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

Kumioko and AWB access

I have temporarily removed AWB access from Kumioko (talk · contribs) for persistent violations of the AWB rules of use, specifically rules 3 and 4. Kumioko has been on a campaign of making trivial edits to article talk pages, under the guise of "cleaning" them. I am involved in this in an administrative capacity.

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_banner_tagging about whether there is a requirement to avoid redirects for talk page banners. The first few comments in the thread show several responses that there is no such requirement. Someone even pointed out that when this was proposed as a requriement, it failed to reach consensus (Wikipedia:Banner standardisation). Kumioko recently posted a note in the discussion there that effectively says, "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway".[1]

Because that completely ignores the actual discussion in the thread, I intervened in an administrative capacity, pointing out on that page that there is no consensus for a bot to do that, and reminding Kumioko on his/her talk page to follow the AWB rules. Since then, Kumioko has continued to make the same sorts of edits wile giving various "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" explanation. For example, [2]. I specifically warned Kumioko today that I would disable his/her AWB access if the same edits continued. Unfortunately, Kumioko has refused to stop and find consensus, which is an abuse of AWB.

This sort of editing has previously gone before ArbCom in the Date Delinking RFARB. ArbCom made this finding [3]:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change."

Note that this is not about AWB in general. The problem is only Kumioko using AWB to make large-scale sequences of edits to enforce his/her personal opinion as a fait accompli while knowing there is not a general consensus behind it. Removing AWB access is a very mild, targeted remedy to pause the edits to allow discussion to take place. The best resolution here would be for Kumioko to agree to follow the AWB rules, at which point his/her AWB access should be restored promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several items identified above so I will attempt to answer each in turn.

• I want to state that I do not believe what I was doing was in violation of 3 or 4 and I believe CBM's actions of removing my AWB access is an abuse of his admin powers. Additionally his writeup above is totally POV and comepletely misrepresents what was actually said.
  • Rule 3 states "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding". There is noting controversial about removing deprecated or unused parameters. The projects themselves say they shouldnt be there if not being used. They are only there because some editor added them needlessly.
  • Rule 4 states "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." Nothing in this covers the edits I was doing. Therefore no violation.
• I asked CBM repeatedly to tell me where I cannot use AWB to delete deprecated parameters and unneeded, unused and unwanted parameters from banners when the templates and the projects both state that if they are not used they should not be there. Removing these makes the banner parameters that are being used easier to read and identify, it reduces the page size (frequently more than 1000 bytes), it speeds rendering times, etc.
• I didn't tell CBM to "Sod off". After leaving threats on my talk page I said was 1 editor did not warrant a lack of consensus and if he had a problem with my edits he should open up a discussion at the village pump. I even told him that if the consensus was that removing these parameters was a minor edit that I would stop and we could update the AWB rules accordingly. I did tell him that I wasn't going to stop because one editor told me too.
• The ongoing discussions related to the standardization of Wikiproject banners and only loosely relates here. I only "standardize" the talk page banners when doing other things of more significance.
• CBM did not intervene in a an admin capacity in fact his comments were very POV relating to his personal feelings that these were minor edits.
• This action and the Date delinking action are completely unrelated and there is zero correlation to them.
• Large scale is defined as about ten today, only a few over the past week and in fact it has taken me more than a month to clean up about 1800 a few at a time. I am now down to 347.

I recommend restoring my AWB rights immediately and instructing CBM to next time open up a discussion if he disagrees with an editor over a personal feeling of what constitutes a minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an open discussion at the WikiProject Council, which you have decided to ignore by continuing to do the edits. The comment that can be summarized as "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway"[4]was in that thread, not to me. 1800 edits certainly seems like a large number to me; in this edit [5] you said is was 2200 edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No the discussion is completely unrelated and as a seasoned editor you should be able to see that. Just because I did 4500 edits this month doesn't mean I have done anything wrong. In fact it means I have been doing something right. Contributing to WP. Honestly though I think you acted completely out of line but well see what everyone else thinks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what the downside to bypassing the redirects is. I could understand there being no requirement that we bypass redirects in talk page headers, but what's the downside if someone wants to spend their time/energy doing it? "We are not required to do X" is not the same as "doing X is not permitted". --B (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the practical value of this work, for the reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of making these edits was proposed at Wikipedia:Banner standardisation and failed to become a guideline. Several people in the thread at the WikiProject Council again objected to the idea, but Kumioko seems to have decided to just ignore them and do it anyway. Using AWB to force your opinion onto articles is a violation of the AWB rules; it bypasses the consensus-building process. Also, the AWB rules generally prohibit making trivial edits, such as edits that have no effect on the rendered page. These edits are perceived as clogging watchlists with edits that don't actually change the pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me understand. Kumioko's current work consists of 3 parts:

• Assessing in WPUS
• Bypassing redirects
• Cleaning parameters

First part is uncontroversial. The third seems to have some benefits as noted above. The discussion on Wikipedia Council is about the second part and not the third. Many bots do the second and third part while doing tasks similar to the first one. What is exactly the problem?

• The second part in general?
• That the second part is done without the first part? (This is my concern)

And a small comment: If we do more than 300 posts on this one then it's not worth. Kumioko was about to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the second. It is a controversial change, evidenced by the opposition to Banner standardization from becoming a guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we OK, if he keeps doing 1 and 3 till we end to some consensus with 2? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If "cleaning parameters" means removing unused parameters that have no effect on the rendered output, that's not permitted by AWB rule #4, since it's a trivial edit. In particular, there's no need to clean out "nested=yes" with AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Human editors using AWB are expected to manually review every edit and avoid saving the ones that only do (2). I reminded Kumioko about that yesterday, and he/she claimed at first that they were errors. But today it's the same pattern of trivial edits, which makes it clear that they are being intentionally saved. AWB is not a tool for imposing decisions on the community; it's useful for implementing things that do have consensus. The thing that made me think that some admin action is needed is the combination of the pattern of edits is combined with the posts to the WikiProject council where Kumioko essentially tells everyone he/she will ignore them and just keep making the edits. That sort of bad behavior is what led to the date delinking RFARB; the lesson from that is the people need to stop sooner, rather than later, when others object to large-scale edit patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not always correct. In Infobox character we made a tracking category to detect pages with many unused parameters because they slow down page rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of deja vu. There was some guy some weeks back who was making a bunch of edits that did nothing except take some spaces out of infoboxes. No benefit to anyone. How much would it be slowed down, assuming you're not on 2400 baud dialup or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

@M: You should really get a bot approval to do that sort of thing, because they otherwise that sort of trivial edit isn't permitted for AWB. The existence of AWB doesn't eliminate the need for many tasks to go through the bot approvals group, particularly when the tasks are meant to be large-scale and not require actual human discretion.

If there is actually a slow-down with unused parameters, it should be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed in Mediawiki. Many WikiProjects intentionally pre-include blank parameters to fill in later, and AWB users shouldn't go around removing those unless the specific WikiProject asks for it, since they were intentionally included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We have to ask WikiProject Aviation what exactly they want to be done with the unused parameters. I can only talk about WikiProject Biography on that matter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if they want to get rid of them they they should get a bot or AWB op to do it, nobody can complain too much about that. The other change that Kukiomo seemed to be making was to remove the nested=yes parameter. But if it has no effect any more, there's no need to go through and remove it (since it already has no effect). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the nested too. I wonder how many are left. I can't perform a database scan for talk pages. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for a little while. Like I indicated originally, I have no objections to Kukiomo's AWB access being restored once the issue at hand is resolved, or even sooner if he/she agrees to stop these "cleanup" edits. I'll check on back this thread here in a few hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply To B - Most of the opposition stems from 1) they don't think its necessary, 2) they believe it to be a waste of time or 3) they just prefer the other naming convention and dont really care if its harder for non-experienced editors and don't care that from a programming perspective it requires over 1000 lines of code to account for all the variations of wikiprojects (without the WikiProject X convention) rather than just one with all the banners saying WikiProject X.

• Reply To Baseball Bugs - From the readers point of view that question frankly depends on the edit. I have a list of about 2000 edits give or take a few plus whats in the Find and replace fields on my AWB. Basically though it falls into one of the following; It simplifies what the reader sees, it reduces the page size by eliminating uneeded items, I rearrange the order of things according to talk page layout rules, I fix broken parameter values such as - instead of =, clas instead of class, add equals between certain parameters and their value if its missing, etc. In my opinion the problem that CBM has is with standardizing the talk page banners and removing deprecated and uneeded parameters from talk page templates. He does not feel that removing 1000 characters of empty parameters constitutes a significant enough edit to use AWB. I think that is basically it but I don't want to speak for him and he clarified his comments above. Just to clarify another thing. I am not eliminating all empty parameters, just certain ones. [6] is one example of the type of edit he is opposed too and shows what this is all about. Feel free to stroll through my contributions for more though.

• Reply to Magioloditis - I cannot do many of the edits from 1 and 3 because they assume that the naming convention is WikiProject X. Others rely on those so whats left may not work correctly.

• Reply to CBM - Yes you identified a couple of errors and I admitted I was not perfect and that I do occasionally make mistakes. My mistakes equate to trivial edits so no harm no foul. I am not harming the articles if I do 1 or 2 out of 4000 edits that are trivial. And I still maintain that most of the edits you mention are not trivial. Trivial are things like standardizing redirects, not deleting parameters. There was and is no need for admin action. I still maintain that it was inappropriate and you should have opened a discussion to see if there was more than 1 (you) editor who had a problem with it. I also want to clarify you comment about a large scale edit pattern. You make this sound as though I was doing massive numbers of inappropriate edits but you still IMO have not shown that deleting parameters is trivial other than vaguely written rules of AWB use. I DID NOT do anything that was mentioned as a violation of AWB.

• Regarding to the cleaning of parameters - {{MILHIST}} and {{WikiProject Aviation}} both state "To avoid needlessly cluttering up talk pages, it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template." on the template documentation so IMO there is no need to "Get consensus" because consensus is implied by the statement from the projects. Additionally there is no need to have unneeded and deprecated parameters on the talk pages for the reasons already discussed above. Aside from claims that these edits are not allowed I disagree that these are minor edits (with the exception of standardizing the talk page banners). There is no need to force me to do these changes manually when I have a tool like AWB available to use. And as for these parameters not changing anything on the rendering of the page. Of course not they are garbage. Just like if I added a parameter to the template for | it would not display.

• regarding the bot comment - I tried that avenue but after about 6 weeks I withdrew it in frustration. In six weeks I was never even asked to run a test.

• AWB access - at this point I am not really concerned with AWB access. I may take a brake from WP for a while or I may continue editing. I haven't really decided. It seems lately that too many editors just want to debate every change rather than accept that people are trying to make WP better. I can't even make an edit without someone complaining about my edit summery, debating on whether its minor, drowning me in disucssions about why I would try and restart WikiProject United States and how dare I. All the drama is burning me out from wanting to contribute at all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight. You were wise enough to know you needed BOT approval, you submitted a request, it was never even approved for testing, so you said "fukkit, I'm doing it anyway?" Can I get a "WTF"?(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's solve first the "remove empty parameters" part where I think Kumioko is right. WPMILHIST, WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Biography state explicitly that the values should be yes or not exist (exception is the |living= in WPBiography). Just in case I left a note in Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Unused.2Fempty_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the milhist template, removing empty B-Class assessment parameters can be inconvenient for editors that come along later to assess the article. Our project how-to guide on using the template recommends including them as placeholders when articles are tagged for the project, and there are some additional commented instructions on how to assess included in the template that would be unhelpfully removed along with the blank parameters. I see no problem with removing other empty parameters though. EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bwilkins - To clarify your comment I never thought I needed a bot and if you read my comments on the bot approval page you can see that in more detail. I submitted it only as a convenience and as a courtesy so I could use the bot flag due to the large scale of tagging and a passing comment (not really even a complaint) by another editor. That tagging is largely done now though because the bot group never stated I had to stop I kept on rolling and finished the run. The bot as requested was to allow me to do some WikiProject tagging and would have allowed the edits mentioned above to be done at the same time. I would have had to request an additional allowance to do these edits exclusively.

