicion, etc.) but we are here to write and encyclopedia that is balanced and informative. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Too many Irish-related articles have become POV battlefields and thier quality has suffered greviously as a result. It's simply not possible to develop an article when any changes contrary to a POV are immediately deleted by ideologically motivated users. The only way to deal with this is to let Admin's have some discretion as to what is good faith editing (attempting at least to be NPOV) and what is genuibne POV pushing. Let me further add, as an Irish editor that I have nver experienced anti-Irish bias from an Admin. In fact, one of the problems in this whole area is a lack nowadays of Irish Admins on WP. Jdorney (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a few good Irish admins from a range of backgrounds and perspectives would be a good idea. Also, some British specialists in the area would be most welcome - the Brits have been refereeing this thing in R/T for years after all. They'd probably have to be public school/Oxbridge types, who may be available these days with all the problems in the City. But seriously: the problem with Irish/Troubles issues is that they are simply beyond the ken of most normal, good-faith editors, including admins. You need to be steeped in it. There's a "dog whistle" aspect to this, in that there is a range of seemingly simple words - and it may often be just a single word - that a knowledgable editor may drop into an article or discussion and cause a disproportionate eruption of outrage by other editors who can pick up the dog whistle. For those without dog ears, the resulting hubbub seems utterly disproportionate and inexplicable. I think if you made, say, myself and BigDunc admins for Troubles-area articles, and nether of us could edit in the area, and neither of us could use tools without the other's agreement, you might have something workable., A bit like the d'hondt structures at Stormont really. And they work just so well, don't they? Irvine22 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And I wonder why JD?! If they like what you say why would they be biased against you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the Admns have supported NPOV over partisanship. Users may check this if they want verification. Jdorney (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per current standard practice in other similar cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Good rationale by LHvU. This dispute is in too many people's DNA - unless we can get some admins from Mars, it's never going to have the appearance of unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
• Support The alternative is relying on an outdated reference to WP:Probation. If WP:AE is going to be forced to do his, we need as many tools as possible. You don't like it? Give us some community support.--Tznkai (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably the bottom line; if we as admins are expected to deal with this crap (and I accept that it is part of the job description), we want to know that we have the support and means to do so. I further think that some commenters are perhaps worrying far too much about the bias issue; more admin eyes on the situation will act to counter rather than reinforce bias, and we all know that no matter what happens and how much process we follow for the sake of propriety, we're still going to hear accusations of bias. It's just par for the course, but saying so doesn't make it so. Don't let's miss this opportunity because of analysis paralysis. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'll be posting a report later. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think there have been enough problems in this area to justify the extra oversight. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think, though we need to think seriously about safeguards for bullying. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Discretionary sanctions can lead to selective enforcement. I'd rather see a sequence of RfC/U's on the most egregious edit warriors on both sides of the conflict. We remove troublesome editors one by one until proper editing conditions are established. If there has been an RfC/U to document problematic editing, the closing administrator should be able to place an appropriate community sanction. Consensus for a community sanction can be established at RfC/U the same as at ANI. The difference is that RfC/U is more thorough and allows more time for thoughtful consideration. ANI regrettably turns into ochlocracy. A rushed, emotional judgment of a complex matter is not good. Jehochman ^Talk 06:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your ideas about how RFCs work in this topic area are utterly naive. Nobody would even file an RFC against VK because he was beyond redemption, nobody could be bothered to take the time to document a detailed case just to be told to fuck off, especially as ANI never gave a crap either. Past RFC's against Domer and Sarah et al have achieved sod all in terms of change, through a combination of wikilawyering and willfull silence. These are editors who do not give a toss about what the community outside their small gang of meatppuppets thinks (this ANI thread should be evidence of that). As such, third party non-admin uninvolved editors will not touch RFCs on the matter with a barge pole. RFCs don't work here. If we can't have admins empowered to deploy discretionary sanctions from a neutral perspective, then by all means, let's have a full arbitration case covering all of them, because it is nonsense to suggest normal editors have not already attempted to deal with these intransegent and willfully ignorant people, who see cabals and conspiracies at every turn. They are here to do their thing inspite of the community, unless or until they are forcibly removed, like VK. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The potential for 'mission creep', to expand many Ireland-related articles (where there may be 'normal' disruptive editing) by classifying them as 'Troubles -related', is unacceptably high. Such special restrictions discourage bona fide editors from participating. RashersTierney (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As proposer. --Elonka 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are one one side of the argument? Surely not? Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence was sufficient and constructive, and I happen to agree. But the remainder, much like some of your other comments in these discussions, has been unhelpfully inflammatory - it needs to stop, and I'm quite surprised at the community's reluctance to deal with it on the spot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, because it would be an example of the use of discretionary sanctions - for which there is no consensus, as indicated above?

It is also a good example of why sanctioning less than optimal conduct during procedure discussions makes for bad decisions; the people sent to the "naughty corner" have their input removed (and why there have been cases of attempted baiting of opposing view holders or allegations of improper language to have them so removed), and are not then - and certainly don't feel themselves - part of the consensus. Thus the cycle restarts, with the added problem of "extensive block logs" being of themselves used as grounds to reduce the arguments being used - which in turn leads to expressions of frustration, resulting in calls for sanctions. It is a tough job to manage these kinds of discussions, and I have been reasonably relieved that calls for warnings and blocks of certain respondents by certain parties have been absent in the Vk discussions. If we are able to discern the premise of the rationales being presented and ignore the noise of the manner in which they are presented then there remains a chance that there can be agreement reached.

Thus endeth the lesson. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate (and have appreciated) that these sorts of disputes can lead to users making a lot of noise in frustration. That said, community patience is not infinite; if my comment is not an indication of that, consider the outcome of the above topic ban and mentorship proposals. Adopting the position you've just stated for too long has effects of its own. My comment was just a hint that the level of adherance (or the lack thereof) to expected standards of behavior and decorum by some users is declining or staying at the same unfortunate level. In other words, for that to gradually improve, my comment invites admins to do their jobs (or other users to help out), with or without tools, on or off wiki, before it's too late (or beyond the point of return). Anyway, it makes me even more glad that I'm away from this topic area normally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised this hasn't been closed as "no consensus". Is that related to the fact that most of the Admins here are on one side of the argument? Surely not? vs. Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. (referring to several Irish editors, by Angus above): which is more inflammatory, and whose "level of adherence (or lack thereof)" to decorum and is a more likely candidate to be "dealt with on the spot", that's subject to prejudices and interpretations. I'll repeat Sarah's sentiment, this discussion was closed[3] before a plea to keep it open was made; it should have stayed closed as "no consensus". Now instead it is resurrected and masquerading as a new thread. If not for the edit summaries, this would have the appearance of being a normal state of affairs to the uninvolved observer. Admins did this manipulation of the topics and archiving, and I echo a call to question such actions. Something inflammatory about that? Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, self-proclaimed Irish & British editors should be 'restricted' from those Trouble-related articles. Let the outsiders handle editing those articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not the nationalities of the ediotrs that is the problem, it is the utterly unchecked behavioural issues of a tiny meat puppetting minority that screw everything up on these articles. There are plenty of British and Irish editors who are able to edit civilly and within policy, yet I think most of the time, when they see the regulars appearing and getting up to the same old same old, they simply say, forget it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea, it's open to modifications. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting closure – I am requesting closure of this discussion. This topic, "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles", was previously closed[4] as a subtopic of "Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles". The subtopic was taken out of the archive and reopened separately at the request of user Elonka here. Other than this request for closure, there has been no activity in this discussion in the past 26+ hours. Sswonk (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure. I opened this thread, but it's clear that consensus has not been reached here. --Elonka 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(followup) I have filed a formal Request for Amendment with ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: The Troubles. --Elonka 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Support closure. While more vigilant adminning is clearly necessary on some Troubles-related pages, my to-date experience of the admins involved stands at 1 excellent and 1 terrible, and I would like to see better indicators before granting admins more power in this area. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Belated support for proposal: I closed an AE complaint as recently as a day ago that concerned the The Troubles arbitration case, and found myself a bit lost without discretionary sanctions. Enabling them would be a good thing. AGK 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

John Tran, wiki- hounding and edit warring

I am reporting SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for her continued harassment, edit warring and wiki-hounding. I was astonished at Skagitriverqueen's interest in my small town's politicians, two states away from her own. Why? "following another user around" from "Wiki-hounding" comes to mind. " Other than "following me around" there is no earthly reason for her to have happened upon these articles. This is a violation of wiki policy and done for the simple reason of hounding me and disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason.. She has made 16 edits in the last 24 hours (edit warring). I am distressed that she has continued harassing me since she is prevented from doing so on Karel's article. Amicable discussion with this user is impossible and i will not attempt to do so again. Please intervene, I am as tired of this as the many users & admins who have tried to intervene.

Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag has also exacerbated her harassment by editing on my Mayor's article: Margaret Clark JoyDiamond (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made SkagitRiverQueen aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, SkagitRiverQueen has edited a total of 2 articles that you've edited, from what I can tell. That hardly constitutes hounding. Secondly, I don't see many reverts (if any) from them on John Tran, so it doesn't seem like there has been much edit-warring going on (unless you have diffs showing otherwise). There may be wikiquettte issues with that editor, maybe not, though the bad faith between you two seems to go both ways. I don't really see substance to your accusations to be honest. -- Atama頭 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Atama, I have only edited three articles so far and she has edited my edits on all three. You want to see *substance* of "edit-warring," check out the "Charles Karel Bouley" article for the last year. I was not even aware of the term " hounding" until another editor pointed out to skagitriverquenn that she was hounding me. She has made further unsubstantiated edits based on assumptions in the John Tran article today. Furthermore, " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California, when she lives in Washington. How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Lastly, she has violated every rule of wikiquette in her egregious insults to my person to the extent that I requested the "Karel" article to be blocked. I attempted to make peace in "good faith" She rejected that overture. I am truly trying to edit in "Good Faith." I sincerely thank for your effort at impartiality. I wish you the best. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just following another editor to articles isn't hounding. I've done it myself, even WP:HOUND has a disclaimer that doing so can be beneficial, and that's even recommended in certain circumstances (spam and vandalism for example). But, following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding".

On one article, Margaret Clark, which you specifically have mentioned here the only edit that SkagitRiverQueen made was this one. That was a very positive edit, it fixed a couple of minor errors, added a wikilink, and requested sources (which is very important in a biography of a living person. They even explained the references tag on the talk page. If that was done on an article I was working on, I'd thank the editor, not complain to them.

Where Charles Karel Bouley is concerned, SkagitRiverQueen's first edit to that article was in July 2006, 2 years before you even created an account. I hardly think that you could accuse them of following you to that article. The edit wars in that article are troubling, but they involve more than just the two of you.

So your only credible claim of hounding is at John Tran. The dispute there is definitely not a good one, but it seems to be mostly a content dispute. What I'm wondering is, what would you like to happen? It wouldn't seem right for SkagitRiverQueen to be asked to leave that article, there seems to be a legitimate dispute there. The two of you are both in danger of violating, if you haven't already violated the three-revert rule (clearly a full edit war has escalated since my previous comment). Both of you are risking a block, so you need to settle things by talking rather than reverting each other. My advice is to stop accusing them of having bad intentions, ask them specifically what changes they want to make to the article and you can compromise on what to do. If you've already tried that, maybe I can give it a try (one Washington resident to another). -- Atama頭 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion this may be retaliation against by Joy against Skag for Skag's complaints against Joy in the past, last I had seen there was supposed to be some mediation going on between the two after, per Skag's request, I reopened a Wikiquette complaint that had been prematurely closed. If the editor who had been involved with mediating could be asked to come here and state their opinion regarding the mediation it may be helpful learning from the that third party why things have disintergrated. I believe User:Equazcion and User:Dmcq were also involved in listening and working on the complaint long after I left it, perhaps they have some input to share as well.Camelbinky (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO, this is just more of the same from JoyDiamond. From her first complaint against me on the Charles Karel Bouley article talk page to now, she has complained about anything I edit in Wikipedia. She looks for things to nail me on and this is just another in her long list of unfounded allegations against me. The latest wild accusation is that I caused an edit she made to the John Tran article talk page to somehow disappear because of a conflicting edit. Problem is, I hadn't edited anything on the talk page for nearly an hour before she claims I caused her edit to disappear. Whatever.

I've decided to take the high-road with her and basically ignore her crazy behavior. I will continue to edit the Tran article, but with taking great care that I don't do anything that could take on even the slightest appearance of an edit war or bad faith. Honestly, I think she has it in for me and no matter what I edit, where I edit, she will find something wrong with all of it. IMO, she wants to see me gone from Wikipedia and is working to make that happen with her wild allegations and accusations. JoyDiamond clearly does not understand that the articles she has edited are not *hers* (just look at how many times she refers to them as "my article") and that if she doesn't want what she edits to be changed or corrected then she shouldn't write it. She has previously asked that I be blocked permanently from editing the Bouley article. She's even told at least one other editor to not edit the Bouley article at all. From her own statements and actions in Wikipedia, she is not a team player.

I'm not interested in her dramatics and just want to edit in peace. Clearly, even when I have bent over backwards to try and reach out to her on the Tran talk page, she is not interested in anything other than arguing in oppositional defiance.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user SkagitRiverQueen does seem to hound people on here, per my posting on WQA. Although I have no first hand knowledge between her and JoyDiamond, she will place agitating posts if you differ from her POV, and when you then confront her on it, or defend yourself, she will immediately label your response as vandalism. Then, she goes and constantly whines to Admin. I will be the first to admit I have placed some not-so well thought thru edits, but I have never gone out of my way to harass people like she has Regisfugit (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag's comments stated "IMO" are hyperbole and generally fictional. Not so incidentally, her egregious statements are libelous. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Atami, as you said, "following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding". FYI, I never said she followed me to the Charles Karel Bouley article. I Immediately stopped editing the Margaret Clark article when she followed me there, to avoid the morass that would inevitably follow, as blatantly explicated in the John Tran article. She followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof. As you stated, that is "not allowed" (regardless of the quality of her edits). Quality? Yesterday she edited the Tran article with a completely inaccurate and ill-informed account of his election which I had to undo. I have several Rosemead-related articles to edit and cannot do so while being "hounded." Again, I am respectfully submitting this report RE: Skagitriverqueen for "wiki-hounding," formerly, stalking." Action is required and expected. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Action cannot be "expected", it can only come upon investigation. Dozens of admins read this board every day. Many recall the original discussion here by SkagitRiverQueen. I have tried to assist between the two of you as well. The commentary provided by admins above has tried to advise you of policy and the results of the investigations by a handful of admins. From my reading, there is nothing actionnable. You have not been stalked or hounded. Your use of the word "libelous" hints of a violation of WP:NLT so beware. Stop fighting each other: use WP:CONSENSUS, and also, realize your WP:COI on some topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion here by Skag is as fallacious as her many other accusations towards me. At the time, I was not aware of nor was I notified of said discussion. If investigation is required than please do so. Bwilkins, I respect your work here on Wiki but you can not possibly independently decide that I have not been stalked or hounded. I repeat: " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California. Most people have never even *heard* of Rosemead! How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Please give me one earthly reason why she would be editing this obscure little article if not for reasons of "Hounding." Again, She followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof, a violation of wiki policy. I respectfully ask that if anyone can give me *any* other reason & consensus for Skag to follow me to the two articles in dispute, please do so. I feel like I am "tilting with windmills." Thank you for your attention. Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime banned or not?

Resolved

 – Yes, ILT is banned and his/her edits are always in question. Discussing the validity of G5 should go to WT:CSD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion, ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) was banned for 18 months for socking, edit warring and general disruption and personal attacks - or so I thought. The latest few socks include Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs) who was defying the ban by creating numerous articles, nominating them for GA, and approving other people's GAs, etc. Per WP:BAN, I deleted several of the articles before someone pointed me to a discussion that I wasn't aware of. In that discussion from a few days ago, people said they were going to check the articles, but I'm not aware of any checking actually happening until this review of a single article. After starting another discussion with more mixed opinions, a DRV has now been started and this is getting silly.

So, once and for all, is ItsLassieTime banned or not? If s/he is allowed to edit any articles, that's fine, but then we need to officially unban. These banned-except-if-the-user-wants-to-write-articles situations come up far too often and it needs to stop. Do we need an RFC for the WP:BAN policy in general? Wknight94 ^talk 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not mandate the deletion of articles created by banned socks. Contested speedy deletion proposals belong at AfD, not at ANI. ^Bongo_matic 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, unfortunately, the currently correct venue is DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. ^Bongo_matic 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my original question - is ItsLassieTime really banned? If not from creating new articles, then from what? Wknight94 ^talk 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If this ANI discussion isn't about the manner / venue for determination of deletion of the articles, then please comment on that topic at the DRV rather than referring the DRV discussion here. ^Bongo_matic 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy one first: any article created by a banned user while banned can be deleted as long as it has no significant contributions by others. We don't retrospectively delete articles written before a ban but anything created by a banned user while banned using socks is subject to summary deletion, for reasons which are quite obvious.

If a blocked editor sockpuppets while banned then the articles created by the socks might reasonably treated the same way (I certainly would). Anything else makes no sense, because it would be an open invitation to socking. Large scale block evasion commonly leads to a ban anyway, so the margin between blocked and banned is not a bright line. WP:RBI articulates the general principles.

We do not distinguish on the basis of quality. We don't let blocked or banned editors contribute using socks, we don't let people proxy for them. There are excellent reasons for this. Those are general points, I've not looked to see the histories of the articles and individuals in this specific case, because you asked a general question. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well there are several people disagreeing with you and now a DRV devoted to restoring a banned user's edits. If those are indeed restored, then the user should be considered unbanned IMHO. Someone should not be simultaneously banned and allowed to create new articles. Among other things, it's not fair to that not-so-banned user. All we're doing is forcing them to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they creatd by the user while banned? That's the test. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the ban was in April, the articles at question were from November (I think - definitely long after April). But more generally, this is the 3rd or 4th time I've been embroiled in disputes like this. Banned users who can assemble decent articles always gather backers. If such people can't actually be banned, then we shouldn't bother. Wknight94 ^talk 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. For what it's worth, I think you are right. This is block evasion and subject to WP:RBI, and speedy deletion is just a special case of that. However, if the articles have significant contributions form others, or if others want to take them and make significant contributions while not actually proxying for the banned user, that should be fine. If the user wants to appeal the block (and a ban is onyl a block nobody wants to undo, timed or not), they can appeal to ArbCom. We absolutely do not make an exception to the rule to allow blocked or banned editors to contribute just because we like them or what they write. If people think blocked users should be allowed to contribute then they need to challenge the block, not facilitate block evasion. I do not deny their good faith, but I think they are mistaken and have perhaps not thought throught he implications of turning a blind eye to blocking and sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As the one who tagged the articles, I should state that I checked the history of all of them, and tagged only those that did not have significant contributions from others. A few that did, I tagged as disputed instead. They were also all created specifically by a single sock that was created after ItsLassieTime was banned. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree a bit with Guy here. I guess we all agree that the goal here is to create a quality encyclopedia. Actions which promote this are 'good', actions which take us further from the goal are 'bad'. The social aspects of Wikipedia, including banning, are meant to help the encyclopedia. In the cases of abusive editors who create quality content, I don't think deleting it is self-evidently helping the encyclopedia and merits some judgment. There are some people whose edits clearly are absolutely never welcome (such as those who have harassed other editors in real life), but in most run of the mill cases I'd lean towards blocking the account while not deleting the content would be a better course of action. henrik•talk 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But what is the point of blocking but not deleting? That doesn't help anyone. I'd prefer someone be unbanned than forced to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 ^talk 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Henrik, I don't often disagree with you but here I think I must, as you will gather. Blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and having us fight over the content contributed while evading sanctions is often precisely what people want - there is a long history of people gaming the system i exactly this way. But you can take ownership of the articles, make a significant contribution and then they can stay and the encyclopaedia wins without the problems. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I accept that there are cases where we should make it absolutely clear to someone that they're not welcome and that their contributions should be removed or deleted on sight, despite this might mean removing good content. I just think that this should be a course of action generally reserved for the most serious cases. (I haven't managed to look into the particulars of this case enough yet to have a judgment on if that is the case here).henrik•talk 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy just articulated the response I was looking for; really good contributions by a blocked/banned account can be taken over by a legit account - WP gets the content but the sock is not credited, thus providing a reason for the individual to use the proper processes to be allowed to be contribute. I realise that there is the rationale that the use of an alternate account to evidence an account blocked for specific reasons can contribute appropriately, but these socks are generally not recognised because of the dissimilarity between them. An editor whose socks closely approximate that of the blocked account are obviously continuing the behaviour that got them sanctioned, even if the content is otherwise viable. So, yeah - blocked is blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also like Guy's idea of adopting the content (though there is a nagging question in the back of my head about how to swing copyright attribution). henrik•talk 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine if the adopter were trustworthy, and not just claiming to adopt the content simply to arbitrarily avoid deletion. I've been burned a bit by that before - someone claiming to double-check the content, only to have someone else triple-check the content and discover the double-checking was crap. Wknight94 ^talk 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, it is clear that this is an inappropriate forum. This discussion belongs at WT:Banning policy and/or WT:Deletion policy and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This is not a forum for making policy, nor is it the forum for discussion these specific deletions. ^Bongo_matic 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete something just because a banned user creates it. Banned user:Peter Damian tried to play that game with us a while back and nobody took the bait and deleted the good contributions his socks made. Has anyone gone and seen if Law made any new articles before The undertow's original one-year ban expired? No, because that would be immensely stupid. Things get deleted because of what they are, not because of what person or unperson created them. Now, if the banned user was banned for questionable contributions, as opposed to "backstage" antics, we have every reason to be suspicious of the socks' contributions and delete if anything seems sketchy. So I ask: is there any reason to believe that ItsLassieTime contributes bad content? If not, these should be undeleted. --NE2 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors with views on the manner of deletion of these specific articles are encouraged to opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. I would hope that even those who support deletion would have the honesty to opine that the articles should be listed and then opine delete at the subsequent AfD. ^Bongo_matic 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I plan to once I get a reply to my question (or am ignored). --NE2 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an answer for you:Template:Bannedmeansbanned