Reply to EyeSerene - The B class parameters are not included in the removal. Only empty or = no taskforce parameters or parameters like Portal, peer review, A class review and the like if = blank or no. Never living, importance, class, bclass checklists or other parameters where having no is meaningful. Every parameter I delete is specifically identified individually. The full list is [User:Kumioko/Talkpage|here] but here is 1 example

ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"\|[ ]*peer\-review[ ]*=\s*\r*([\|}{<\n])", "$1", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);. This removes the peer review parameter if = blank.

Since the B Class issue was mentioned though I personally feel that the B class checklist should only be on Start and B class articles. If an Articles is a stub then the B-Class checklist info is self explanatory and the article usually contains no's across the board filling up the checklist categories and distracting from the meaningful ones. If the article is GA or above the status itself indicates a B-Class yes so again its implied and IMO unneeded. but that's a different conversation and I wasn't removing any of those with the logic.

The provided list on my subpage also gives an idea of how much coding is involved if you want to account for every project (I am missing a few and add them as they are found) and their redirects rather than being able to program simply WikiProject foo. Adding that much code makes the program bigger, it makes it run slower and process slower because it has a lot more logic to look through and its way harder to program and maintain. --Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First result of the discussion as I understand it. Kumioko:

• Assessing in WPUS is a plausible task. While doing this you can:
  • Clean empty parameters as you do
  • Bypass redirects unless the wikiproject disagrees. Bots have been approved to do that as secondary task.
• If you are planning to mass clean empty parameters you better first fill a BRFA. It's very likely you 'll get approval since many projects recommend deletion of empty parameters. (|nested= must have less than 100 transclusions left). I will support it since it's in the manuals.
• Bypassing redirects as a sole task won't have the same fate.

I hope Carl agrees with my conclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's pretty much what I have been doing since I usually did not solely fix redirects (I made a couple accidental saves but nothing consistent) but could you clarify what "mass clean" means for the sake of the BRFA? Also in regards to the cleaning of the empty parameters whats the point of getting a bot for less than 1000 entries? If its just so the edits won't appear on watchlists then I already have them set to minor so they won't show up anyway on the few people who are actually watching these talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just came back to write the same thing. If we are talking about some hundreds and with your edit rate then I would say just go and do them. The task of removing empty parameters from these specific templaates+WPBS is uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which specific templates are we talking about? EyeSerene asked for the parameters in MILHIST to be kept. Edits like [7] [8] look like trivial edits to me - do they change the rendered article in any way? "Cleaning up" is not on its own a justification for a bot job. This is the problem I posted about originally here. It's one thing for a project to tell its own members that they can remove the "n" parameters; it's another thing to do it with a bot, and yet another thing to do it with AWB.

For the WPUS assessments, if the actual assessment is changed, that's should be fine. If not, then that isn't a justification to save the edit. It was actually very difficult for me to tell what the justifications was, with an edit summary like "Cleanup talk page templates, set importance, formatting template/section order &general fixes". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the comments a little closer CBM. Eye Serene asked for the B class checklist parameters to stay which I have never touched. Lets clarify that just because CBM deems them trivial does not make it so. I personally do not think that removing garbage parameters to be trivial and against the AWB rules simply because it doesn't render any difference on the page. Also CBM that is not what you posted about. You posted about removing my access from AWB after you refused to open a discussion as I requested. As for the assessments I am pretty much done doing the mass assessment for WPUS which others had a problem with. So it seems no matter what I do it upsets someone which is why I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion. This is Wikipedia there are always some editor who takes exception to every change and if we stop editing every time well never be able to accomplish anything. Your whole argument CBM is just smoke and is a complete waste of everyones time. But you did accomplish one thing which was to divert enough of my time into discussions that I can't actually edit any articles and has given me just one more reason why I shouldn't edit. Knowone wants an editor who does thousands of edits a day. They want a quite editor who edits once or twice and day, who doesn't make too many articles appear on watch lists, who doesn't disturb the delicate balance of editors to articles. Its really a shame that the editors who do the most edits are the ones who get spit on the most. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was already ongoing at the WikiProject Council. Comments such as "I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion." are exactly the problem, and one reason why I thought it was important to discontinue your AWB access temporarily. In this case, more than one editor has objected. I quoted above from an Arbcom resolution that editors who make widespread edits are expected to stop and get consensus when disagreements arise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, as a bot operator, the onus is on you to show that your edits have consensus, or to resolve issues with someone who raises an objection to your edits. So far, you've done neither (and as this discussion indicates, there is no consensus on banner standardization, regardless of your protestations that there should be one), and your attitude that you will continue to ignore complaints because they must be wrong is what gets people under ArbCom restrictions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CBM - Thats only partially true about the discussion CBM. The discussion at the WikiProject Council deals soley with the cleanup of WikiProject banners, specifically when done as a standalone edit which I agree should be avoided. The issue here is whether removing 1000 characters of unneeded garbage is a trivial edit as you suggest and that I told you needed to be discussed for agreement with others because I do not agree with that assessment or if it constitutes a significant enough edit to do as its own edit and at the same time do the WikiProject banner fixes. The 2 discussions are only loosely connected and its really confusing the issue at hand. You removing my AWB access before discussing them was really only a poor way of stopping an editor from doing something that YOU personally did not agree with. It didn't violate a policy and it wasn't part of an ongoing discussion. You just didn't like it and thats why I believe it was an abuse of admin powers.

Reply to Titoxd - Your comments about my attitude are really out of place here tito. First lets clarify that I do not, nor have I ever ran a bot. I use AWB which is an application that can be used by a bot but I do not have the bot flag so its semiautomatic meaning I have to manually hit enter every time I save. I use AWB because it allows me to do a large number of changes to an article at one time rather than having to manually go through the whole thing. I can essentially built the calculation once and AWB will change it as it finds it. If you really intend for all the users of AWB to be required to get a BRFA in order to use the application (which is a really stupid idea I do not advocate) then I suggest you right it up and try and get consensus on that.

The primary issue of consensus is that I have not, nor has anyone proved that I have, violated policy in deleting garbage fields other than to give a vague statement of the AWB rules 3 and 4 that DO NOT state that these edits are not allowed. In regards to the banner standardization there was consensus, all of the projects templates except for t3 or 4 were changed to the standard (with no complaints except for those that are not changed). So the consensus is there. Just because 1 or 2 editors of one project didn't like the change didn't mean that it didn't get consensus from the project. WikiProject United States has about 200 members and if 150 voted for it and 4 voted against it your comment implies there is no consensus when there actually was. As I stated at the WikiCouncil discussion. If an editor does not like the naming convention they should bring it up for discussion on the talk page of the project affected. Also explaining that they would not be supported by logic in certain apps like AWB if they decided to change back. The right is with the project in what they name the banner though and I have always supported that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone made a decision on this yet? I would like to know if anyone has decided on whether the decision to remove my access was acceptable or not since I never broke any rules except for the perception presented by CBM. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

About "unusued" parameters: I think it's important to keep |class= |importance= present even when empty, because it encourages people to fill in the blanks. And I would very much prefer that nobody bypassed the widely used {{WPMED}} in favor of any of the other available options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my frustation buyt I have already stated this several times. But Again, I did not, nor do I intend to delete class or importance. I did have some of the priorities and work groups from WP Biography if they were Equal to no. I also did not delete living from Biography or any other parameter where no actually means something. Just task forces or fields such as portal links, peer review or A-class Review. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are you still changing the spacing around headers? [9] I thought you were going to stop doing this. –xeno^talk 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Wikipedia serves store any version so it doesn't save disc space. In fact in increases it since the diff is bigger. The same happens to rendering time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to Xeno I thought that only applied to the bot not to my edits in general. In reply to Magioladitis it only increases it for that save. In every subsequent save of the article the size is reduced because those extra spaces aren't there progressively reducing the amount of space needed for the historical copies of the article. In the example given by Xeno thats 58 characters less for each time the talk page is saved. Times that by a modest 5 historical saves and times that by 3, 500, 000 articles. Yes not all talk pages are that long but if you include the main space articles in that then thats a lot of space saved over time. Plus it makes it easier to read without a bunch of extra spaces around everything. Although I admit that last part might be arguable for some. If that little edit is all thats holding this completely frivolous action back then Ill stop doing those.

Honestly I am reconsidering doing many edits anymore so its likely I won't need AWB anymore anyway. All I am trying to do is make things better and easier but all I get is sucked into frivolous discussions like this because one respected editor disagreed with an edit and rather than DO THE RIGHT THING and open a discussion he revokes my AWB rights. Thats is the real issue here. This whole issue should have been dismissed upon suubmission and seen as the sham it is with my AWB access restored but instead its drawing out for days in lengthy discussion and every edit of mine is being scrutinized. Of course if you dig enough your going to find things. Im not perfect and never claimned to be but I dare say that 99% of my 220, 000+ edits have made the pedia better including the removal of garbage charcacters that do abolutely nothing for a banner but take up space on the talk page and make it confusing to see whats actually going on. CBM does a lot of high end things but he does not do very many edits. 10 - 20 a day at most. Whereas I usually do upwards of 1000 varying from talkpages, regular pages, categories, templates, stuff for deletion or promotion, WikiProject US and others, etc. CBM might be an admin and a respected editor but he is not above reproach and I beleive I have earned just as much respect as he has. This whole submission and revokation of my AWB rights has really pissed me off and again is causing me to reconsider whether I wnt to continue to participate in this nonsense.

Ill keep watching the page but I think at this point I have answered all the questions and comments and there is no further need to continue to respond to these allegations that I violated a nonexistent policy. You guys let me know what you decide. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, editor is forum shopping expressed concerns at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Inappropriate_ANI_against_me,I've suggested the discussion remain here. Gerardw (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just more evidence of Kumioko's unfamiliarity with our usual practices and policies; I don't think it was an attempt to do anything wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I've rephrased my comment.Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No actually I understand them perfectly well I just think that mixing in a complaint about your your innapropriate etiquette in dealing with the problem is a different matter from what you submitted me to ANI for and felt that was the better venue for such a complaint. That you beleive that this venue is a better place for complaints about the way you handled the situation is frankly surprising. Especially given the length this thread has become. You could have handled this situation much differently. All you had to do was open a discussion to see if there was agreement that was what the AWB rules of use said since they say absolutely nothing about the rendering of a page. Maybe I am wrong on my interpretation of the rules but if I am its only because the rules are vague and poorly written and left open to interpretation. I also find it rather amusing that you say that I don't understand the rules seeing a how I have 220, 000 edits and have been around for several years I find that a rather poor argument. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting further comment about what is a minor edit