I think that's pretty clear, and supported by current policy, albeit a policy that is often ignored. Beeblebrox (talk)

First, template≠policy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. It may be "pretty clear", but your interpretation of it is one-sided. "May" does not mean "must"—an observation made on the policy page itself— and the policy is not written in a way that makes it obviously independent of other policies, such as the speedy deletion policy that prohibits renomination in favor of AfD listing. In my opinion, creation of these pages were "obviously helpful edits" which means that per the balance of policy, an AfD discussion, rather than a speedy deletion, is warranted. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NE2: Then what is the point of a ban? To answer your question, I've heard there were sourcing questions. The account and its socks used nothing but offline sources, and verification was difficult at best. The first link above gives the entire ban discussion. Wknight94 ^talk 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is repellent to the notion of this encyclopedia to see FUTON bias being brought into a content discussion in this manner. ^Bongo_matic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the ban was, as far as I can tell, to keep the user from abusively socking. I don't see any abuse by the user here, unless there's reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the articles. --NE2 03:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also from the banning policy: "It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four days remaining" to "ten days remaining". So if the user doesn't subsequently evade the ban again, his or her eventual total duration would be 16 days." So that 18 months should be reset to the day the last article was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The timer was reset, but the person doesn't care anyway. From the ban discussion and SPIs, people weren't real sure which was even the original account. Wknight94 ^talk 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• cmt i remember this user. They were abusive, they lied, the created hoaxes, they socked, they whined to get unblocked, they socked some more, they seemed schizophrenic (making up stories about neighbors and daughters and god know's what else) and the articles they wrote were fiction-filled pieces of garbage. They are banned. RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you believe that these articles were hoaxes? --NE2 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the [[original ban, it does not appear that there was any accusation of hoaxing or introducing incorrect information into articles. ^Bongo_matic 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

@NE2, I'm not going to check each and every one of these articles, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. None of us should. It is not fair to expect the community in general to babysit a user who has shown a proclivity towards bad content or bad behavior. Or are you volunteering to be a permanent mentor for this person? If so, that would be news to him/her since I don't think s/he has engaged a single person in a real conversation, and certainly would not be interested in mentorship. The first time you caught him/her using one sock to approve another sock's GA, or sourcing an article with a book that may or may not exist, s/he would simply vanish into another sock and we start over again. Wknight94 ^talk 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Its Lassie Time" was a thoroughly bad-faith user who created a large number of socks in order to boost his own articles to GA status, until one slipup this past summer exposed his shenanigans. He's banned and should stay banned until or if he decides to abide by the rules. And, yes, anything determined to have been written by his socks since then "may" be deleted, for sure, regardless of any alleged "merit". Banned editors are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Have there been cases of this user misusing sources? If so, can you link to the relevant discussion? --NE2 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with many of the comments made above. Think about it this way. The user was banned because the community reached a consensus that it could no longer deal with the user's edits and behaviour on Wikipedia. It was too disruptive to have to keep following them up and double-checking their work, and so on. If that was the point of the ban, then it makes absolutely no sense to put the onus back on the community to look at the work the user created while banned to determine if the content has merit or not. There should be a prima facie case that an article created by a banned user with no significant contributions by any other editor does not belong on Wikipedia. It is an exception to the normal deletion policy. The community should not be required to look up the sources, make sure everything is correct, etc., when the article is created by a banned user. Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not an exception to deletion policy at all. See WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN. It's just a policy that is frustrating to those who value having any kind of content regardless of its reliability or the luggage that accompanies it. Wknight94 ^talk 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's the starting and ending point of any discussion on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense if said editor was banned for bad articles. But if said editor was banned for, say, adding unconstructive posts to every AN/I thread, there's no prima facie reason to doubt content they add. --NE2 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Said editor was banned, however, for horrible socking and building an almost pathological set of lies around each sock and using those socks to support themselves in discussions over content. The editor lost the communities trust, and reflected an appallng lack of honesty that has only continued since the ban, as evidenced by the appearance of more socks since then. Why presume to trust their content is okay when all else were lies? We don't even know for sure if ILT was male or female as they claimed to be both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Singularity and Wknight94, you both have implied or stated that the banned editor's content is somehow more suspect than the rest of the content that is added to the encyclopedia without stewardship or review. What is the basis for this? I was not a participant in the original banning discussion, or subsequent sockpuppet investigations, and such a claim, if demonstrated to be valid, would (of course, at AfD, not at Speedy) be a consideration favoring deletion. Why do you suggest this? Collectonian, if that logic is sound, then why don't we delete all content from banned users (not just that created after the ban)? ^Bongo_matic 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, much of ILT's contributions have either been removed or reviewed by others and worked on to ensure they are valid. That said, the simple answer is they weren't banned then. They are banned now. They continue to lie to the community and engage in their attention seeking behavior to gain DYKs and GAs. The serious focus on this both in the previous ANI and now would seem to indicate an editor willing to go to great lengths to get these "awards", making it clear that any contributions they have made should be suspect and reviewed for validity. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bongomatic, why "of course, at AfD, not at Speedy"? Is this simply a case of you being philosophically opposed to WP:CSD#G5? Wknight94 ^talk 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Of course" because I obviously believe (hence filing a DRV) that the speedy deletion of these articles is out of policy regardless of whether there should be a G5 in the first place. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, how would the sex of the banned editor be relevant to anything? ^Bongo_matic 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then when would you consider a G5 deletion to be valid and within policy? The user was definitely banned and G5 is very clear. As to the user's gender, it was brought up as a pattern of obvious deception, that's all. Wknight94 ^talk 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other editor removed the {{db-banned}} template from the article—per convention and normal operation of the speedy deletion process. ^Bongo_matic 07:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are calling for deletion: what's your view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libertarian organizations? --NE2 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already deleted that one in fact - back when that sock was first uncovered. But Skomorokh (talk · contribs) agreed to take full responsibility for the content, and has done so. I have heard no such agreement here, except for the one yet-to-be-deleted article approved at WT:GA. Instead, what I see here is people blindly opposing WP:CSD#G5 itself and removing db-g5 tags with no explanation or agreement to check references. If that were to happen in this case, I might change my tune a bit, but I firmly believe that the default action in such cases is delete. Wknight94 ^talk 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like some editors are opposed to WP:CSD#G5. If that's the case, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ and not here. Until there is a consensus to alter or remove G5, it is policy. Singularity42 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the rhetorical question in the title is yes. At the very least, ItsLassieTime's (sock's) contributions are under greater scrutiny once the sock is exposed. It is how one interpets G5 that is the question. The real question is how much respect we should show Bongomatic, the editor in good standing who removed the G5's. As the banned editor was not an (article) hoaxster, there is not much doubt that the individual articles are not complete hoaxes. I think that the act of removing the G5s should be taken as sufficient vouching for the content, as taking enough responsibility for the articles that they should not be speedy deleted. That is the norm of how we understand reverting reversions of content additions by banned editors. Asking that someone immediately and completely verify everything in a large collection of articles is asking too much. Implicitly saying that the articles are as good as the average new non-speediable content is enough. This could be made more explicit in policy. People who are still suspicious could prod them, and if necessary afd them, which would lead to less drama.John Z (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree that simply removing csd tags is sufficient vouching for the content. It could just as easily mean that someone is philosophically opposed to G5. In the other case that NE2 brought up, Skomorokh (not an admin at the time) asked me if s/he could take a look at that article and a few others so that s/he could take a closer look. I agreed and restored. S/he said articles A and B could be re-deleted and that C and D were okay and s/he wanted to take responsibility for them. So that is what happened. In the current case, other than the single article in this case, I haven't heard anyone vouch for any of this sock's contributions - and it's been four days or so. And I stopped deleting them when someone notified me that there had been discussion, so several are still in main space for viewing. The short version of my rambling here is that someone needs to really make a case for keeping such articles, and really agree to watch and maintain them since the banned user is (theoretically) unable to. Just removing a csd tag and forgetting about them is not enough. Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone is philosophically opposed to G5 and goes around removing all speedy tags of a certain type, without regard to content, his actions will surely be seen and stopped. I don't think it is reasonable or fair to Bongomatic to assume he is such a person. There has been consensus for a very long time that reverting a banned editor's contributions is something that may be done, but is not something that must be done, and making G5 into a must-do is clearly beyond policy and consensus. Once an article is created, we do not insist that anyone watch and maintain it. I think that if we agree that removing correct speedy tags should not be done lightly - and I don't think anyone goes around reverting G5's on sight - what is the real problem? Would something in the G5 criterion warning removers and saying that removers vouch to some degree for the articles satisfy your concerns?