Although I completely disagree with this ANI against me and in CBM's removal of my AWB rights I want to ask for further comment on the actions I am Accused of. CBM believes that edits like this one where I removed over 1000 characters of garbage is constitutes a minor and trivial edit which I disagree with. From a fundamental standpoint, whether it changes the rendering of the page or not adding or removing this much data cannot constitute a minor edit. I am requesting additional comment from others on whether this constitutes a minor edit or not. Based on the determination I will then suggest to update the AWB rules of use as appropriate so others won't fall into the same gray area trap as I did and have their AWB access revoked when some editor decides on their own volition that an edit was against a policy when it doesn't state so clearly. Especially when other places state that the data should not be there. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One rule of thumb is that any edit that has no effect at all on the rendered page is a trivial edit. Other edits may or may not be trivial, but this is a "bright-line" rule of thumb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok my first point to that is: Where is that stated except in your thoughts? Second, A rule of thumb is a guideline not a law from which there is no debate. Normally that statement is perhaps true but in this case it benefits the articles to remove all this garbage. Now I know what your feelings are I would like to hear from others. If the result is that doing this sort of edit is against the rules then we can update the AWB rules of use so that others will not fall into the same gray area trap I did and have some administrator that decides to revoke their access rather than do the right thing and bring it up for discussion first when 2 editors disagree. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue was not that there was a grey area. Rich Farmbrough received an edit restriction for making such edits; the principle is pretty clear. If you had simply stopped editing to find out, someone else (besides me) could have explained it to you. The fundamental problem with your editing, which you still have not acknowledged, was that you were insisting on doing whatever you wanted regardless whether other people objected, as they did on the WikiProject Council page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong to call a non-trivial edit trivial. It's not a problem to call a trivial edit non-trivial. So err on the side of calling it non-trivial, and under no circumstances should anyone be dinged for failing to click the "trivial" check box - even it it's habitual. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you list me on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely was not forum shopping. This ANI was started by CBM against me and the comment below here is addressing clarification of how CBM determined it to be a minor edit. The Wikiqutte alert was submitted by me on my perception that CBM acted innappropriately in his actions towards me. Now if knowone cares about how CBM acted then fine close it and I'll just chock ut up as one admin protecting another. But if you want to take a serious matter seriously then look into it and make your own judgements. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rklawton: the question is not about "minor" edits as in that checkbox when you edit. In the context of AWB, there is a specific concept of a "trivial edit", which users are not supposed to make with AWB. Edits that don't actually change the rendered page are one type of trivial edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The point that needs to be clarified and that you still fail to produce is where is that stated? Its not, not in the AWB rules of use, not in the MOS, knowhere and thus your removal of my AWB rights was a breach of policy. Other than a gray passage that says minor edits. I still contend that I have done nothing wrong and just the virtue of not rendering a change to the article does not make it a minor edit. Maybe that was agreed to in secret before but now its out in the clear and it needs to be discussed and fixed and we clarify what a minor edit means because regardless of its rendering removing 1000 characters from and article is not minor. 10 maybe but not 1000. Maybe the group determines that it is a minor edit but since the can of worms is opened now we need to spill them all out and get everyone in the clear and when its clear what a minor edit is then we can update AWB so that the thousands of daily edits currently being done to fix all these problems will stop and and we can make everyone do the manually. Because that certainly will be better for WP than using an automated or Semiautomated tool like AWB to fix these problems. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you felt that the AWB rules weren't clear, the right thing would have been to stop to ask about it (e.g you could have asked Magioladis). The right thing was not to continue doing the same thing after being reminded about the rules. The reason I removed your AWB access was a combination of several factors. You were not only making trivial edits, you were simultaneously changing WikiProject banner redirects, and at the very same time you were engaged in a discussion at the WikiProject Council in which there was clearly not a consensus that what you were doing was appropriate. AWB access is restricted for a reason: editors using AWB are expected to adhere to higher standards than editors working completely by hand. That includes not fixing "problems" with AWB if you know that there is no consensus that they are actually a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation is completely wrong and misrepresents the issue here. First you revoked my access because I told you that I wan't going to stop editing because 1 editor didn't like it and you didn't want to take the time to start a discussion about it. Instead you used your admin powers to revoke my access and open this here at ANI, which is destroying my reputation in WP with this outragous allegation that I violated an editing policy. I just wish that someone would actually take the time to address that. In contrary to your statement about my understanding of the AWB rules I believe that are perfectly clear. I disagree with your definition of a minor edit and mean to clarify it before you revoke some other editors rights like you did to me. There are lots of editors doing good edits like this and they should be allowed to continue to contribute. I could have done over 1000 edits by now but instead I have to deal with this stupidity. The redirects are minor edits, but I only do them when I do something more significant like removing the garbage. The issue at WPCouncil is regarding the standardizaton of the wikiproject banners that only a couple of editors had a problem with and as I stated there if a project decides they don't like it fine. But 1 editor does not have the right to decide for that project. As I told them they need to take it to the project for discussion because all the projects except for 3 have been ok with this for months. There is a consensus to do these edits even if you don't like it. If you don't understand the AWB rules or do not think there is a consensus for the changes then I say again you need to bring them up for discussion. Not revoke my AWB access because you personally don't understand the AWB rules of use or don't like an edit that I have made. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an informal principle called WP:BOLD that says if you think some edit is a good idea, then go ahead and make it, since it can easily be undone if it turns out to be a mistake. That's reasonable in the context of normal, manual editing that affects a single page and can be undone with one click. It does NOT apply to bot edits, AWB edits, or large mass-editing campaigns across dozens or 100's of pages (even if done manually). The only thing that can really undo an ill-advised AWB or bot operation is often a custom-written bot, which burns the time and energy of skilled developers, so the "easy to undo" justification is destroyed. Or if the issue is diff noise from trivial edits, it can't be undone at all. So, automated editing operations on any scale should only be done if they solve a problem that has already been recognized by other users. Anyway, I think Kumioko is overreacting a bit in general, regardless of who is "right". 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB rules of use

Users of AWB should be aware of, understand, and respect, AWB rules of use. They are:

1. Check every edit before you save it. Make sure you understand the text and have NOT changed the meaning.
2. Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
3. Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding.
4. Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.
5. Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices.

Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled.

Rule 3 combined with Rule 4 seems to indicate fairly clearly that the onus is on an editor to demonstrate that the edits they wish to make have community support, and are worth doing on a large scale using AWB. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So removing parameters when the manual says so isn't controversial, has community support and it's a non-trivial task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that it has no effect on the rendered page, just removing empty parameters (or non-empty parameters that have the value "N") is a trivial edit. As a side point, people need to be very hesitant to use template documentation as a justification for doing something; template docs can be very wrong.

However, the issue of removing parameters was just one of several factors that led to me temporarily removing Kumioko's AWB access. Kumioko was using these trivial edits as a justification to make other trivial edits to bypass WikiProject banner redirects. But at the same time Kumioko was engaged in a discussion on the WikiProject Council page where people were complaining about the redirects being bypassed. And, simultaneously, Kumioko was telling these people that he/she would continue doing what he/she wanted, regardless what consensus was. That combination of factors was the issue here, and I was looking at all of them rather than just one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK since the AWB rules of use are right above. Show me where it says anywhere in there the statement "has no effect on the rendered page" or that "non-empty parameters that have the value "N" is a trivial edit". I think I missed them! Oh right, you can't because there not there.

You are right that template documentation can be wrong. Since I have been here for several years with literally hundreds of thousands of edits under my belt I can say without hesitation this is not one of those times and that argument in this case is without merit and I think even you know you are reaching by even bringing it up now to support your bogus allegations.

I did these NON TRIVIAL edits because they needed doing and at the same time yes I did the redirect cleanup because they do have concensus. Do you really expect an editor to stop making an edit because one or 2 editors don't like it. Do you really want us to stop making every edit that has consensus whenever there is a discussion about it. The discussion on the WikiProjec Council page doesn't even begin to ask or address that the WikiProject redirect changes should stop and if it did that page is not the right venue anyway. It should occur on the WikiProject talk page of the project that an editor has a problem with or something like the village pump where its in the open and many editors watch. One editor Does not speak for the entire project. Not the WikiProject Council page that few even know exists. It is a discussion about the merits of doing it because those that have a problem with itCOULD NOT get a consensus or support anywhere else on their views that the change s bad. Its basically forumshopping.

I told you if YOU had a problem with my edits that you should start a discussion about it but no you revoked my access and drowned me in discussions because you didn't agree throwing out there that you were an admin. You sir are out of line.

Now because of you I have this ANI on my record ruining my reputation on WP because you didn't want to do the right thing and follow the rules. But so far knowone cares about that. All they think is that I violated some rule and got this ANI for it when in fact this ANI was opened erroneously by you because you didn't agree with an edit I was doing citing a policy that doesn't even mention the argument that is your reason for the access removal.

It may be a minor edit but at least I am doing edits, a lot of them that even if they turn out to be trivial make the article and its talk page a little better each time. As the old addage says "if you watch the penny's the dollars will mind themselves". The same goes for articles. Even small edits if done progressively over time improves and has a longterm effect on the improvement of the article. After doing a little research I found that I have done as many edits this month alone as you have done Since May 2010 to Current combined. In December alone I did almost as many as you have done since you started in 2006 so maybe you are just upset that I am making you look bad because I have done more edits. I don't know and I really don't care but this needs to stop because the articles are suffering because of this petty baseless action. I freely admit I have made mistakes. I have made edits in the past that were wrong and when I did I fixed them (if someone didn't beat me to it) but this is not one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rule #4 includes edits that have no effect on the rendered page; this led to an editing restriction for Rich Farmbrough, and would lead to one for you if you were to continue that type of edit. If no one editor can speak for a project, that includes you. AWB is only intended for non-controversial tasks; if people disagree with some AWB edits the AWB user needs to stop and resolve the issue with discussion. It's not up to other people to convince the AWB user that they have to stop. See the quote from ArbCom in the orignal post at the top of this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the intent of rule #4 then it should say that. Which it does not and the reason it does not is because there has never been any open discussion I know of that determined it. It may have been a gentlmens agreement between you and others I don't know but what I do know is that the definition you are touting is not what the rules say.

Also that is NOT why Rich got an editing restriction. That restriction was much more than I have the time to get into and which I believe had some merits but has since turned into one or 2 users Wikistalking him around checking every edit until they find something.

As for the non-controversial edits statement. There is an editor on WP that will debate and disagree with just about anything. Some don't like the typo fixes, some don't like the persondata logic, some just flat out don't like AWB or any bots, etc. Would you really hold the point that know matter what the merits of the disagreement that the AWB operator must instantly stop and dive into a long discussion. I hope not because if that's the case then nothing will ever get done and we may as well turn of the lights, Shut off the servers and call the project a failure. Its not a matter of convincing the AWB user its a matter of what consensus is. I could start a debate about the merits of using server resources for bots like the ones you run that do not render any changes to the articles. Since we are building an encyclopedia it could be argued that such bots really only serve the purpose of satisfying curiousity and don't really contribute anything. I don't agree with that but it could be argued. Wouldn't that put them into the trivial and minor edit category as you have described them? Would that mean that you would then have to immediately stop what you are doing until our debate concluded? No, because there would be no merit to the argument just as there is no merit to your argument that removing garbage from an article is a minor edit regardless of the number bytes simply because it doesn't render anything to the page. How about this. Although I largely agree with rule 4 it clearly needs to be clarified so it doesn't continue to be used as a bludgeon. I agree that individually the minor edits should be avoided but I think our servers are powerful enough at this point that we can relax them slightly were multiple minor edits are being done at one time. How about we change rule 4 slightly to clarify what a minor edit is by adding a sentence of clarification. Here is the wording I propose to add to the end of rule 4. It has been mentioned to me that my grammer is not the best so feel free to reword it if you like. I highlighted the addition in bold:

• Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as individual changes that only add or remove some white space, move a stub tag, convert some HTML to Unicode, remove underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. However, if the edit changes the article size by more than 25 bytes (increase or decrease) or if the change contains more than three edits perceived to be minor at one time (not including removing white space or removing underlines), then it can be considered to be more than a minor edit. (i.e., if the edit moves a stub tag, fixes some HTML coding or removes deprecated, unused or unneeded template fields).'

I admit it makes the rule longer but it retains the same effect while removing much of the gray area and allows for us to fix some of the "minor" problems that have persisted for so long because of the argument that were going to clog a watchlist (the servers are really not an issue. They can handle millions of changes an hour). I agree that individually these changes should not be done but if there are multiple minor things on the article then it could have a substantial impact on how the article is perceived by the reader. For example look at this version and then look at this version. It has a huge section of blank space, underlines, an out of place stub and if you view it you'll see the garbage I added to the template as an example. Individually they don't amount to much but together they significantly change the article and all are minor edits and are currently not allowed by the current rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: it may or may not be helpful to revise policy or AWB rules, but this is not the place to discuss it. The only real issue for ANI seems to be the question of what is required for Kumioko's AWB access to be restored. CBM might be best placed to state clearly (as a proposal for Kumioko and/or the community) what AWB use commitments Kumioko should make. Further discussion can then take place elsewhere about policy/rules and specific content issues in relation to what Kumioko would like to do. Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually what should happen is for my access to be restored because CBM should not have removed it in the first place because the rules he is citing that I violated do not exist!. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232: I think that the main point is that Kumioko needs to stop editing when people disagree with his edits. That goes a long way, because other people can always point out if he is violating the AWB rules. Kumioko also needs to cease from making trivial edits - every non-bot edit made with AWB is already required to be manually inspected, so it's easy to just not save them.

If any other admin is satisfied from Kumioko's statements that he will follow the AWB rules going forward, don't wait for me, you can restore his access right away. I have said from the beginning it was only intended to be a temporary removal. However, at the moment, Kumioko seems to be ignoring the conversation here, and denying that his edits violate the usual standards for AWB. So I am not yet comfortable restoring the access myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The main point is still and has always been that I Never violated any rules. The rule does not say what you say it does. Anyone can clearly see that. Now drop this stupidity and restore my access. In fact, At this point I really don't care if you restore my AWB rights because this ANI has shown me that my help isn't particularly wanted. If I am the only one that can see that CBM acted improperly then clearly knowone has read the rules and simply views me as any other nuisance editor out running amok. Who really cares about the thousands of edits that I would do to help the encyclopedia so I may as well invest my time elsewhere. Between the nightmare I went through trying to get WPUS started again and now this, Wikipedia just isn't fun anymore. I don't care to participate in discussions and drama unlike some. I want to build an Encyclopedia and make information available to all. Its a lost cause at this point I fear so keep the access and I'll just practice my french and get something useful out of my time. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You know buddy, You might want to take a few days off. A wikibraek so to speak. No reason to get so bent out of shape over what should be a fun hobby. Just a bit of friendly advice.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your right. In fact I think I am pretty much done for good. Its just not fun anymore so you hit the nail on the head there. I was going to draft a bigger response but it just doesn't matter. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for even long-term contributors to run into problems getting their way, when they think they're obviously right; and they can end up feeling unrespected and unvalued. I've been there myself, and had several very long wikibreaks as a result. If necessary, take a break and get some perspective. I think even if you don't eventually recognise that you were in the wrong here, you will be able to put it down to experience as a disagreement of the sort that happens occasionally on a project like this; you have to take the rough with the smooth, even if sometimes it seems very rough. Anyway, the specific issues here which led to the revocation of your AWB access and a lack of clamour for it to be reinstated (that nobody has yet yelled "admin abuse" in this thread ought to tell you something) absolutely do not mean that your past and hopefully future contributions are not valued and respected. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a week off one time as a self imposed block. I didn't even go to wikipedia to look anything up and took the link to wikipedia off my toolbar on my computer to keep me honest. It was refreshing.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@RD232. I don't know why I am even taking the time to reply because its obvious knowone agrees or knowone really cares either way enough is enough. I'm tired of all the drama for just trying to improve articles. The problem with your statement is I don't believe I am in the wrong because I didn't do anything wrong. The edits aren't minor. Period. CBM didn't like the edits I was doing and refused to start a discussion to see if there was consensus for his view. So he revoked my access to AWB and threw a couple of general policy's and left. The policy he said I broke doesn't exist and the violation isn't listed in the policy he stated I violated. To be honest it doesn't surprise me that you support CBM because you have been pretty vocal that you don't care much for AWB but it surprises me that few others have said anything. Honestly that tells me that most probably think this is stupid as well and it isn't worth their time to respond. This ANI certainly isn't worth the length it has become.

@Jojhutton. I'm sorry to hear that but its pretty typical for this place to run people off. That's why I am considering scrambling my password so even if I wanted to come back I couldn't. I almost left last month and it was only because several editors talked me out of it but editing just isn't fun anymore. Too many editors spending too much time nitpicking edits and wanting to debate and argue every edit. There has been a dramatic decrease in editors in WP and I believe its largely because of these types of reasons. Too busy worrying about the policies instead of the content. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is a disappointing response. I'd suggested to you that in the long term you might be able to see this situation differently, or at least put it behind you in a "shit happens" sort of way, and your response is to reiterate your current view and to attack me. (For the record, I have used AWB quite a bit at times; my view is simply that it is a powerful tool and its power has to be used cautiously.) It looks more and more like you really could use a break, for the idea that people aren't chipping in at an ANI thread because they think the issue is stupid is well, novel. Rd232 ^talk 08:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be disappointing. We should be encouraging editors to participate in building an encyclopedia not beat them down with vague policies that a re poorly written and left so open to interpretation that any editor can challenge any edit made by implying that a rule means something it clearly does not state. Maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of the AWB policy but since I just looked through the edits of over 100 of the AWB users and they are all performing and least some of the edits that my rights were revoked for I doubt it. Knowhere in any of the AWB rules state anything about the rendering of the page which is why he wanted me to stop. This ANI isn't about my ability or lack of it in policies its in CBM flexing his muscle as an admin to set an example to others. That's it and one of the reasons I lost the desire long ago to be an admin. Too many of them don't actually care about doing what they have the power to do. They just hang out in the discussion boards and debate. Personally I think this ANI is just retaliation from CBM because I hurt his feelings when I told him I didn't agree with his interpretation of the policy and wasn't going to drop everything just because 1 editor had a problem. Your right though that AWB is a powerful tool. That's why I use it so much and a small part of the reason why there is little point editing without it. I also am very surprised that everyone has been so supportive of CBM in this. I haven't seen one person say you know what maybe he acted rashly. Maybe he should have opened up a discussion first before he blocked this contributors rights. After all he is a senior editor who has been around for a while with a very high edit count, not some new novice editor. Nothing. No assumptions of good faith on my part. Just assumptions of well he's here so there must be a good reason. I shouldn't half to take a shit happens sort of attitude because another editor acted rashly. Of course I'm pissed off and want to go down fighting that CBM is destroying my credibility with the baseless accusation that I don't know what I am doing. The AWB rules are even posted in this thread and'clearly anyone can see they don't say what he says they do. But no because hes a bot operator and an admin he is above reproach and therefore I must be in the wrong. The sad thing is that although this has chipped awy at my desire to participate the thing being hurt the worst by my absence is the articles. CBM and his max 20 edits a day aren't going to replace the hundreds of edits I do a day fixing problems, doing reviews, discussion policy changes, helping other users, etc. At a modest 5000 edits a month (I have done over 10000 a month for the last 6 months or so) that's about 60, 000 edits that won't get done. But the minor edit policy is all anyone wants to talk about. We should be concentrating our efforts on the articles not this. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A way out of this

Kumioko, I 'll give you back your AWB right if you agree to do the following:

• Assess pages for WikiProject USA as your primary task
  • Remove the parameters you were removing (nested, etc.) as secondary task
  • Bypass redirects only if something else is happening and not do it for the cases the WikiProject disagrees
• Stop fixing whitespace until you convince the community this is a useful thing to do.

I am OK if a small proportion of your edits is the removal of the parameters, but this shouldn't not become a main task. You are dedicated editor but you have to realise that some tasks can be done in combination with other to save edits and some other stuff can't be done when the community disagrees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Im fine with the last bullet and I appreciate that but the problem with that proposition is that I submitted and stopped doing the assessments because some other editors opposed them. I had to stop tagging articles with the Wikiproject US banner because some editors disapproved and I submitted and stopped doing that as well. This time an editor (CBM) complained about deleting the parameters quoting a BS complaint about fields not rendering the page was in a rule (which it clearly isn't) and I got fed up and told him that I wasn't going to stop for 1 editor this time and my AWB access was removed. So you see my quandry. It doesn't really matter much if you restore it at this point because there is no edit that can be made on WP that isn't or can't be contested so as long as the AWB rules are open ended and forcing any AWB user to immediately stop or face the consequences I'm just wasting my time. Wikipedia is clearly more of a social network now more interested in enforcing policies and participating in discussion over the symantics of what constitutes a minor edit than writing an online Encyclopedia and that's not what I'm interested in participating in. Its also obvious that having a 1000 characters of garbage on the banners is preferred so here is no need in removing them which also pretty much wipes out the list of suggestions you presented and why I deleted all the coding I wrote to fix it. Of course in that was a lot of code to fix other problems like broken parameters, template order, missing fields for banners and the like but those really aren't important either I guess. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add that since multiple editors have commented that I did something wrong. Whether I agree or not is an indication what needs to be done. With that I am going to go back and start reverting my recent changes as being without consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing unused parameters in the cases you did it, has consensus (not cleaning all empty parameters) but if you are seeking to do this massively you have to get approval. The reason is that this will upset a lot of watchlists and it is better if this is done in additional to something better and more valuable.

Removing spaces in headers has no consensus and causes bigger diffs which make control of your edits more difficult. This is the controversial part of your edits by the rules of use of awb.

Bypassing redirects has consensus in many cases but not in all. Moreover, it should not be the sole reason to edit a page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Although there is logic to what you say I must admit that really don't think we should worry if watchlists are filling up. The parameter cleanup obviously doesn't have consensus because Carl has been touting all along that because it does not render the page it is a minor edit and against the rules of use for AWB. Same with bypassing redirects. Another part of Carl's argument for this ANI is that those are not allowed because of the ongoing discussion at the WikiProject Council. The third is partially true but only in the sense that it was one of the changes I was doing. Your statement that the first 2 are not against consensus is in contrast to what Carl has been saying all along with my edits and what I have been screaming about all along. I said long ago I would stop removing the useless and unneeded spaces but Carl doesn't want me to do the others either stating these are against the AWB rules. Now I am not trying to put you on the spot here but which is it are they allowed or aren't they? --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, why you don't assess page doing your cleanup as I described it at the same time? If you want to do mass cleanup address too BRFA. I don't understand where is the drama. You gave the impression that you want to skip the discussion in the WikiProject Council. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I contrary to Carl I believe that a BRFA for cleaning parameters would be successful. I support you on this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Its alright regardless of the outcome once this ANI is over im out. It been fun and I learned a lot but Im not interested in the drama and games anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have not realized that 'not breaking rules' is not the same as having 'consensus'. jmcw (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i understand the difference very well what you are not understanding is that there is consensus for the changes I was making, the rules do not state what CBM is saying they do, and the act of revoking my access was nothing short of absurd. If I am missing your point please feel free to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that because you thought that you were not breaking any rules, you could make the changes that you wanted: you had assumed consensus. If you had exchanged a dozen sentences stating your intentions, you would have save these thousand sentences here at ANI. You are not wrong - but you still have not formed consensus - anything that affects thousands of articles needs a bit of explicit consensus forming. A single edit may be based on your own assumptions (Be Bold) but a bot needs explicit permission. Fast AWB lies somewhere in the middle. I hope you continue your good work at Wikipedia (with a bit of pleasant interaction with the other people). jmcw (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again those who value process over people triumph. Let us hope that triumph is short lived. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

A completely useless, antagonising statement. Process is not intrinsically useless. Process includes things like issuing driving licences and ensuring that complex surgical operations follow best practice procedures. And there is no particular process at issue here, merely the prior demonstration of consensus for actions which are hard or impossible [you can't unbump 1000s of watchlists] to undo. Rd232 ^talk 13:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely appalling, this narrow-minded harassment of a productive editor over what is essentially nonsense. The removal of rights without adequete discussion was flat-out wrong, and the constant criticism and CBM's outright misleading statements have done the entire project net harm. You've driven away a good editor simply because you disagreed with how he cleaned up the obscure inner workings of the encyclopedia... It's like manipulating the janitor's union to fire a man because he mopped a different way than you did. If you thought he was wasting his time, then you should have let him. Process, however much you value it, should never be valued over a dedicated contributor. For shame! bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, and for a most helpful contribution. You've won me over: I'm now an anarchist! Oh, wait. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the snarky flame-bait-trolling response. I was totally advocating anarchy. Oh, wait. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fighting fire with fire. You threw out unsupported accusations, strange metaphors, and a general cloud of WP:ABF. Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its an assumption of bad faith when bad faith is being presented all over the circumstances of this ANI. But of course I am a bit biased in that statement. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it bad faith to criticize what is in front of me, plain as day? Where does faith, good or bad, come into this at all? What strange metaphors? And what is unsupported or accusatory about my criticisms? Bah, this drama is useless. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course process is not inherently useless, but in the end process is to serve us and not the other way around, even with medical procedures. The consultant who informed me that the the treatment of cancer involved 400 separate steps expected me to be impressed. Quite the opposite, it seemed a recipe for disaster, and so it proved. And in the Wikipedia context, we are a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. Allowing (or worse using) process to drag good faith editors through the mud does not sit well with that partnership. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

I don't check ANI regularly but saw this thread today. I'm hugely disappointed! The AWB edits appearing on watchlists isn't a huge deal. In edits like this, he is uncollapsing the WikiProject banners and I think that can be regarded as more than a minor edit to the talk page. Kumioko's work on organising the WikiProject United States and other wikiproject banners had been enormously helpful. Kumioko was also helping with Smithsonian wikiproject, tagging articles and helping us assess them, so we can determine priority articles to work on. (with help from Smithsonian curators/staff) If Kumioko doesn't help with it, someone else will need to do it. If I did it, sure I would make more mistakes and missteps on policies, due to less experience with these sorts of edits. Yet, the talk page edits to do assessments, priorities, and cleanup banners, are part of the greater good of organizing work on improving content. (why are we all here anyway? to write an encyclopedia!) Thanks Kumioko so much for your help, it is very much appreciated. I'm sorry to see this dispute here on ANI and encourage everyone to not dwell so much on trivial matters and let's be focused on the greater good, why we are here. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit you linked is exactly the sort of edit that was the problem. It has no effect whatsoever on the appearance or function of the article; the banners were not collapsed before. Moreover, there is an ongoing discussion in which it looks like there is not consensus to bypass the redirects like he did. So there are several reasons not to make that sort of edit. But Kumioko refused to stop, which led us here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

CBM you didn't look closely enough. I think this discussion and the whole situation is upsetting you because you didn't notice it does change the page because it was collapsed. Therefore it changed the rendering of the page by removing the collapsed state thereby in your own definition it is not a minor edit. Lets also be clear that there was consensus prior to that conversation at the WikiProject Council talk page, multiple editors and a couple bots are also changing those redirects and continue to do so since. That conversation does not constitute a lack of consensus. In fact if anything it shows a lack of consensus for not doing the standardization changes. It shows that some projects might not desire the change. However that debate started because the submitter failed to get any support in the other venues he attempted the discussion at. Most of the WikiProjects are fine with it and those that didn't support it are being left alone but in most cases the logic that fixes various problems doesn't work on them. Which is fine. If you want to find the consensus then submit it to the Village pump or the individual project but as I stated at the Council page 1 or 2 editors cannot determine the consensus of the entire community and not for a project they are members of. Especially after multiple failed attempts to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, your argument is that one or two editors cannot determine the consensus of the whole community, unless they are you, in which case you can edit as many articles as you like to implement your taste regardless of other editors' objections. That's not very compelling.