A list of the deleted and not-deleted articles is at User_talk:MuZemike#Check-list. I suggest people take a look at the blue links. They aren't at all the kind of crap that makes up almost all of CsD, and while checking everything could take time, checking enough to make a stub that would pass A7 with a few clicks to google books is easy for the ones I looked at. The articles make their own case. Deletion is a last resort. Stubbing and transferring the current content to the talk page is one alternative, prodding if there is genuine doubt of notability is another.John Z (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

removing a G5 speedy tag or any other speedy tag does not imply that you vouch for the article involved--it means you want to keep it there long enough for people to actually think about it. There is no deadline on getting a G5 deleted. What is unjustified is replacing it and deleting the article anyway. It implies that you are quite sure you can think for the community --for an admin to do that that after someone actually has disagreed is very close to wheel warring. In a more general way, if the policy is being used to justify that its time to change the wording of policy to avoid such an interpretation. It's clear from this discussion it such an interpretation does not necessarily have full consent. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on article subject (living person) at AFD

I've just redacted some nasty, personally directed comments in an AFD nomination (Articles for deletion/Frederick A. Aprim) made by User:Qworty. I expect the nominator will not respond favorably. I think the comments were both gratuitous and dubious, particularly regarding the motive ascribed (derisively) to the person involved by the nominator. I'd therefore like to have outside opinions on whether it was appropriate for me to remove the comments involved under WP:BLP, and whether additional/alternative action would be (more?) apropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• A polite note on his tlak page might well have achieved the desired result. Better to have him refactor his own comments than include an aggressive statement of redaction within the text of the nomination (which is really not a lot better than the nominator's comments about the subject). Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps it might also be an idea if an admin were to close what should have been an obvious G11? Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed this AfD as delete. I agree with Guy; I don't think this was as egregious as it's being painted to be. A polite request for redaction was the better option. No real harm done, though. Tan | 39 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I really can't fathom the responses here. Flagrant BLP violations are to be removed "without waiting for discussion." The user in question has a significant history of incivility and derisive comments violating BLP, and as recently as a few days ago did not respond to similar claims of incivility in an AFD discussion [5]. The article subject is a political activist who has self-published books relating to his political advocacy; there was no justification for the comment that his purpose in publishing the books was to "go around posing as an author." There was also no justification for the (transparently false) attempt to out the article subject as a blocked user. It's not appropriate to use AFD as a coatrack to attack the article subject, notable or net, particularly when the attacking comments are so far from accurate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason BLP doesn't give us leave to do that is demonstrated here. You have interpreted an attempt to be funny or witty as defamation (I'm referring to this revision, and have refactored another user's comments and left a somewhat hyperventilating comment here and at the AfD. AfD nominations like that are not OK and should trigger some response, but that response is best left to discussion and warning, not immediately escalated. WP:BLP is an astonishingly powerful policy and requires that we be responsible enough to invoke it only when necessary. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "an attempt to be funny or witty" by ridiculing the subject of an article is exempt from BLP. And I don't believe, given similar edits from the nominator elsewhere, that the nominator's primary motive was to do anything but ridicule the subject. And what is funny or witty about making a transparently false allegation that the article subject had posted "racist rants" to Wikipedia, a claim added after the revision you link to? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD opener might have, by AGF of bring specific and grabbing attention, accidentally been in not quite the best of faith. The editor does actually have Wikipedia guidelines to back it up; This[6] (deeper in) WP:N reminds that a book itself means absolutely nothing. Should it have been redacted? Eeeeeh, probably no, but objecting to the statement wasn't unreasonable. I think the slightly less formal XfD discussion can help people say exactly what they mean and I'll say things a bit bluntly like that sometimes. The tone of the discussion as a whole matters at least a little, too, and BLP-type articles get a lot of different reactions from people. If the actual article has content of that level, you'd be in your rights to blank (in extremely bad cases), or remove it and explain on edit summary; if there's a blind revert with nothing on talk page, that's more the sort of thing for more official resolution. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Justastud15 and persistant copyright violations

I'd like to raise my concerns regarding edits by User:Justastud15 and persistent copyright violations. This user has on about six occasions copy and pasted material from other websites; they were given warnings ([7], [8], [9]) and has received two blocks of their editing privileges as a result ([10] & [11]). In addition, User:Justastud15 has a history of uploading images claiming that they created the work however the images appear to be taken from other Internet sites; they have been warned about uploading images taken from other sites ([12](4 images), [13], and now [14]). In my opinion, this creates possible problems with other images the user has uploaded, though no match is immediately found for them.

Following User:Justastud15's last problem with copy/pasting text, I approached User:Moonriddengirl directly about the problem. I explained([15]) I was unsure of the appropriate place to raise this issue. She said I could take it here but would address that problem herself. Since User:Justastud15 has once again uploaded an image that's in violation of copyrights after having been warned several times in the past I figure it's time to raise the issue here. If there is a better place, first, my apologies, and second I'll take my concerns to the appropriate place (once I know what that is). --TreyGeek (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the right place for a copyright block. Images like this one (see [16] to reconcile uploader) just scream copyvio. Please file a contributor copyright investigation and we'll have a look at these users' other edits. MER-C 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for extensive investigation on the one you noted, it's easily found here [17] by an image search (see the second row of photos from the bottom). Will tag as a copyvio, I agree that any other image uploads need to be carefully examined as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

←I support a CCI. This contributor has been blocked twice previously for copyright violations. The last time he was blocked, I advised him to familiarize himself thoroughly with copyright policies as future blocks could be extended or indefinite. If he did as advised this note is highly implausible. WP:C says, very clearly, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement...." Furthermore, with respect to the now deleted File:NOsipczak.jpg, he said, "I (Justastud15 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." If he found it on Facebook, as he said to TreyGeek, then he knew that was untrue, and this was deliberate deception. I believe an extended or indefinite block may be warranted at this point, but since it's already at ANI figured to discuss it rather than implementing it directly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Remind me again, what was the other username in the deleted diff I posted above? MER-C 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hornswoggle93 (talk · contribs). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested by MER-C and supported by Moonriddengirl I've submitted a request for CCI. My next question/concern is with this type of investigation or inspection of a user's edits how important is it to raise the possibility of a person editing 'outside' of their username. Say, for instance, it is suspected that a user has, at least in the past, made edits as an IP user while not logged in; is it important to raise this suspicion and, if so, at what point would it be appropriate to do so? (BTW, I'm not accusing anyone of intentional sock puppetry.) --TreyGeek (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally when involved in these, I have attempted to identify all identities under which a contributor has added substantial content. Unfortunately, this isn't always possible. If a contributor is believed to have used an IP that has been widely used by others, it may be easier to list articles of additional concern for evaluation than IPs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose to be more specific, the person behind 68.188.29.77 (talk · contribs) is the one that I am bringing up. The connection is from a post I made to the IP's talk page([18]) thanking them for one of their edits. Minutes later User:Justastud15 responded([19]) on my talk page specifically to what I said to the IP.

The edits made by this IP, the last was at the beginning of August, number over 1000. Most of the edits are to MMA record tables, which are likely not a problem. However, I haven't had time to examine all of the edits. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Over 1,000 isn't that many. I'll run it as well. This contributor has introduced both textual and visual copyvios, as you know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the listing is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Justastud15. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Lambanog

User:Lambanog has, I feel, engaged in disruptive editing in the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article. I am a WP admin but, as I am involved in a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute with this editor, it would not be appropriate for me to institute a block. Re the signs of disruptive editing, in this edit, the user fact-bombed and tag-bombed the article, he has been tendentious in talk page discussions regarding the article, and does not engage in consensus building. This edit responded to the fact-bombing, a discussion of the tag-bombing can be seen here. The user's initial edit was about six weeks ago, and his talk page contains several warnings and notifications of problem edits. Because of his precocious edit history, including apparently clueful comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I suspect that this user is a sockpuppet, and I will probably be requesting a sockpuppet investigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge you Wtmitchell to withdraw your complaint. As an admin you should know other admins would rather not be wasting their time on frivolous complaints. This action of yours will either reflect badly on you or me or both of us if only because it is unnecessary. That said if this does push through I will vigorously defend my actions and have every confidence that I will be vindicated. My apologies in advance to whoever is going to handle this case if it pushes through. — Lambanog (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the complaint has merit or I would not have filed it. I look at WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing and WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors, and see that your edit pattern in the article at issue fits bullet points there. Having looked at your edit history and noted meritorious edits to other articles, I don't understand your positions in our article talk page discussions, your reasons for refusing to explain your positions, nor your disruptive edits impeding progress toward improving the article. In the absence of explanation or discussion, I am mystified by your multiple taggings disputing the neutrality of material copiously supported by verifiable reliable sources which I have added to the article and by your expressed unwillingness to discuss the tags you have added.

You have asserted that I have "selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints", something I have not consciously done—I have looked for and been unable to find reliably-sourced material supporting an alternative view of the article topic, would add such material with due weight if I could find it, and have asked you without success to please add cite-supported material on relevant points which you might be aware of but I have missed. Instead of cooperation and consensus-building, I've been faced with fact-bombing and tag-bombing.

I don't relish going forward with this complaint but, faced with your disruptive editing in the article at issue which impedes improvement of the article, it is the alternative which I see open. If you will stop the disruption and either remove your tags or work with me in identifying and dealing with whatever specific concerns moved you to place the tags, I'll be happy to withdraw the complaint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that WP:V is an entirely separate concept from WP:NPOV. Just because everything in an article is verifiable does not mean it will necessarily follow it will be neutral point of view. Both policies must be met. You say you have looked but cannot find any reasons. Hogwash, the reasons are there in front of everyone to see. One could use Westphalian principles just as effectively to argue on behalf of the First Malolos Republic. Certain facts in the article on the Philippine-American War and other related articles could be used to do the same. One could also extrapolate reasons pretty easily. For example does the United States accept international law as more binding than American law? Similarly what do you think the Philippine Supreme Court would say on the matter in regards to the Philippines? That you are blind to such arguments does not mean they are not there. Your entire approach to the subject can be criticized as having an intrinsic bias. The way you present it, the way you order it, the views you place emphasis on. For example why should international law have any relevance at all? You simply presume it does. Why should only contemporaneous views be the only legitimate ones? Again you presume and only cite text that conforms with your preferred point of view.

Also what's this about me impeding improvement of the article? You asked for comment and you have received it from me. You asked at Tambayan Philippines and hardly anyone else has responded. I can rightfully say that aside from yourself no one else has contributed to the article even if it may not be in the way you have wanted. I am not obliged to write the article for you. If you don't like my input ask someone else willing for theirs. I am not stopping you.

As for supposedly disruptive editing, aside from two short lines I introduced from the first time I saw the article to highlight the logical fallacies of text that you use, I have not even altered your original text much less deleted anything you have written in the article. My "disruptive editing" then would seem to consist almost entirely of the tags I introduced. I think I have been pretty descriptive in the talk section in stating my concerns. I note that you have made modifications to better conform to those comments, so even you conceded I have comments of merit. I note further that two others have commented that I have seen and the result has been silence from one and comments sharing my concerns from the other. Consensus therefore would seem to be on my side. If you think that is sockpuppetry at work then I will inform you now: prepare to be disappointed. As for being "precocious", maybe I'm just a quick study or more observant than you're used to. I've been reading a lot of the help and policy pages because of my bumpy initial reception. One of the things I notice for example is that you should probably read the top of this ANI page. Withdraw this complaint. Lambanog (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal by User:InkHeart (formerly User:Colleen16)

User:Colleen16 has repeatedly removed maintenance tags from the article Lee Jun Ki, despite revisions by me and another editor. We both also explained the need for sources in the page's discussion page and her own page, and pointed her to the policy page on the subject. After she was explained to several times and continued to remove them, I gave her warnings, and she responded by removing them and pasting them onto my page. I continued to try to talk to her about it, and she feigned understanding, later removing the tags again. I just realized that maintenance templates are not protected by 3RR as I had thought, so I have stopped my revisions. I'm not suggesting that she be blocked, but maybe an admin can talk to her about it. Ωphois 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Colleen16 User:InkHeart has been notified of this discussion here. Singularity42 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the redirection of Colleen16's talk page to Inkheart's talk page here. Are they the same user?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) Sorry about that...