You're right about the collapsed thing; I somehow thought it was uncollapsed. But if there was consensus to get rid of the "collapsed" parameter we would just turn it off in WPBS; there's no reason for AWB users to go around removing it randomly. Again, you seem to be arguing that your taste is more important than the taste of whoever else edited the article before. Similarly with the empty parameters, which a real bot would remove if there was consensus to do so. Someone else thought they were helpful when they were added. There were plenty of other trivial edits beyond the collapsed one, for example [10].

As far as I can tell that entire AWB run was intended to simply press your personal ideas of how you preferred for the template invocations to appear, regardless whether there was consensus to do them. Since then, you've continued to ignore a lack of consensus for your edits, which I view as confirmation of the original problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's quite nitpicky to argue about collapsed vs. uncollapsed banners. I don't see consensus to not do the edits to uncollapse and cleanup the project banners. Out of curiosity, I checked Special:Random/talk and found 75% of talk pages (of sample of 20) with multiple banners had them uncollapsed. I also found, perhaps equal number, of pages that were unassessed for quality or importance. Yet, as we've found with the Smithsonian project or doing "Wikis Love Monuments" and such projects, these assessments and banners are so very helpful. From what I see, Kumioko has been helping facilitate assessments for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States (thank you!), and in the process making Wikipedia:WikiProject United States talk pages banners more consistent. No big deal, really. Let's get out of the weeds and look at the bigger picture.

Equally, CBM, your work on mathematics articles is awesome and hope you don't get too sidetracked on ANI. I think that's not good for anyone's wiki-health and stress. I wish both you and Kumioko well. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about taking discussion back to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser? I see some discussion about AWB rules there that could be useful, but not sure how useful the ANI discussion is at this point. --Aude (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that there may be a mix of consequential and inconsequential edits being discussed, and there is some conflation of the two. It also seems to me that the breaches Kumioko is being accused of are largely 'technical' in that some artificial line has been crossed. Many of the edits have consensus and are non-trivial, as demonstrated by Aude's comments above. Kumioko has combined several marginally trivial tasks into one AWB run that will most likely result in a series of marginally non-trivial edit, at worst. CBM has been unable to demonstrate that there are no benefits or that harm has been done. In view of the existence of consensus on, for example, the removal of white spaces, or removal of deprecated or empty parameters within templates, perhaps this task can be incorporated as a feature (MOS style fix?), so that it can be triggered when one of the thousand AWB users uses AWB for their gnoming?

  I would concur that this discussion would be more fruitful if adjourned to WT:AWB. It is also my opinion that K's AWB access be restored. I would also add that I appreciate what Kumioko is trying to achieve, but feel that xhe is showing signs of stress/distress. But it's nothing that cannot be cured by taking a few days off, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ohconfucious, and especially on the restoration of Kumioko's AWB rights, even if Kumioko does leave the project - this is simply polite after it was removed by an admin who firstly in in dispute over this particular matter, and secondly maintains the only WikiProject banner that doesn't have at least a redirect from the project name - effectively the last completely non-standard compliant naming. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)"In view of the existence of consensus on, for example, the removal of white spaces"...Umm, what consensus? Where was this consensus established. As far as I know, there is stil zero consensus for the removal of e.g. single white spaces from section headers, and this certainly shouldn't be done by AWB or bots. To take an examle given earlier in this thread; [11] would be a much shorter and clearer diff if only the Wproject renames were done (assuming those have consensus), and the unneeded and unwanted header changes weren't done. With AWB and bots, stick to things that are generally wanted and needed, and avoid the unnecessary, trivial, or controversial stuff. Fram (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate it but at this point theres no need to restore my access or to worry about wether I can be trusted to not do trivial edits or changes that some deem to be unwanted or unneeded especially since both those terms are subjective to the editors personal preference. Fram I don't think that was a very good example because I would suggest that diff was pretty darn clear even with the header space removal and if an editor can't read the changes (and no offense intended here) they probably shouldn't be editing. I have done some in the past though that were very difficult to read the diffs on though. Those are fairly rare though and I just went ahead with them rather than split the change into multiple edits. Anyway I have already stopped editing articles and am only dealing in discussion pertaining directly to this ANI or the associated problems so once these are done Im out and both sides will be free to do as much or as little as you feel appropriate. If the project gets more serious about content than whether an edit is or is not a minor edit and other such uselessness I may come back but in the meantime peoples priorities just aren't in the right place so I think I will start editing Knol or something else. I will still contribute to something. Jut not here. Theres too much drama. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, your insinuation that those who are asking you to stop making trivial and unnecessary changes are not "serious about content" or improving Wikipedia is ringing rather hollow. Deprecated parameters in talk pages are not serious content matters, they're harmless bits of vestigial wikicode - their presence or removal make no substantive difference in the quality of the project. Your failure to accept this fact is what is causing continued friction here. –xeno^talk 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That example is just one of the literally thousands of changes I was making. Whether deprecated parameters matter or not is a matter of debate. Unfortunately so is everything else. If I started adding Inofboxes to the people without them someone would complain, if I started to fix problems with citations as Rj and Citationbot does, someone would complain. If I create an article on a Medal of Honor recipient someone would likely argue it was non notable (it happened frequently). My point is that everythign is contestable as long as you are working with content. Ironically the things that don't change content like creating newsletters, updating portals, working with many of the bots that don't do anything with content, etc. All important tasks mind you but all have minimal contestability because they don't actually "render" any changes to the content. They don't change anything in the content at all thereby keeping the individuals for the most part out of the line of fire. --Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - OMG, are we still on this? Kumioko, you were given a chance to get the tool back a few days ago and you continue arguing. I am so at a loss for words.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can continue to act as if you are being persecuted, but the fact remains that many editors use AWB day-in, day-out, without issue. Many editors run bots using the AWB framework without issue.

Stop making the trivial changes (on their own, or at all) that people are complaining about, and be on your way. If they are desirable changes (removing nested=yes), they can be done in conjunction with substantive edits (tagging/assessing). If they are undesirable changes without consensus (changing spacing around headers), just don't do them at all.

Or, just keep arguing about it and building straw men until no one wants to argue with you anymore. The choice is yours. –xeno^talk 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not agree that changes like this where I removed 1000 characters are minor because it didn't render any changes to the page whereas changes like this one where 1 character is changed and isn't considered minor by the definitions because it does render a change. That logic is flawed. I am also sorry that because I do a lot of edits I pop on peoples radar a lot more than say someone who only does a few chanegs a day. And jsut because a bot uses AWB to deliver newsletters or the myriads of other things that its used for that it doesn't get this much attention. My problem is less about that I was blocked but why and how. You are right about one thing though and that is that in the end this really doesn't matter. The rules for AWB use are now even more restrictive than before, the editors who are the champions for allowing garbage and deprecated parameters to stay because garbage "doesn't hurt anything" have won and I have opted to retire rather than to edit articles in light of the requirement that I must submit to questioning every time someone complains for any reason about any edit regardless of the merits of the complaint. --Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The change to the article you have linked is minor but nontrivial. –xeno^talk 17:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A slippery slope though when determining what is allowed and what is not and I would say these types of edits are of no consequence and changing or not changing them does nothing meaningful to the reader. Normally wouldn't bother the user or anyone else to complain about such things because I personally believe that even relatively minor changes like this can and do incrementally improve the article of time. But the ongoing discussions and strong opinions to the contrary seem to indicate that a minor edit, regardless of the utility over time, should NEVER be done with AWB and this type of edit, trivial or not, is a minor one and according the rules of use for AWB should not be done. If the rules are so stringent as they are made out to be here and on the AWB talk page discussion then we should strongly encourage our users not to do such edits because they " waste system resources and fill watchlists". --Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits are not prohibited. Trivial edits are. Making an edit to correct a typo (adding an accent) is minor and nontrivial. If you continue to advanced straw man arguments, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. –xeno^talk 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you choose to withdraw from the conversation that is your right but your statement is not inline with what the rules currently state nor with the general consensus of the conversation that has trasnpired above. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating "minor" with "trivial". They are distinct. –xeno^talk 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Xeno knows what he's talking about, here. Kumioko, you can continue to argue the wording of the rules, or you can accept that your edits were not within consensus and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that Xeno knows what hes talking about but your comment sounds as though you think I do not. This is not Wikilawyering but a difference of opinion. So based on your comments then The Hand That Feeds You I presume that you agree that edits like this where I removed 1000 characters are minor because it didn't render any changes to the page whereas changes like this one where 1 diacratic character was changed are not? --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, please stop saying "minor" when you (presumably) mean "trivial" or "insignificant". A minor edit can be either trivial or nontrivial. –xeno^talk 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You're obviously not getting it. Xeno is right. Your 1000+ edits were trivial, while the single diacritic one was not. More to the point, the main problem was the mass of 1000+ trivial edits together with no overall consensus nor bot approval. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You apparently don't realize that the 1000+ characters I mentioned was to one article. One article with 1000 bytes of garbage. There is no need for bot approval for that trivial edit or not and the cinsensus for removing these is the same consensus that drafted the template documentation stating the information should not be there in the first place. If the consensus didn't agree with that they would have said in the documentation that garbage left behind that doesn't do anything to the article either way may be left behind. It does not say that however and states that it should not be there. If you don't agree and think that adding every field for every template is the appropriate thing to do then I suggest you try and get consensus for that. Otherwise consensus does exist wether 1 or 2 editors disagree or not. I would argue that the 1000+ members of Wikiproject MILHIST constitute a much higher conensus than those 2 editors arguing otherwise. But your right I may be wrong about how Wikipedia gauges consensus and how much weight a vote for lack of a better term is given for administrators over reguler editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Harmless bits of vestigial wikicode" is an oxymoron. Mostly harmless would be nearer the mark. Given enough time or enough pages these items accumulate and become harmful, affecting load time of source pages, increasing the time take to navigate the page, polluting template and parameter namespace. Per Wikipedia:Pruning article revisions bundling these clean-up tasks into one edit that is being made for another reason is a good thing. the necessity or even wisdom of particular items can be discussed, but there is a broad consensus that we try to avoid these types of edit as stand-alone edits. And indeed that is what Kumioko was doing. However CBM had inferred from spuriously combining the phraseology of my "editing restriction" and rule #3 (or possibly 4) of AWB use that any AWB edit that doesn't affect the rendered page is verboten. He decided that it was sufficient grounds to revoke Kumioko's AWB access. This was a poor decision for three reasons. Firstly he made up a rule. Secondly he was in dispute. Thirdly he is not neutral over banner standardisation. For all these reasons he should personally restore Kumioko's AWB rights. Of course if he chooses not to it's no big deal, since Kumiko is finished with the project, but it would still be the right thing to do. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks but please don't restore my AWB access. I wanted it back but now 8 days later I clearly don't need it. WP has gone without the 3 or 4 thousand edits I would have done between then and now and its clearly survived in my absence. 'If I come back later I can rerequest it otherwise I would rather the access wasn't on my account in case my account becomes compromised. I have always thought that the access should be removed from inactive accounts and I may as well set the example. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you presenting yourself as a gallant, self-sacrificing hero to this process about consensus? What would satisfy you to continue as the valuable editor that you were before you encountered AWB and these issues about consensus? Tell us something positive! jmcw (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a hero at all but that would be cool if that's how some users thought of me. I doubt it though. What would satisfy me is to recognize that I am trying to get rid of garbage that doesn't belong on the articles and that they are better off for it. Not to mention that 1000 characters doesn't equal a minor edit/trivial edit. Since that is unlikely to happen I'm not sure I have much positive to say at the moment I'm afraid. --Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand bots, and what they should or shouldn't be doing. But I'm curious to know why this kind of edit is so serious that it's regarded as reason to remove AWB access. I understand that it's trivial, almost pointless, but why is making pointless edits grounds for removal? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a conversation at the WikiProject Council, which Kumioko was also participating in, where people were objecting to that very kind of edit. Kumioko took the opinion that he would just ignore the conversation (even though he was contributing to it) and run an AWB job to do what he wanted. The fact that trivial edits are also against the AWB rules was an additional factor, but ignoring the ongoing conversation to run an AWB task despite disagreement was the main one. That was the sort of thing that led to the date delinking RFARB and which needs to be nipped in the bud. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I agree that I shouldn't have done the particular edit identified above. I believe that represents a minority of the edits I did and is not representative of the type of edit I am arguing here. BTW the conversation that CBM is bringing up yet again is discussing' WikiProject banner standardization and does not represent a lack of consensus. The issue is being discussed because they could not get any support in other venues and so they brought it up again to the WikiProject Council where, although several have spoken against the standardization, still doesn't have support. But there is no reason to dwell on who is or isn't right. I have seen that the policy is more important than the result. --Kumioko (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec; to Carl) I was just wondering what the harm is of pointless edits. I see people do it all the time, changing reflist to Reflist, and Infobox person to Infobox Person, or maybe the other way round. I'm curious to know why it's worthy of AWB removal, or why anyone cares one way or the other—cares enough to do it (assuming there's no technical reason for it that I'm not familiar with) or cares enough to object. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Manually, here and there? No problem. In conjunction with other substantive edits? No problem. But trivial edits done by themselves on a mass scale can disrupt watchlists and recentchanges, unnecessarily consume editor attention and other resources, and make article histories longer than they have to be. And in the past, we've seen two different tools flipflopping and warring back-and-forth over the same trivial detail (first-letter template capitalization). In any case - from what I understand - the reason AWB was removed in this instance was not simply for the trivial changes, but for the user's stated position that they would continue with the changes while they were in dispute and under discussion. AWB (and other automated tools) are not to be used for mass-editing campaigns seeking to achieve fait accompli. –xeno^talk 23:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that makes sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its fine now. The articles are safe and you don't have to worry about me doing edits that show up on watchlists or consume editors attention anymore (but look how much attention has gone into this ANI string instead of the 3 or 4 thousand articles I would have edited if I wasn't here). Besides, Since discussions happen daily and on every coneivable subject relating to editing I can't see how I can be effective with AWB if I have to stop editing whenever any editor starts a discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. After all this discussion, you still don't understand that being questioned while you do automated editing is something that should immediately stop you from using AWB, to understand the complaint. If you are very "effective with AWB" but in the wrong direction, you are very harmful to the project. If you elect to continue editing after being questioned then you are a loose cannon, potentially harmful to the project. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Er. He has stopped - he made that quite clear. And he stopped to have a discussion. On the other hand since filbustering cannot continue for ever he elected to continue with legitmate edits. Only to be blocked by one of his opponents on spurious grounds. Well like I say, the blocking admin won. The project lost. Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Nobody was blocked. Removal of AWB access - which I have always stressed was to be temporary - doesn't stop anyone from editing, using discussion pages, etc. It's not a block.

On the other hand, Kumioko did not stop to have a discussion. Instead, he kept editing through the discussion and said things like, "I am not going to stop because 1 or 2 editors out of thousands think its not needed." At first he claimed that the edits were actually mistakes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of my administrator actions: block of WikiManOne

Resolved portion

Note: WikiManOne is being discussed above for another issue, independent of this.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I recently put down a block on WikiManOne (talk · contribs) after reading the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours). This was a difficult block to make, because I have expressed a very strong opinion on just this very subject, and it is diametrically opposed to {{user|WikiManOne's. Worse, after I made the block, I was already going to bring it to ANI, but I now actually notice that WikiManOne was the very same editor to whom I expressed this opinion! The result is that I've made a block that was out of the scope of what was appropriate for me. I don't want to completely undo it and as such give the editor a free pass if the block was justified (which I still believe it was, based simply on the structure of the edits, regardless of content). Can I have the community to take a review of it please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I'd say you're in the green. This is a textbook violation of 3RR - given that you're a great administrator, I won't hesitate to say that I trust your ability to make a neutral judgment based solely on offenses and not previous experience. m.o.p 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) It looks fine to me, good for you for bringing it up here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) You are an admin, and thus your action is wrong. However, I am also an admin which makes my comment wrong. Any admin either agreeing with me or disagreeing me is also wrong (although it is wrong of me to say that). Are you sure you are an admin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Resp to Magog, below. I am supporting your action; although you may be somewhat involved (and thus are "wrong") you did the right thing - per my agentBaseball Bugs, every admin action or comment is "wrong" (including my own attempt at humour, apparently) so... don't fret. It's fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm afraid your sarcasm is lost on me LHvU. I don't get it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is not unlike Jayron's recent self-directed comment that "everything he says is wrong". I expect LHvU is saying that any admin's actions are under review and in some sence "everything they do is wrong", at least in the eyes of some editors. Hope that helps. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) simpl if you have doubts then revert it and bring it here. it shows great AGF (and even this admission does) een though there may ave been support for it. You may vry well be one of th ebetter admins i know, along with Number 57.--Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly, I would hate to see either 1) the editor's block log unnecssarily plugged up with another block or 2) the editor not be blocked for behavior which the community agrees on. I would be glad to unblock otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC) - Two days is cheap enough for this report the user was only blocked a couple of days ago and has raced back in seemingly without listening to any advice - Magog's realized he was a bit involved and so brought it here, for opinions, and I support his actions completely. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Some, though not all, of WikiMan's verbal attacks on other editors are unfair and unjustified. He needs to cool his jets a bit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) This is an edit warring block after a similar one 48 hours ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks and edit warring. Not a good combination. No matter how well-meaning he may be, he's building up to a permanent place in the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Good block I was considering it myself, and I tend to lean a bit more on WM1's side of the argument.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Agree with Sarek, might give you a swat with a Template:Minnow and say in the future watch how involved you are The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've taken ownership of the block, so he can't complain about Magog not being impartial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC) The mistake was certainly understandable - when a user's name doesn't match their signature, it's possible to accidentally not realize the two are one in the same. Sure, it would have been better if someone else had done it, but it's not the end of the world. --B (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm, good point B. There may be a bit of climbing the Reichstag dressed as spiderman here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This is getting to be a bit ridiculous; the talk page is being used to soapbox, not to request unblock. I request another admin give him a final warning before locking his page for the remainder of the time. I have nothing against WikiManOne (or at least I didn't until a few minutes ago), but right now the discussion is counterproductive and taking away from other areas where we could be working. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm. User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling had his talk page access revoked for posting repeatedly on his talk page without requesting an unblock... Is that appropriate here? Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) IMHO it would not be appropriate as long as people are engaging him in conversation. First step would be to request the unblocked editors to stop engaging in the back and forth. Give him the chance to settle down for his block without resorting to more button use.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Good call. TBH the request probably shouldn't have come from me either, seeing as the editor now thinks I'm Satan incarnate, or right-wing religious man incarnate, or something along those likes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (ec) I'm not a huge fan of removing talk page access for this. It's not disruption if everyone just ignores him. Let him rant, he'll tire himself out. And perhaps sometime in the next two days a friend of his will come along and talk some sense into him. I'd only suggest revoking his talk page if he starts posting serial unblock requests. Lest I come off as too much of a softy, though: I see his name associated with turmoil and conflict all the time; is he worth it? I'm too lazy to look into his contributions in more detail to see, but my first impression is that this is someone here for the thrill of the battle, and it might be best to show him the door if he doesn't change his attitude fairly quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I've had some interaction with him and I'm not involved in the content area. From what I've seen, I believe he's a good faith editor. But one who's editing controversial articles that he's passionate about. I don't believe that he's here just to battle, but rather his intense belief, including the belief that he's right in his edits have led to what we see. I wouldn't label him a irredeemable troublemaker. That said he does need to learn from this.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC) OK Cube, I will defer to the judgment of someone who has actually looked into this for more than the 90 seconds I gave it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This edit by WikiManOne to his own talk page should be noted, though he has removed it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, it was removed for him, he restored it, and was reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Topic Block I just became aware of this, so I am arriving late to this party...hell, damned thing is over...but WMO has a mentor (my previous in fact) User:Kubigula, who has been trying to work with WMO. WMO isn't responding to anything that Kubigula is saying, obviously. I have put this by Kubigula, but it being 7am here (as of this writing) he isn't up or responded, but I feel a topic block (NOT ban) is needed to get WMO back on the right track. If we get him out of the constant battleground that is the abortion articles, we might have a chance of keeping this user, a good one as said by Cube above, from an indef block. I would recommend a 6 month block from any abortion related article, including creating them or even posting to their talk pages. He needs to be taken completely out of that arena and moved on to something else. First screw up, a one week block. I was going to go with a final stern warning here, but he has had those to no avail. Second screw up, one month block. Strike three, he's out. Indef block. I know it is harsh, but if he sees the writing is on the wall, maybe he will chill out and move on to something different. He can't keep battling on at the abortion articles or he will wind up in indef-land anyway. What say you? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I think what you're asking for is a six month topic ban. Or, if that's not the case, can you clarify what you mean by "topic block"? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 2 or 3 months, anything abortion related might be helpful to the user as he is only struggling with the intensity in that area, talk page involvement allowed. Or a few weeks, 5 or 6, one revert condition and have someone clearly explain what a revert is might be helpful to him. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not too sure what a topic block is, either. I also think that these are drastic measures. m.o.p 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Topic ban just seems permanent, so I went with "topic block". If you wish to use "ban", that's cool. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply to User:Master of Puppets - Some might say to allow the user to return to the same editing style without some assistance is certain to result in an indefinite restriction, so I don't see a minor restriction now as drastic, I see it as a benefit and helping the contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have to say, I have been very taken aback by the user's whole response. He's exhibited some textbook-case MPOV problems (asserting the necessity to more than 3 reversions in a day, accusations of a cabal, assumptions of bad faith, referring to his version as the consensus version when he was the only consenter, etc.). I honestly can't understand how someone can go from being so reasonable (as he was on my talk page the other day), to so out in left-field (no pun intended... he claims to be opposite right-wing). He literally is claiming that I blocked him because I oppose his point of view (I blocked him only because I patrol WP:AN3), and that other editors with even the tiniest history of disagreeing with him are in an alliance to support me. I figure this can only be attributed to either 1) a lavishly paranoid personality, 2) youthful naivety, 3) naivety due to getting all his information from lavishly paranoid bloggers and talk show hosts or 4) a case of "takes one to know one", meaning this is what he would do in that situation (ever notice how sockpuppeteers are the most likely to throw around multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry?). IMHO it is much more likely than anything that this is a case of #2 or #3, which means that he is reformable, if open. I think a several week topic ban would be best for him; whether enforced by the community, or self-enforced on his own part. If it comes from the community (and I am not necessarily supporting that option), then the dictum and enforcement should only come from someone who is completely on his side. Lastly, I think we should torture him by mechanically prying his eyes open and making him watch some right-wing propaganda (just kidding). Or alternatively, maybe just politely suggest that he join a debate club so he can learn to argue for the other side and assume good faith. I don't want to pile-on, but I want WMO to understand exactly what he's up against, and the reasons the community considers his actions disruptive. When you read this WMO, please understand: there is no cabal. Even people on your side have taken exception to your response. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Honestly - I believe WMO's heart is in the right place and a topic ban from abortion related articles would probably be the best thing for him. However, it is a drastic measure and I don't think it's fair to go there unless we imposed similar measures on the other POV and edit warriors who frequent those pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Kubigula raises a very good point there. There are plenty of people who are pushing their own POV and should be under the same conditions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) There are plenty of other editors whose conduct has not been as abrasive or disruptive. I would rather topic ban an editor and channel him into an area of the encyclopedia where he can actually contribute real content, vs. POV-warring, as it appears WMO has been doing for the past few weeks. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative to Topic block of User:WikiManOne.... General Sanctions on Abortion articles

Unresolved

 – do not archive till 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC) or until thread closed

Since there is clear consensus that WikiManOne editing is concerning and troubling but other editors have been equalling as troubling I suggest:

General Sanctions be imposed on all abortion articles broadly construed with

1. 1 Revert Rule: 1 revert per 24 hours per user per page (except for obvious vandalism).
2. Sanctions: the ability for any uninvolved admin to impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
3. Sanctions for any WP:BLP violations in the topic area

Uninvolved administrators can independently impose sanctions, including escalating blocks or topic bans of up to three months, provided the individual has been notified of the terms of this scheme and possible sanctions (The template {{subst:Uw-probation|Article|Probation terms page}} can be used for ease)

Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or (3) Arbitration Committee intervention

Indefinite Topic Bans can be proposed at WP:AN imposed by community consensus or at ANI as the result of discussion of specific incident.