Yes. A rename was approved. See this edit summary. Singularity42 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the section heading to reflect the change. Singularity42 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unrelated to the original complaint, but it looks like the user is now editing under both usernames. I can address it on their talk page, but perhaps it might better coming from an admin? Singularity42 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know how a renamed user is editing under two names at once before I try giving advice.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they're using both accounts, and it's clearly the same person, that's a sock. They'd better have a good reason for using both accounts...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, they renamed and they're using both accounts?? How is that technically possible?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just figured it out -- Colleen16 was recreated after the rename. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think they recreated the old account on the 14th, based on the history of the account. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have some serious WP:OWN issues over the above article and others, and has a habit of labeling any edit that tries to fix non-free content or sourcing issues as "vandalism". The user was blocked twice over the weekend for 3RR violations, abuses Twinkle, and could use a refresher on WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies. Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was involved with both editors last week, having blocked Colleen16 (pre-Inkheart) and Ophois for edit-warring. First, kudos to Ophois for opening this discussion and realising you were in danger of getting into a revert battle again - your mature, thoughtful response to the situation does you credit. Second, I'm confused too as to how Colleen16/Inkheart can be editing from two accounts simultaneously; if she recreated the Colleen16 account after the rename, why would it still show her earlier contribs and block? Surely these wouldn't show up for a brand new account under the same name?[Never mind, confused myself!] However, I agree with Mosmof's and others' assessments of her editing. Maybe mentoring might be worth suggesting before she ends up with increasingly long/indef blocks? Although she's been here a while, she really doesn't seem to have much of a handle on WP editing or conduct policies. EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene is right. I don't fully understand the Wikipedia ruling if anyone is will to explain to me the mistakes I've made (in simpler terms, I am slow) I would be greatly appreciated. Colleen16 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat or vandalism?

I reverted what I thought was vandalism but then thought, maybe it is not vandalism and person is serious? See this diff. What are admins thoughts? Should a check user be made?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it was at Talk:Suicide, I think vandalism is a safe assumption.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Very borderline WP:SUICIDE. However, I generally advocate "better safe than sorry" in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They never actually said that they were going to commit suicide, but, if this is real, then they're definitely depressed and/or suicidal. However, it's certainly possible that this is just a troll. (On a different note, I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy about suicide threats. I was wondering about it just a few minutes ago. I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia.)--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's an essay (and, from what I've heard, a rejected proposal)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay that is generally followed, but was decided shouldn't specifically be made policy. Singularity42 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an involved editor at the article Tubefilter and has a long history of disagreement with Otterathome (talk · contribs). They have a disagreement about appropriate talk page material. This has now escalated to a block imposed by Sarek. This is inappropriate use of admin tools in a dispute. [20]. I previously asked Otterathome to stop edit warring on talk pages, and he DOES need to take the hint - but a 48 hour block is abusive, especially when imposed by someone involved with the discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment that Otterathome repeatedly tried to eradicate was related to the topic at hand (the notability of the article and the attempt by you and Otter to get the article deleted). This is a clear case of an editor disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and a good block. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment was not about the article. It was a sarcastic comment directed at users. I do not disagree that Otter should have left it there, but a (1) block by an (2) involved administrator is not appropriate. Miami33139 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not expected to be perfect, and if they see disruption they should do what is necessary to stop it - involved or otherwise. I cannot see how it can be "abusive" to apply a good block of an appropriate length for disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This was not a disagreement; this was a user breaking policy and an admin upholding it. That this admin has had impose sanctions on this user in the past is not what "uninvolved admin" is meant to prevent. This is wiki-lawyering at its worst. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarek was involved in the conversation where the revert took place and has been itching to impose bans on Otter for a long time. Miami33139 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Advocating for blocks of disruptive users does not disqualify one from actually carrying out those blocks. Your are purposefully and intentionally warping the "uninvolved admin" concept into directions it was never meant to be taken. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

cf. my comment related to this issue here --Tothwolf (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have renamed the title of this thread to "Review requested of a block by a possibly involved adminstrator". Carry on. NW (Talk) 23:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block, but Sarek ideally should have asked someone else to do it, just to avoid this sort of question. It saves trouble in the end. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per DGG. This block cannot be lifted completely unless he fulfils what John specified when declining unblock request. I don't approve of this wikilawyering over involvement; but only thing that could possibly be done to remedy that is for an admin to lift and reimpose the block for the remaining duration, because it was a good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest waiting to see if he can work things out with John: if he can, no need for a reblock, we can just skip straight to time served.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree; that is the most preferred course of action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for community ban of User:Eloquence

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:RFC/U.

Community consensus is nearly unanimous that this year's fundraising banners are atrocious. In accordance with this consensus, the messages were disabled in the site-wide Common.css file. Unfortunately, that change was rolled back by User:Eloquence, under the claim that "fundraiser sitenotices aren't subject to community consensus". Other statements by this user, who apparently was appointed to some kind of position by Jimbo, exhibit further contempt for the Wikipedia community. Examples: [21] ("community members hating a banner tells us very little about how well it works or how the general public perceives it ... removal of the site-wide fundraising messages by community members isn't OK"), [22] ("fundraising banners have always been Foundation decisions"), [23] ("the parts of a message or banner that make you hate it are also the ones that make it work"), [24] (insisting that banners need to be as obtrusive as possible).

We must emphasize that this site belongs to the Wikipedia community, not Jimbo's cronies. At this point in time, it appears that the only way to effectively communicate the depth of our feelings in this matter is to community-ban Erik Moller, aka Eloquence, from the English Wikipedia. Time to reassert ourselves and take back this site. It's a drastic step, but it is the only thing we can do, unless Wikipedia is to degenerate into just another closed, top-down website. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Erik Möller is the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation. –xeno^talk 18:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• This is the wrong venue for these concerns. WMF has the right to execute official actions on WMF sites. This site is literally owned by WMF. Administrators here do not have the power to overrule official actions. Please take your concerns to WMF. I am closing this discussion as it is not an incident that can be handled here. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The Troubles - Editors and Admins appear to be expanding Arbcoms rulings to non troubles related articles

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.

I am not sure if this is the correct place to comment on this matter but there is a problem over at British National Party that needs urgent attention.

An Admin has come along and claimed that this article is all of a sudden now "Troubles related" which means there is a 1RR imposed on it. The BNP have NOTHING to do with the troubles, and if this is not dealt with its clear admins will go around imposing their own views on any articles that could be mildly related to Ireland. That would include the United Kingdom, and all UK political parties which have a policy on Northern Ireland.

How is that reasonable? Who decided this and where was it decided that the BNP is related to the troubles? The BNP is not a loyalist group associated with nothern Ireland, it is a far right British nationalist party which is completely different. Please help thank you. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, BNP doesn't fall under Troubles. Having said that, the edit-spatting there, needs to be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree although i only made to reverts, well within the reasonable limit and that was because people changed the article with no agreement originally. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the other suggested places to post placed above this queestion however, requesting a clarification from arbcom is going to take a long time. I need admins to look at this matter and i would like to see exactly where in the past hour the BNP has become a "Troubles related article". There is no justification what so ever for this. This appears to be one admin deciding for themselves that its suddenly troubles related, and there has been a pattern. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since one of their principles is to welcome Eire back into the United Kingdom, I'd say that falls under the "closely related" description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

like i say if we are apply that as the required standard for "troubles related". then place the 1RR on every single article to do with the United Kingdom, Ireland and their political parties, they all have policies on northern Ireland. This is shocking. The BNP is not a loyalist paramilitary group from Northern Ireland it is a far right racist political party. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say?! I predicted exactly this problem when some Admins compared Ireland/Britain disputes to those about Macedonia! At least I guess this is at least as much a "troubles related" article as the M50 motorway. Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Atleast the Motorway fight was between Irish and British editors. I do not think Irish editors are involved with whats happening over at the BNP page although now its been labelled as troubles related it will act as a magnet. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is extremely likely! As so a new front will open. This is more like the Americans stepping into Vietnam than Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made edits to that article going back to beginning of 08 and BW maybe it was your edits and not as you call Irish editors that brought Elonka to her decision. BigDunc 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This page needs Oversighting - desperately!

Resolved

 – Revisions partially deleted by User:Alison

.

The edit summaries that the vandalism-only accounts included need to be obliterated - now! GiantSnowman 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries appear to have been deleted already...I don't think oversighting would add anything to the solution. MirrorLockup (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits were removed after I posted this...and oversighting/deleting - whatever, it all has the same outcome in the end! GiantSnowman 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, emailing User:Oversight is a faster way to handle this that doesn't broadcast the fact that there is oversight-worthy material sitting out there for people to read. NW (Talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all worked out well in the end, but I'll use that method in future! GiantSnowman 20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry - it's all good :) - Allie ^❤ 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Submarine Communications Cable

At WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Submarine_cables I have provided the details of an incident which was previously mentioned on this noticeboard. Sorry if this is not the proper way to alert you to this, but I can't find the previous discussion. NathanielDawson (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, block evasion, spamming and disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. --Hu12 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified others involved, Seems NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) is continuing his disruption pattern, Ive had to close several discusion by request. Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, spamming, block evasion and disruption.

Accounts

• NathanielDawson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• CasesBased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 24.203.133.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 83.170.113.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 174.132.254.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• American1heavy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 66.131.119.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Misinterpretation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Antiquity10091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

User NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of promoting terabitconsulting.com. It has become apparent that these accounts and IP's are only being used for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT "vehicle for advertising". Repeatedly NathanielDawson (talk · contribs) resist moderation and continues to edit in pursuit of a certain point and reject community input from impartial editors and/or administrators (despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy) that his edits are disruptive and unproductive. At this stage, more apropriate measures may be warranted.--Hu12 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the posts. There is no promotion of that website taking place. There are reasoned discussions about actions that have taken place since the external links were removed. An involved admin, Hu12 continues closing these debates. NathanielDawson (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should point out to User:Hu12 that the links themselves were never seriously considered to be spam; instead it was the manner in which I inserted them that was spam. I've long since given up trying to insert them, even though I think their removal, after more than two years, was inappropriate. My primary concern now is ensuring that the two new sections which I added to the article are correctly sourced. Note that rather than deleting the new, irrelevant sources, I have left them on the page and tried to seek consensus via the above debate. But User:Hu12 saw it more fit to close the discussion rather than allow it to play out. Perhaps he or she would prefer that I delete the references without discussion first?

Why are legitimate discussions being stifled by involved admins?

NathanielDawson (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Two-year-old spam is still spam. Sometimes it can go under the radar for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that really contributes to the discussion. By the way, Baseball Bugs, I do admire you; I actually laughed out loud when I read your posts about "legal threats" below. Thank you for lowering my blood pressure, honestly!