Requests by the sanctioned user for his/her sanctions to be lifted: such requests may be made after three months at WP:AN. The request can only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction and has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions. If the the request fails to gain consenus the three month clock is reset

All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs

Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support -- I'm somewhat surprised there is not already something like this imposed. I would say it is undoubtedly needed, as even commenting in abortion related article talk pages seems to provoke incivility(at least) that lead to 'flame wars'. And I believe it is correct that if WM1 were to be topic banned, you might as well throw in at least 6 or 7 other editors. From both sides. Dave Dial (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too, I looked last week when this flared up and was shocked not to find such sanctions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: This works better than mine and it is a step toward mine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support --- An article probation is less draconian than sanctioning individual editors. It is almost the mildest step that can be taken. Due to the 1RR restriction it may produce quicker intervention when disputes occur. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we just import WP:DSN instead of trying to reinvent the wheel? Also, edits by IPs and (perhaps) new users should be exempt from the 1RR. T. Canens (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:DSN only works after an Arbcom case has authorized such sanctions. This proposal is nearly a carbon copy of existing General Sanctions/Article probation listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Also The requrired notfication prevents people ignorant of the Probation to be notified before things anything can be imposed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely arbcom does not have a monopoly on sanctions? the community can certainly impose a sanction that is identical in form to a tried-and-true method. That's what "import" means. My point is that we can require a warning, but we should not require the use of a specific warning template.T. Canens (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the community does and that is what being proposed its called General Sanctions (also called article probation). We have existing ones for several other areas. As for the template, I dont see it as a necessity but we have the template for it why not use it The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the track record of the community version is not as good as arbcom's? The most recent time it's used, it was superseded by arbcom discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBCC). T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm quite surprised you can't see how requiring admins to use a particular template will lead to pointless wikilawyering of the "I wasn't warned properly - they didn't use that particular template!" sort. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE deals with the same thing all the time and some how manages not to implode remember its says right in the WP:The Five Pillars The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. People get that when dealing with this stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And none of those decisions AE enforces required the use of a particular template. That the spirit trumps the letter is no excuse for not getting the letter right in the first place when you can. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

fixed it, The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Distant second choice. Per my proposed alternative below. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - as per EdJohnson's comments. Also support TCanans simplification by importing a similar working condition from another topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Reply to Tcanen The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, if that is not an option, your model is also fine, I support the basic idea the fine details are for someone experienced in setting such conditions out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That why I modeled it almost exactly after Existing ones, No reinvenetion of the wheel only putting it on a new vehicle The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support - if we have general sanctions on climate control, then I think this is a definite. People get much more emotional/involved in this than weather.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Emotional? I ain't emotional! Who you callin' emotional?! I demand Balloonman be blocked, banned, drawn and quartered! Call me emotional, will ya?! Why I oughta! :) LOL! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Suport This is a contentious topic and good behavior is necessary from those on all sides of the dispute.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Support so long as "broadly construed" is broadly construed to include editing related to abortion-access groups like Planned Parenthood and pro-life "crisis pregnancy" groups as well; a great deal of the disruption in this topic area is a proxy war related to pregnancy counseling and current events in the United States. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we specified "broadly construed" for a reason ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. For the most part my comment is meant as a record of the fact that the discussion considered this point. I confess to anticipating that the user who sparked this report will attempt to wikilawyer the scope as applied to himself. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose in specific. This request does not specify if it's 1 revert per day, or one revert per week. That's a big oversight. And neither does it specify an expiration, or what sort of conduct/action, specifically applied, can lead to the sanction removal. WmO isn't the type that likes to be put under boundaries; he will chafe.
  Personally, I think a one day revert version is fine, or even better, no reversions violating the WP:BRD cycle (in addition to and/or in lieu of the above). And I think a hard time limit, like 2-3 months without any blocks or questionable behavior, from the time of the sanction's start, could lead to its automatic removal and/or letting up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Good points, I beleive they are fixed now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Changed to strong oppose - screaming halt stop. I thought we were putting sanctions on one editor. No, the whole subject should not have this, at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, though I am concerned that this discussion has managed to get below the radar a bit, and I think we need wider community involvement to implement.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Let's put links to this on the Village Pump, AN, and possibly a site notice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I put one AN after placing this one here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, cool. Think the Village Pump needs one? Perhaps a site notice, since this is wide reaching in that area of editing? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Template:Centralized discussion would seem a start but yes Village pump would probably a good idea too. I'm pretty sure site notice needs some one bigger than an Admin... I think Crat or Steward can do it but I think that might be over kill between ANI, AN, VP, Centralized discusison I think we would be good The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Okie Dokie...I will link to this discussion at CD and VP and we can leave the site notice for if it gets insane big. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Added to both CD and VP/P. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I have a few concerns (which can be resolved I think).
• Re: "Sanctions can be Appealed after three months at WP:AN", admins have gotten it wrong at times. In fact, last year, even an arbitrator managed to get it so wrong to the point that the Community needed to reverse it after 24 hours because he wouldn't. For this reason, we may need to change it to something like "After the first appeal, sanctions can only be appealed every six months at WP:AN" - I think that addresses the issue the original line was trying to address.
• The "has not accumulated any other blocks or sanctions" bit is a real issue because it does seem to make the sanctions from this scheme punitive; I'd recommend removing it. On the part where it says "appeal will only be considered if the individual has abided by the terms of the sanction", this will obviously not be applicable in instances where a sanction should not have been imposed in the first place or was not imposed properly in the first place (like those I'm alluding to in my second bullet point - otherwise adversaries argue that there have been violations of a sanction when there haven't been).
• Do you want the 1RR to be per day per user per page?
• As admins are already authorized to impose blocks for BLP vios in any areas (as far as I understand), is there a reason for not explicitly authorizing topic bans for this issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I clarified the problems, Needed to clarify the differences between an appeal and request for sanctions to be lifted after good behavior. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Good. I've also made a slight copyedit; I think that's about it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Looks good but your copy edit with "his/her" excludes people of who identify as Third gender  :-P The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Admins can impose blocks/bans for up to three months...which can only be appealed after three months...what? T. Canens (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess "Indefinite Topic Bans can be proposed at WP:AN imposed by community consensus or at ANI as the result of discussion of specific incident." Got lost in an edit conflict some where or accidently deleted somewhere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And why only blocks and topic bans? Why can't there be page bans? 0RR or 1RR/week restrictions? Something else (e.g., a requirement to discuss any reverts made)? And why can't there be bans longer than 3 months but shorter than indef? T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think this proposal is meant to be quite so complicated or drastic as other sanction schemes at this point. The proposal seems to want admins to know that this area is under probation, but also, that admins should try a topic ban instead of blocking outright. I'd even add a suggestion: that for users who abide by a topic ban but upon its expiration, find themselves needing to be sanctioned again, the topic ban duration should escalate from the following pattern: 72 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and finally 3 months. If after a 3 month topic ban the problem persists, we would need to discuss what special restrictions need to be imposed on the individual. However, in the event that users violate their topic ban while it is in place, their topic ban duration can be escalated by one step each time (eg; from 72 hours to 1 week) and/or, depending on how severe (and recent) the violation was, may be blocked per usual. Due to the nature of this probation, administrators can certainly consider if an user has been editing productively on certain page(s) in the topic and note the specific exception(s) to the topic ban (particularly in light of the fact that the restriction can be appealed to them and they can add such exceptions where warranted).
      • Several types of revert restrictions would complicate matters. That said, there is good reason to add an additional type of provision for the 1RR line: "when an user violates the spirit or letter of this 1RR, they will (upon being directed by an uninvolved administrator) be subject to an indefinite requirement to discuss any reversions they make on pages in the topic - such discussion should occur on the talk page of the page (eg; discussion should occur on Talk: Abortion for a reversion that was made on the Abortion page). Should the editor then breach the 1RR or fail to discuss a reversion as required, they may be sanctioned." Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin; I've specifically opposed the next proposal on the grounds that if one of these two is necessary, this should be sufficient (with a bit more work - which accounts for my suggestions). However, currently, I am neither supporting or opposing this proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support either wording. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • • • • • I have looked over it and agree, with the point you have made but those are admin discretion issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, hot-button issue that needs to be able to be cooled off quickly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, too much mischief goes on at these articles with not enough oversight, and more can only be an improvement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Whoa, whoa, whoa, I understand we have a recent flare up here because of a particular editor, some very important legislation under consideration in the United States and a series of highly viewed, highly controversial videos but lets not get carried away here. Abortion has always been controversial but think of all the years we have gotten by here on Wikipedia. This current flare up will die down and I don't think it calls for General Sanctions. If Sanctions are to be imposed, I strongly urge that they be re-considered after 3 months once all of this has died down. - Haymaker (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as below - the sanctions aren't related to the problem. --B (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The recent flare-up was due to the disruptive editing of one editor, who should be given a short (1 month?) topic ban. Why penalize everyone else? Agree with 1RR, though, to keep things calm. Proposal item #2 is an open invitation to what I call "drive-by admin actions", which were part of the problem here. No opinion on item #3 BLP. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support This needs to be done now or else it will head to arbitration after more wasted ours at ANI over the next few weeks. With respect, most of the opposers here appear to be editors who edit on these pages from one of the two major POVs, and therefore will be effected by the restrictions. Some of these editors, are IMO, from what I've seen here, contributing to the problem and therefore may be aided by the restrictions.Griswaldo (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm just a passerby, but allowing this one case to create general sanctions seems like it gives a whole lot of power to anyone willing to behave badly. I think it should count as a pleasant surprise that Wikipedia editors from either side can usually work together on this issue without vandalism. I think people are projecting a real-world preconception onto Wikipedia, forgetting that just as people in the real world don't have mass protests about the nationality of Copernicus, people on Wikipedia may not get into edit wars when both sides agree on underlying facts. The first 500 edits on abortion get you all the way back to April 2010 with 29 uses of the word "undid" - which doesn't sound like a chronic edit war. But above all, I think that the "all abortion articles broadly construed" is a mistake. The whole point of general sanctions is lost when editors don't know why or even when an article is subject to them, and it sounds like this will end up affecting things like spontaneous abortion, fetus, maybe even infant - and for what? At bare minimum, have the decency to enumerate a finite list of articles affected and tag each one properly from the beginning. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see evidence that this is needed. The articles could use improvement yes. They should more be based on review articles yes. So lets get to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As long as the "uninvolved" admin is strictly enforced. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose topic banning WikiManOne would be a more effective and less intrusive way to calm the issue. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – No evidence provided to justify such a broad ArbCom class action. How about a dozen users, articles and diffs for us to look at. Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with the problem. If the hidden discussion above couldn't reach a conclusion to ban one editor, how are we now supposed to approve broad discretionary sanctions? —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative sanction wording

Proposed wording:

Area of conflict

For the purpose of these sanctions, the area of conflict is the set of articles related to abortion, broadly construed.

1RR

All editors are limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any article within the area of conflict, with the exception of reverts of obvious vandalism and anonymous IP editors.