My point is that the references, which happened to be up there for two years, to this day were never considered to be spammy in and of themselves. They were blocked on the spam list only because of the way in which I kept on reinserting them.

Back to my original point, which is the way in which the references were replaced with completely irrelevant and illegitimate ones. A debate about this was taking place until User:Hu12 closed the discussion.

Anyway, it's clear that nobody who has commented on this issue today knows anything at all about the actual topic. Whatever, fine; let the page suck. I did my best to improve it, first with updates to the external links, then with references to peer-reviewed sources. But I was prevented from doing so. It would be nice if the page could be cleaned up now, but absolutely nobody has shown an inclination to do that. These noticeboard pages are really a whole other universe of confused logic and people looking to exert their control over this increasingly sad and agenda-driven community. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Links that are spam can get inserted and it can take awhile for them to be uncovered. Their long-term presence does not legitimize them. Anyone can raise issues about the legitimacy of links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. How old are we? I never said that the links' longevity proved that they weren't spam. Anyway my wife says that I'm nuts to be even participating in this discussion and she's absolutely right. This is a magnificent forum for ten year olds to exert power and vanquish all attempts at logic. Maybe I can spend the next two years editing pages about the X-Men and then become an administrator. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current article. The terabit consulting links were replaced with better links, and all of the other map links you were attempting to remove look fine to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the references. The references have been replaced, that is the issue. I wish there was someone who could follow this debate from its beginnings, but its impossible because User:Hu12 closed the debate. NathanielDawson (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP 92.252.45.229

Resolved

 – User:Martinj Hoekstra got 'im. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anom user is continuing vandalizing user pages adding question: "I want to know, if Benedikt XVI. is gay or bisexual. Is there anyone who can answer these question ?" The example is here, but there are lot of similar acts. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You needWP:AIV.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to the IP's irrelevant question, at his IP page & at the Pope's article. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat on users talk page

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

---

Resolved

 – An actual admin came along, and said he's just taking the mick (whatever the hell that means). Let's go spend our time on some other ANI thread with more staying power. In a pinch, someone could start a kmweber thread or something... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatemansgc&diff=326241312&oldid=326240368

User_talk:66.177.73.86

Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read the exchange there; this was obviously a joke. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a joke... If it's not, then there's not much in the way of legal action that he could take...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Legal threats are forbidden. Block it. Especially be mindful that he admits to being a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of the 3 non-admins in this thread are you commanding to block the user? He put a tongue-sticking-out-smiley after the legal threat. That means he's just taking the mick. –xeno^talk 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the only admin within 50 miles of this thread; he must be talking to YOU. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't command anyone, I merely advise. And part of that tongue-out was likely related to his boasting about sockpuppetry. Have fun! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that anyone actually thought I was being even remotely serious is downright saddening. I've just lost faith in humanity, people. The joke could not have been any more obvious. My 3-year-old brother could tell I was joking. Good LORD, people.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your whole exchange from the beginning and realised that it was nothing but friendly banter. However, I totally agree with Bugs. Rules are a lot easier to enforce if they are zero tolerance so as to remove any potential for 'grey areas' or discussion, so the moment we make an exception (even for such an obvious joke) the whole concept of WP:LEGAL is thrown into jeopardy. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

However, I've just seen we have an incompetent admin so, w/e. 'Sue me'. RaseaC (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG IM GONNA SUE U!!1!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... if I told you "lol dats so mean i oughta kill u for saying dat XD", I would be thrown into Wikipedia court? Blocking me from accessing the English Wikipedia for such an obvious joke is beyond absurd. The more time I spend here, the dumber it gets.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think a block for legal threats makes any sense. However, the insults you seem to be flinging at everyone at every opportunity are getting quite old fast. If you aren't going to improve the Encyclopedia, could you please find another website to play on? I note you said earlier today that if someone gave you a warning, we wouldn't hear from you anymore. If you aren't going to stop the nonsense, then please keep your word, and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am archiving this thread for the second time and I do not think that edit-warring with an admin on an admin noticeboard about this now-non-issue would be advisable. Please move along somewhere else, as Floquenbeam so rightly says. Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

A stitch in time save nine....

Could some admin kindly blank this discussion from the talk page, as now 4 editors find it disparages the topic of the person. Nine days ago admin James086 stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [25], and nothing more has been added since. I asked James086 a week ago to follow through, but it seems he has intermittent bouts of activity, so I request if some other admin could nip any potential escalation in the bud and blank the section. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the individual referred to has died, what is so pressing about this discussion that it requires blanking? It seems to me like a legitimate discussion on an article talkpage. Crafty (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So... because they're dead, we're free to spread vile slander and libel about them? Interesting logic you got there...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

@Craftyminion, she only recently died, any living relatives, friends and associates of this person reading Wikipedia may find the discussion disturbing. Common decency and respect I guess. --Martintg (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Which four editors, Martintg? Aren't they the participants of the WP:EEML mailing list?--Dojarca (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Termer's already asked an administrator about this in an attempt to censor a valid, content-related question. This is the reply he got: [26]. This case strangely looks like a bloc action from EEML + Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list). For context, a petty useful diff to take a look at. So much for asking a legitimate and earnest talk page question–one that I would still like an answer to. Best regards, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note that in the Australian context, due to the structure of libel law, people have a tendency to wait until a person has died to speak about them frankly. Additionally, wikipedia is not censored, and the BLP reasons for caution elapse with death. Of course, any added content should be RSed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many US states have libel laws against statements that “blacken the memory of one who is dead", but this is not some legalistic or abstract discussion on the appropriateness of libeling the dead and I am not requesting blanking of the section on that basis. But I am requesting that this be blanked on the following reasons:

1. The article talk page is not a forum
2. The question was asked and answered
3. No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days
4. A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency.
5. This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation.
6. Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment
7. Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line.
8. The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this.
9. In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground.

--Martintg (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "The article talk page is not a forum" —The question asked at the talk page was relevant to the article and directly connected to the editor's task of editing it.
   2. "The question was asked and answered" —The question was never answered.
   3. "No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days" —There was a comment just yesterday, but more importantly, the talk page question posed remains unresolved.
   4. "A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency." —That number of editors was made up of EEML editors plus Termer, who was discussed by your friends as an ally of the abusive mailing list in the archives. The feedback consensus at pages such as this one appears to have taken a different view, as did administrator James086.
   5. "This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation." —I highly suspect that is the case, Martintg: the least you could have done, had that been the concern, was take it to the BLP board at some time in these intervening weeks, which you made no effort to do. Nor did you ever even ask me to remove the material about her son making this information public (which he did) specifically.
   6. "Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment" —I am very much interested in building a collegiate editing environment, but I am against being repeatedly attacked, directly or obliquely, and reverted by the same set of folks with such exacting consistency. "Nationalist" is a political stance and not a derogatory term (see your buddy Vecrumba's user page)–incidentally, you've referred to editors as nationalists, including myself, Martintg–such as in your attempt to remove information about antisemitism with your buddy Digwuren here (although perhaps you did it with the intent of smearing opposing editors), so I don't see what issue of incivility there is by your standards. Can't I not act hypocritically and agree with your old opinion that pointing matters out plainly is alright, even if you disagree when that pattern of reasoning is applied to your editing? Calling WP:DUCK on tendentious editing is not prescribed; nor is it done as anything but the ultimate resort, as amply testified by the well-documented evidence of months of your harrassment and the proposed ArbCom sanctions agaisnt you.
   7. "Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line." —The edit has a very good reference–by all means compare with cited source. You well know that I adjusted the wording right after some disagreement about interpreting the relevant line from that JTA article.
   8. "The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this." —The fact that you came here for this request after already badgering me and an admin and having it denied by both attests to your WP:FORUMSHOPPING, if seen from where I'm standing.
   9. "In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground." —Then why the deliberate spillover of the battleground, and why the continuing circus of the WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and why the mischaracterization of problems and all just mentioned above? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AzaToth

Resolved

 – Kicked into the dustbin Rodhullandemu 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone run a beady eye over this?. There was also a patent nonsense CSD tag on AzaToth's page placed by the same user which I have removed as being applied in bad faith. I suspect douchebaggery is in play. Crafty (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu just blocked indef. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good. I think I saw Triplestop close down the MfD too. Mark this one as dead? Crafty (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP-hopping user at article Lupe Fiasco

There's an IP-hopping user over in the article Lupe Fiasco who keeps changing the birth date from February 17 to February 16, despite the source in the article, Rolling Stone, verifying February 17, while another reputable source, Allmusic, also verifies the same. I don't want to inch closer to my third revert, so I'd appreciate another uninvolved admin to give it a look. Thanks. — ξ^xplicit 03:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this one. Reliable sources trump an unsourced "interview" any day. Bettia (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. Bettia (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationlist

Someone who has chosen a username "Anti-Nationalist" seems to think it's OK to label other editors with "nationalist" tag.[27], [28] My suggestion [29] to rephrase such insults were met with accusations of harassment, POV editing, censoring etc. [30].
I came across Anti-Nationalist first at Talk:Lia Looveer where User:Anti-Nationalist suggested the subject (who has been honored with the British Empire Medal) may have been a "Nazi collaborator" [31]. Such assumptions were made based on her publicly available resume [32]. Since there has been no sources whatsoever verifying or even suggesting any possible "nazi-collaboration" by this public figure, I have tried to remove such possibly defaming remarks from this talk page pr. WP:TALK but without much luck thus far. And since the situation it seems has not been resolved, please advice! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Honey, there's already a thread about this. Check out "A stitch in nine" just above. Crafty (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note, the thread "A stitch in nine" is a request about the article, not the person. --Martin (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty condescending posting, Crafty. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. And as I can see user termer has also been under discussion. Just that why exactly such suggestions like this [33] that I cans see again above Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list) [[34]] get tolerated right on this notice board? Who exactly and where anybody other than Anti-Nationalist has discussed that "Termer is an allay of some kind of mailing list"? And this is because? And it's OK to go around Wikipedia and label anybody you have a disagreement with the "nationalist" tag? As long as your username is Anti-Nationalist, it's OK? Perhaps its me who is missing something here.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, WP:TEA perhaps? Crafty (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was also an answer to my questions after all.--Termer (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it might be. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The mailing list discussed you as an ally of theirs during their antics on Wikipedia, Termer, as confirmed by the archive that has been uploaded to a public forum, so there's that. What you're complaining about is me pointing out the POV of the mailing list for an admin who'd had a hard time understanding the matter of your spellbinding enthusiasm for and concern with deleting a question legitimately asked in a talk page comment. And nobody even called you a nationalist–I merely pointed out that as a contributor to the project, you've been–de facto, Termer–an ally of the mailing list, and it was the mailing list's political issue that I was pointing out. That the mailing list pursued a nationalist POV is evident from the leaked archives of the list, and from list host Digwuren's comments there (by now, the viewpoint and the activity of the mailing list is public knowledge). Evidently, James086 found my response on his talk page about the talk comments being reverted and reverted continuously helpful as an illustration, for he agreed with me that the legitimate comments there should not be removed pending consensus, as you and the members of the secret leaked mailing list have continued to do. Now, please take a sip of a bit of some refreshing WP:COKE or some WP:TEA, and proceed with this discussion at the appropriate place indicated by Crafty, where we can discuss Lia Looveer or whatever issue du jour you'd like to focus on, since popping up here and there, or jumping all over WP:ANI is a tad too boisterous, m'dear fellow. Please also get a hang on WP:PARENT.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually you implied Termer was a nationalist in this comment. Attempting to tar Termer with the EEML brush violates WP:NPA in my view. Note that James086 also stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [35]. Article talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM where you can discuss "whatever issue du jour you'd like to focus on"". --Martintg (talk)

Ok, I read this thread and thought we were told to post on section "A stitch in time" above but apparently I should have posted here so I am just going to paste the post I made there...

Hello, I have been following the discussions on this editors username (see refs) and complaining that it contravenes the WP:SOAPBOX "no advocacy in the content of wiki" guideline which I think is one of the most heavily relied on guidelines for various (and good) reasons. This has only led to debate and comment about who Anti-Nationalist "targets" and wether all nationalists as bad anyway. Maybe they are but we do not want to encourage them or their counterparts. As though to support the idea, Anti-Nationalist recently changed from an extremely neutral username (PasswordUsername, no less) to show that he/she is advocating a political struggle on Wikipedia. We advocate some things like Wikimedia ideas and DaVinci, Einstein, cars we like... but when it comes down to inviting Nazis on for a fight using the word "nationalist" of which some nationalists are the opposite of Nazis in their countries giving an ironic edge to the blade, User:Anti-Nationalist has admitted the username is a representation not only of political views but of contribution style for Wikipedia (which others have been encouraging, others going several extra miles beyond User:Anti-Nationalist) [36][37][38] These refs are the three sections the username has been discussed, Anti-Nation talk, Username Talk, and RFC/Username. Good luck with that. I am of the opinion that Anti-Nationalist had no trouble to change the username to something neutral but received various encouragement, including informing the user that certain actions were acceptable through debate, such as quips "all nationalists are bad for Wikipedias anyway" (not direct quote but check it) and so on. Please convince this young person or young mind that some places are non-confrontational regardless of how many confrontations go on there. (and make them change the username!)! 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTG (talk • contribs)

One problem is that Anti-Nationalist is framing his content opponents as "nationalist" regardless of whether or not they actually are. Termer's heros are hardly nationalist figures. --Martin (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling other editor's "nationalists" is inappropriate personal attack even in normal circumstances, but then user making such accusations is named "Anti-Nationalist" it is blatantly confrontational and should be accordingly dealt with.--Staberinde (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The term nationalist is not pejorative. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, in certain political contexts, "nationalist" has very negative connotations indeed. GiantSnowman 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an negative connotation here. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously describing disagreeing editors as "bloc of nationalist editors" and "bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists" is totally not negative from editor who has chosen to edit under name Anti-Nationalist.--Staberinde (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalist" isn't a slur; it's a political label I used in presenting my case to James086, given the existence of the EEML arhive. "Bloc" is also an objective reference, as seen in the ArbCom findings of fact to be gleaned from the proposed Arbitrator decision in WP:EEML, and much less offensive than "meatpuppet" (one of the findings of fact in the case does, incidentally, concern "Meatpuppetry" from the EEML editors). Incidentally, I adopted the nick "Anti-Nationalist" (not that it's relevant to this case) after Martintg repeatedly accused me of being a "Russian nationalist" [39]. I am, in fact, an internationalist, but I did not choose to be User:Internationalist so as to not fuel any ad hominems that I'm some sort of biased communist, because Martintg's ally and EEML member Radeksz has already accused me of being a "neo-Stalinist" [40], and some right-wingers have characterized me as "promoting Soviet historiography" or whatever when I do not; whereas I actually do use Soviet-era sources for uncontroversial supplementary details in biographies and such when no alternatives are available, I make no virtue out of necessity. Oh, bloody slander that! How is this looking as something for an AN/I block on our EEML buddies now looking for wikidrama? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved here but the debate is continuing to gravitate to the idea that one of these political adversities is more acceptable. Almost like "Oh but it was only Jews and gays we were picking on not communists!". Could a person not put themselves above that>? If I wave a flag when our country is playing the cricket I am being nationalist. ~ R.T.G 20:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Some how someone is running something that is deleting words that come after the word accidently. I probably made 40 reverts in the last like 10 minutes to several IP's and registered names. I don't know where else to report this. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like a malfunctioning bot trying to correct the spelling "accidently" to "accidentally", or something like that. Could you give us a couple of diffs, or mention a page or two where this has happened? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So I see: Very odd: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. CIreland (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the edits I am referring to. There are hundreds of reverts now by myself and a few others. Kinda weird - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More examples: Special:Contributions/Takk825 and Special:Contributions/Sxy jay. I tagged those two as socks. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like deja vu all over again. I think I can guess who the responsible party might be and he is on irc right now, so someone might want to have a word with him. Sigh. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And who would that be? Wknight94 ^talk 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting up again now if someone has time to watch. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I only have a guess. I have no direct knowledge so I don't want to make accusations or name names. It's just a pattern of errant bots that regulars here have seen before. Someone else who recognizes it could ask the person nicely if they know what's going on. If it's what I suspect, it's not deliberate vandalism but it's definitely misconduct. Alternatively, go on #wikipedia-en and mention that this incident is taking place. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of being coy, why don't you let the rest of us in on the secret? It's apparent that most of us (perhaps all of us) don't recognize what's going on. The next step is to indef-block all of the accounts in question... Horologium (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do indef all those accounts. I'm not trying to be coy, I'm trying to not get someone in trouble if they aren't actually the responsible party (which might be the case). The account name is something like "Zetarequest". 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already blocked. And the IPs are hard-blocked for a time. Wknight94 ^talk 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's subtle enough, 68. I don't think that individual is foolish enough to start playing with bots at this time. (At least, I hope not.) Horologium (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I actually like that guy despite all his foolishness. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a *channer. Clever, although annoying. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's possible, though I wouldn't have placed it as their usual MO. Anyway, if it's still happening then maybe someone can add a rule to the edit filter for it. Running a checkuser also seems advisable. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It feels like a script-raid in reference to the "I accidentally x" meme. Can we confirm that it stopped? I haven't found any in the last few minutes. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't know about that meme. My apologies to the person I mentioned. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that a couple of people on the chans took notice, but it doesn't appear to have started there. Probably a lone person. If it's stopped, then we should be fine. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with the meme assessment. Its the first thing I thought of.--Crossmr (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ex-Cubs Factor

A little minor assistance needed. An editor changed it to Ex-Cubs factor (lower case) and made the original a redirect. I advised him (in vain) that this is not correct, as the main source capitalizes all the words - because it's a title. I would like for someone to undo that redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, though that page needs a ton of work. The only thing sourced is the name. Everything after the first section seems to be OR/essay. Resolute 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for AFD commentary

[46] How is this in any way, shape, or form permissible on Wikipedia? JBsupreme (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not, and I'd support a block of the user. I notice they were told in June to stop marking all edits as minor but they've continued on doing so. This is disruptive editing, coupled with that comment, not to mention they're going through articles removing maintenance tags without addressing them or using edit summaries.[47], [48], etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question was two days ago, so I can't support a block just now - but I would warn the editor that a further attack of that nature would be grounds for a block. This is exactly the sort of edit that the level 4im warnings were made for. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, that comment should be deleted. Personal attacks of that nature are unacceptable here regardless of whether they're directed at other editors or at the subjects of our BLPs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

admin Future's Perfect and the 1R restriction he put on me

Because of this edit [49] I was put on a 1R/24h restriction, coupled with "you must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary" and "you may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion." [50]. Since I consider my edit to be 100% valid, (I have removed the German name of Polish city which was added without explanation the day before and which has to reason to be there on English wikipedia) I can only conclude that since I recently had an animated discussion with this admin, because of his block of user:Jacurek which I felt was unjust, he is trying to revenge. I therefore request the restriction is cancelled. Loosmark (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you recognize that, correct or not, your edits have been part of a contentious edit war? The "restrictions" amount to what any considerate person involved in an edit war should do. rspεεr (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war? There was no edit war going on that article. Somebody added the German name of the city the day before without an explaination and I removed it. I made one single edit. Loosmark (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There may not have been an edit war on that article, but the admin saw a string of edits that were problematic, across multiple articles, this last one merely being the latest. He explained all of this on your talk page under the "warning" heading. I'm not making any judgment calls as to the restriction, but just wanted to make it clear that this wasn't caused by a single edit, and that this was explained quite clearly. Equazcion (talk) 11:33, 17 Nov 2009 (UTC)

There was no string of problematic edits, yesterday I made a good faith error and I have even self-reverted myself. All other edits he cited were valid, I stand behind them and I have explained them on his talk page to which he didn't seem to object. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Loosmark seems to have come up with a rather innovative new method of avoiding sanctions. Insulting and abuse every single admin who might impose sanctions, accuse them of bias every 5 minutes, and then scream "involved admin!" when patience runs out. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Moreschi I request you provide diffs that "I have insulted and abused every single admin who might impose sanctions". I have never done that and I demand you either provide evidence or apology. Loosmark (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by sanctioning admin: Loosmark, not surprisingly, is refusing to take notice of the rationale behind the sanction, which I very clearly explained to him on his talk page: "I'm not talking here about the objective justification of either edit (I have absolutely no opinion about that), but about your communication style". Arguing now that his edits were "valid" and he "stands behind them" is missing the point: they may well have been, but they were unexplained. This is all about Loosmark displaying a pattern of quick, undiscussed, drive-by reverting as a routine editing strategy in contentious articles, and the last straw was another such edit without an edit summary, only hours after I had warned him about just this problem. Given this situation, the restriction I imposed is quite mild -- it leaves him all the freedom to edit, and merely gently forces him to improve his communicative behaviour, hopefully. -- I would be more patient in explaining these things, if I didn't have the impression that there is still a group strategy going on here, with multiple users (all involved with the well-known EEML group) appearing immediately on my talk page to pile on and make a fuss about any and all administrative action affecting one of them, with one of them, User:Radeksz, even accusing me of "hypocrisy" [51]. We know they used to conduct these concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion only a few months ago; I wonder how spontaneous and independent they are now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get if I understand this correctly, my edits might very well be valid but since I have not "explained" them you are putting me on severe restrictions and even call the restrictions "mild". And are you even aware Future Perfect that the last time I have tried to have a dialog with user:Matthead he simply told me to go elsewhere? [52]. As such I don't really feel motivated to explain my edits to him. Matthead made a wrong edit, he added a German name to a Polish city and I have reverted him, that's all that happened. I also don't know what are you talking about the EEML group, I was not a member of the EEML group and I don't care what is user:Radeksz writting to you, reporting him on the EEML ArbCom case or something. Your asumption above that I am part of some sort of group concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion borders on paranoia and most certainly is a complete contradiction with asuming good faith policy. Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A lack of edit summaries is always a poor communication style. A number of odd edits (including a self-revert) without edit summaries hits the radar like a bird in a jet engine. We're talking about a simple 24 hrs; a day where someone is being asked to communicate well - hoping, I expect, that the use of edit summaries and discussion would become more commonplace. There's nothing here to do with the validity of the edits overall, just how they've been done. Let me emphasize: it's a day. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins please read the sanction he imposed on me again, it is much more severe than that, for example I have to first explain a revert on the talk page and then wait for 3 hours. Since I rarely have the time to sit in the internet caffe for 3 hours I am basicaly prevented to make reverts. (Not to mention that I am very sceptical that the discussion for which I have to wait will happen, the last time I've tried to communicate with Matthead he just told me to "go elsewhere".) Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there's a good reason why you didn't read my response to FPAS below before asking this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, bellow you are only talking about the timeframe where in fact you have ignored that Future Perfect punishment consists of 3 points. Loosmark (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, wait a sec, not sure if I misunderstand you or perhaps you misunderstood me: I didn't actually impose the restriction just for a single day; it's just a normal "1R per 24hrs" rule. Actually, now that you mention it, it appears I forgot to actually put an expiry date on it, so it's formally indef. If admins here would rather restrict it to a fixed period like most other sanctions of this type, we can of course do that; otherwise I'd propose leaving it in place open-ended for now to see how it works out and lifting it in a few months if he stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Too early in the morning, I likely misread - but (although not an admin) I recommend some timeframe ... fits with SMART principles... so that it's not punative, it's preventative. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That revert really should have been discussed on the talk page. The Gdańsk/Danzig naming battle was one of the longest and dumbest edit wars of all time. Tczew/Dirschau is another of those cities in that part of Poland that was once German-speaking and this sounds like a smaller version of the same battle. Google Books shows a number of English-language mentions of Dirschau. The German name might be somewhat obscure today, so mentioning it only in the article Tczew could be good enough, but mentioning it in parentheses in an article about a German-speaking football player from that town is at least slightly defensible, so there should have been discussion or it comes across as battleground editing. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seeing as Loosmark seems to be missing the point (all those edits today without Edit Summaries of any type), I'll clarify/correct my point: although I have no input into the article - it is obviously a content dispute - based on the slow edit warring, and poor communication altogether, I support restrictions 1 and 2 wholeheartedly. I might be personally willing to reverse point 3 slightly allowing them to do their 1 revert per 24 hrs, THEN explain it on the talkpage as a means of gathering consensus. They must then stick to whatever consensus is - no exceptions, even after their 24hrs is up. Loosmark ... how long do you think it will take you to become a better communicator? In other words, how long do you think this restriction needs to be in place for? A month? 2 months? Obviously, it can't be less than at least a few weeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no wikipedia rule which would force you to make edit summary by default, if you don't believe me I can show you at least 100 examples of edits without edit summary in my area of interest in the last month and none of them was warned let alone hit with a severe 1RR restriction + forced to make comments on a talk page and then waiting for 3 hours before making an edit which btw seems to be a punishment invented for myself. (What is here also a bit comical is that I have made only one revert on each of those two articles, one of which I even self-reverted, so what exactly is the point to put me on a 1RR other than to tarnish my reputation? You see the twisted logic I have not made more than 1 revert but I have to be put on 1RR). Second you seems to ignore one of my points I made somewhere above so I will point it out again: the last I have tried to communicate with user:Matthead, he told me to "go elsewhere". As such blaming the failure to communicate with Matthead on me is a bit absurd. Loosmark (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that the other editor does not deserve similar treatment - it has already been suggested by others throughout this thread, and based on the situation, appears to have validity. Your complaint here was about your treatment, and the claims that that admin was "involved". Your complaint would have been better off acknowledging the situation, and suggesting that you should not be the only one being limited. A quick note: the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins may I politely ask you what the hell are you talking about? I did not take that to any editor's talk page, it was on the article's talk page. And apart from that even if I had tried to communicate with the said editor on his talk page a reply as "go elsewhere" would have been just lame. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As you're deciding to selectively read portions of what I say, I'm out. I'm trying to help you and this is the response - otherwise, your request appears to be going nowhere. Good luck. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was the following one the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. I have only pointed out that I did not take that on an editors talkpage but rather on the article page. I hope I have the right to correct the blatant error you have made, even more so since it's pretty crucial here: I am being accused of not being able to communicating with user:Matthead while the last I have tried to do so I was told "go somewhere else". Loosmark (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of these naming battles are pretty lame, but it takes two to tango, and if FPaS wants to be even handed, at the very least he should give his co-national Matthead a similar sanction, considering Matthead's block log against Loosmark's block log. --Martin (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Loosmark's talk, the restriction is hardly a major issue - it enforces good editing practices. Duration needs to be specified, certainly. I'll also agree with comments above - it takes two to tango, and a similar restriction should be put on the other side of this dramu (re: Matthead - please note he just recently came out from a 6-month 1RR limitation...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

main wiki page

Русский on mainpage is wrong translation of 'Free Encylopedia' it should be 'bezplatnaya'(free from payment) not 'svobodnaya' (Freedom) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.227.26 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a way, they're right with the "freedom" translation, but, stuff on another wiki has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno ... it's "free for everyone to edit", which suggests "freedom" instead of "free from price". Might be a symbolic choice of wording. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean, the main wikipedia landing page for the entire project, or just for the English? The main www.wikipedia.org landing page isn't something we can control. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's intentional. It's not just "free from payment", it's also "free to edit and republish", which many would argue is a bigger deal. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hobbit films

I requested a move over a redirect to The Hobbit (films) and after seven days passed and a consensus was reached (which supported the move) I closed the discussion not knowing it was improper of me to do so since I was a participant. So I am here to ask an admin to close the discussion properly and move the page. Thank you -TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Poetlister etc, is back...

I thought I would ignore him, but he sent me *one* email (throught his "Poetlister-account") too many. Please check User:Grim23. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)  

• Context, please? Protonk (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, context on the whole poetlister-saga? (or just this last minor event?) Huldra (talk)

enough to make heads or tails of what you want, what the problem is, and who the DP are. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a mistake. Please talk to me. What can I do to clear my name? Grim²³★ 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better way to go about this be to forward the email to ArbCom? Random admins really can't do anything about this, true or not. If it all hinges on email, I don't think WP:SSI is right either. ArbCom is chock full of Checkusers who will know how to follow up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem w/ that is that Arbcom isn't supposed to (at least insofar as I know) undertake a role like that. I still don't fully know what's going on here, but I can surmise that Huldra thinks User:Grim23 sent him an email as User:Poetlister. If that is the case, then wouldn't SPI be the place to go? Protonk (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So User:Poetlister sent User:Huldra an email. Why did User:Huldra accuse[53] me? Grim²³★ 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, NYB kinda puts this to bed, but it strikes me as well outside their mandate to serve as the court of last resort. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Protonk: I´ve just sent you an email. Huldra (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 

I read it. Sounds exactly like the kind of thing I want nothing to do with. Glad its kicked back to the AC, despite my reservations about scope. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

heh, I agree 110% with you! Huldra (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please forward any evidence of Poetlister editing under any account name to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence will not show much, let's not forget how much wool they pulled before (after first being caught) yet the edit overlaps between accounts, especially on certain articles close to the person behind the account, are surely enough? Given what this individual has been up to, "beyond reasonable doubt" has to be replaced by "on the balance of probabilities", surely? GTD 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming I'm guilty. Please remember mud sticks. Grim²³★ 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that it would be much simpler, and much better for the encyclopedia, if we judge the Grim23 account on the basis of what the Grim23 account has done. Everyking (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to know why I'm being accused. Please assume I'm innocent until proven guilty (I would prefer to be called an "editor" rather than an "account"). I would like checkuser used and any other investigation that could even partially clear my name. (it seems as I may never fully clear my name)Grim²³★ 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions of Poetlister/Quillercouch and I can only find three "edit overlaps" Whetstone, London, Totteridge & New Southgate. These are all towns in the London Borough of Barnet. These and all the towns in the borough have been on my watchlist for a while. Grim²³★ 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you check for overlaps with any of the Poetlister sockpuppets, such as Runcorn (talk · contribs)? Of course any overlap is likely just a shared interest, but some here may see it as further evidence that you are Poetlister, so it may be worthwhile checking each of the sockpuppets listed here. Regardless, ANI clearly isn't the place for such accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fieldday-sunday

Fieldday-sunday seems to have a persistent problem with reverting good faith edits and warning users of vandalism. The user's (talk page) has many complaints about this. I'm not sure if its malicious, but I suspect it's careless use of Wikipedia:Huggle. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If Huggle makes it easy to undo an edit and warn for vandalism in one click, the tool might get overused. However, I haven't seen anything that says Fieldday-sunday is reverting in bad faith, so if anything, a little counseling on the appropriate use of the tool, and a reminder to use edit summaries where it's not a clear-cut vandalism situation, would be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think the edits are in bad faith and I think a friendly counseling note would be helpful. However, as I am not personally familiar with the tool, I should not be the one to deliver such advice. Anyone? Pdcook (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Biting admins or fellow established contributors

Has a guideline been developed for this already? And do we seriously need to create one on how to be tactful to admins or fellow established contributors?

An anon (who gives all appearances of being a sock) reports an admin for reverting his banned editing and semi-pping Telegu. Some users respond to it and accordingly unprotect, but instead of leaving it there, went to file an RfC/U over it because it was an admin dragged through the mud in RfC and ArbCom previously. When they were given every chance to drop it, they didn't, and they went ahead with it recklessly. Meanwhile, the admin is on wikibreak in frustration and other than those who've responded already, the community is idly sitting on its hands. Can you clarify my questions above? Can something please be done? What incentive is there for Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to return? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the anon give the appearance of being a sock when it all started? Did anyone mention that possibility earlier? Would the two rfc/u filing editors have dropped it if they'd known (did they know?) about the sock stuff? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki being used as chat room

• Webkinzanswers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Webkinz102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two (apparently young) users, whose edits consist almost entirely of chat on each others talk pages, with no useful contributions. Both have been warned that "Wikipedia is not a social network", but these notices have gone unheeded. WuhWuzDat 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's more of them. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)