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked for a suitable period of time by any uninvolved administrator, up to one year in the event of repeated violations; in lieu of or in addition to blocking, the administrator may also impose a discretionary sanction, as described below.

General sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process; this includes, but is not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility, unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, and violations of the biography of living people policy.

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 a topic within the area of conflict 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.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the section of Wikipedia:General sanctions documenting these sanctions; 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.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under these provisions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN), or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. In particular, they may not reverse or overturn (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of these sanctions, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce these sanctions, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Arbitration Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI).

Involved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under these sanctions, an administrator will be considered involved if: (i) they have participated in an editorial dispute with the editor or (ii) have had significant personal interaction with the editor or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, (iii) in an editorial capacity, they have participated in a content dispute affecting the article or related articles within the broader topic. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Logging

All blocks, sanctions and warnings made under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion article probation/Logs.

First choice. As proposer. T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Most of the wording here is taken from WP:DSN; the involvement part is taken from WP:ARBCC. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its not consistent with Existing Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. Its length also would take up substantial amount of the Wikipedia:General sanctions page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Then move it to a subpage. You already have a subpage for the logs anyway. I also don't care that much about maintaining consistency with a failed article probation scheme. T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No failure there. The point is to limit escalation of disputes, That doesn't mean such disputes wont esculate. Your model ties the hands becuase instruction creep that ties the hands of Admins who are watching or have commented in the dispute. We'd be in the same place if every time there was a violation an Admin had to run here to get a perfectly uninvolved admin to impose something... We'd be back where we started with tons of ANI threads and Drama. Every admin knows what involved is. The whole purpose of CS is to take care of problems with out excessive bureaucracy to get stuff done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. You have a probation scheme that did not define "involved", and you have massive fights over whether certain administrators are "involved" which became one of the three arbcom case requests that led to WP:ARBCC. Your proposed solution to that is...leave "involved" undefined. Right. Because the meaning of "involved" is so obvious that no reasonable people will fight over it... T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikilinked the WP:INVOLVED from the Admin policy where it was infered for defintion of WP:INVOLVED Admins. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets just go with Tim,s version as its a working probation, support for that. Also support for WP:INVOLVED as a good guide towards that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the problems he pointed out above. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Side note: WikiManOne block expired at 5:25pm EST. Eyes should be put on his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since I am not an admin I can't vote and I almost never comment in the ANI section but I want to get this straight. One editors violates 3rr a couple times and a couple others come close, and the same editors keep bringing each other to this board and that requires a community-wide 1rr policy. I think this is going way overboard. How about just putting anyone that gets a 3rr violation in that section into 1rr or something like that? Yes the abortion articles get heated, but so does religion, politics, etc. Do we make every area 1rr? Yes I am someone that WMO has had heated discussions with but I stay within the rules and so do many of the other people that have been editing in that region. I personally think putting indivdual editors (not just WMO) into 1rr and maybe even disengage warnings would be better then a community-wide 1rr on abortion related topics.Marauder40 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No people who cant agree to our NPOV policy typically have restrictions imposed on them. Areas where there are flamewars typically have restrictions imposed in the area. We do this over and over Wikipedia has not imploded. The princpal is to stop edit warring and encouage discussion since edit warring start when people change back and forth with out talk discussion we merely make them hurry up and talk. We haved this place have the issue long before any of ya'll showed up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I just honestly don't think it has come that far yet. MOST of the editors on the page are staying within rules. Most of the editors are discussing things. I just think a small number of editors on both "sides" need to be reigned in. I honestly think imposing a community-wide topic 1rr is taking the "easy" way out. Especially at this point. I have seen religion articles get much more heated then this discussion has gotten and they didn't go down that path. Usually a couple temporary restrictions of various types on editors bring things in line. But I don't hold a mop so I will not make any more comments on this on ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • YOu seem to think this is recent problem, this type of flare heats up a couple times a year. We reign a few editors more fill the void it happens over and over and this gives us the tool to prevent further disruption The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Support The explosion of ANI incidents related to abortion was not terribly surprising given the real life passions. When future high profile abortion incidents occur we can expect the same. I like T. Caens version better as the wording on "involved administrators" is helpful for mitigating distracting (and usually baseless) arguments about administrator abuse rather than on how to fairly deal with the topic at hand in article space. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The original needs a bit more work, but this alternative is not okay.
• On the point about involvement, the fact that the other Community probations are working does speak volumes. As was repeatedly noted in the CC case, the drafter of the CC probation failed to account for too many things and that's what happens when mad attempts are made to put off an ArbCom case without thinking things through thoroughly (it will only delay and prolong the inevitable as opposed to settling it in the longer term). If things were thought thoroughly, then a 100% identical wording from the Obama probation would not have been imported in the CC proposal (that was the first sign of an understanding which was too simplistic - instead, it would have become clear why that probation would not work in the CC topic area). It had no chance of working in the long term with the users involved. I don't see any reason to believe this issue is going to crop up here (as no evidence has been presented to that effect to date); unnecessary (or even unjustified) red tape is not our priority and standard policy on involvement ought to work just fine.
• In particular, I oppose having to write special rules for administrators indiscriminately every single time as a handful of them may refuse to take appropriate steps if their involvement is called into question (that is, the individual user remedies in the CC case resolution direct administrators about what they can do if they find themselves in such a situation).
• Should it ever come to the point where a Community general sanctions scheme is not working and AE-type discussions are regularly needed, then that is when ArbCom and its more drastic measures are needed (not sooner or later than that point); no amount of special rule writing is going to change the inevitable. It's the participants who are in a position to deescalate. Also, I have yet to see anyone being "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" under any DSN scheme...despite the fact it is written in DSN each and every time. And finally, the Community specifically did not want CSN (the relevant AE-type board) which was why it shut it down. Should ArbCom want to impose DSN specifically, they will not have opposition because whenever something goes wrong, it will be at AE which is under their management (and the sanctions are thereby their responsibility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm open to using the WP:INVOLVED definition if that's the preference. CSN doesn't look like AE at all to me (it was "votes for banning", IIRC, that led it to be shut down; Unlike normal bans, I don't think these sanctions are intended to require consensus before imposition). What else do you find problematic? T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose this because I think it's solving the wrong problem. There has been stunningly little revert warring on these articles relative to the current angst about them and over the last few days, the discussion has been downright tame. I think a better proposal is to deal with the actual problems. By my thinking, there are two of them. (1) The first is attempting to carry pro-life vs anti-abortion naming fight across multiple articles. (2) The second is rudeness to the opposing side on the abortion-related abortion-related talk pages themselves. Those two problems are solvable without recreating the system used for Israel articles or having the insulting arbitrary sanctions. Regarding other problems with the current proposal: (1) it doesn't have BLP removals as an exception to 1RR and (2) I, of course, also oppose the logging aspect, but I assume that will be taken out anyway. --B (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To be fair to this proposal (and the other one), logging exists so that users are aware of the sanctions that are imposed and if there is an issue with the sanction (usually because it is unjustified or too harsh), someone else can bring attention to it. The other purpose is for administrators to know what sanctions have already been tried and to what extent they have had the desired preventative effect. More oversight is better than less if and when such schemes are in place. As to whether

actual problems" are being dealt with (or whether they ever will be dealt with), perhaps a proposal is needed. Whether topic bans are more insulting than blocks is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see evidence that this is needed. The articles could use improvement yes. They should more be based on review articles yes. So lets get to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – No evidence provided to justify such a broad ArbCom class action. How about a dozen users, articles and diffs for us to look at. Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with the problem. If the hidden discussion above couldn't reach a conclusion to ban one editor, how are we now supposed to approve broad discretionary sanctions? —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Again, I have to ask why there is a need for an indefinite list of articles. Baby, contraception - are these abortion related, broadly construed? If you're going to start something like this, you should tag every article you're going to affect from day one. You shouldn't drag anyone to ANI for making two reverts on an article when you couldn't even be bothered to tag it or specify it by name. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

With the baby dangling perilously, the bathwater remains firmly in place

All the above aside, WM1 has continued to edit-war on abortion-related articles and has abused rollback multiple times on abortion-related articles. At a minimum WM1 should be restricted from using rollback on abortion-related articles. - Haymaker (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker, it is quite clear that you are forum shopping to get me blocked. If you think I am edit warring, feel free to report it on the edit warring noticeboard which would be the correct place to bring something like this up. So far, you've brought I think it is five separate noticeboard incidents against me, out of which only one has resulted in any action (and the actions were done by administrators who were involved on your side). That's a 20%, an "F" at any school. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1

I'd like the community to call User:Mclay1 to order.

He is trying to WP:OWN certain templates and categories. Specifically, Template:R to template and Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In general, he has been opposed to almost any proposal I have made to simplify a few related templates and categories, as can been seen in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_18#Category:Redirects_to_template_from_non-template_namespace, but has had to bow to community consensus.

When he tried to speedy Category:Redirects from other templates, that was denied because the category was still populated by over 200 templates at that time. He seems to be unaware of the rules for speedy deletion. Then he renominated it for speedying, in flagrant disregard of the fact that he was denied, and was denied a second time. Since then I emptied the category and the templates was deleted. But any admin can dig up the history and see for himself that Mclay1 has no knowledge of, nor regard for, Wikipedia procedures.

Template:R to template was deleted as being not in use and per the spirit of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template. Mclay1 recreated it, only to put it on Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. This is a category which he is trying to develop though a few related templates, like Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox using a template Template:Redirect category which he has adopted, so to say. There is no reason to do so, since Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox are not in use at all cross-namespace! He is edit warring with be about this on Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox in disregard of WP:BRD.

After Mclay1 recreated Template:R to template, I asked for it to be speedied, and Mclay1 removed the speedy template, in violation of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion which say specifically in bolds that The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. I warned Mclay1 about this in this edit. His rather angry reply was that he refuses to bow to this rule, as he stated in so may words in this edit. After the template was deleted Mclay1 recreated it again.

I'd like the community to point out to Mclay1 that he has to abide by community decisions. He can not recreated deleted templates every time. He should not try to create a category structure, which does not have community consensus, and he should not remove tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. In general, I'd like Mclay1 to understand that he does not own Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You, Debresser, have done some good things for me and for WP in past years. And here recently, McLerristarr (Mclay1) has also done some good things, both for me and with me. So I certainly don't want to be in the middle of all this. Just let me say that I sincerely hope that you both can resolve these issues between you in a timely manner that is satisfactory to all.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps the seriousness of the fact that I posted here, and the in my opinion serious accusations I have made, are in themselves enough to help Mclay1 see reason. We have cooperated in some things, even in this very same area I have posted about. If worse comes to worse, I am sure another editor will be found who can judge this case. Let's await his response here, first of all. Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that Template:R to template was not part of the TFD for Template:R from other template. It was a redirect to that template, so when that template was deleted, so where all the redirects. I created a new template under the name of the redirect. That is recreating something which was deleted after a discussion. Every redirect category should have a corresponding template which populates it. Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace had no template so I created Template:R to template for it. I also added a cross-namespace recognition function to the other redirect templates for template namespace. The fact that the templates are not being used for cross-namespace redirects at the present time is irrelevant – most redirects have not been tagged yet. If anyone is out of line, it is Debresser – you are the one reverting perfectly legitimate edits. As for nominating Category:Redirects from other templates for speedy deleting: the category was meant to be populated by Template:R from other template, which was deleted. The template was deleted because the consensus was that the category was not needed. There is no rule which states that categories that aren't empty cannot be deleted. There is no serious issue here and I find that fact that this discussion exists ridiculous. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 continues to 1. recreate the template that was deleted three times by now. 2. add a completely unneeded category detection to the two templates mentioned above in disregard of the deletion discussion of a now deleted template that populated that category.

He call his edits "legitimate and useful" but since they go against a deletion discussion and repeated deletions they are not legitimate, and since the category detection is not in use on either of the templates they are not useful either. In any case, their usefulness is clearly being questioned, and Mclay1 should seek consensus first.

I now call upon the community to call Mclay1 to order for repeated edits in violation community decisions, explicitly stated disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, ignoring WP:BRD and especially WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How is my wanting the function different to you not wanting it? Neither of us are trying to own anything. And for the last bloody time, the TFD had nothing to do with cross-namespace redirects, which is ALL my edits are for. Template:R from other template was deleted because the consensus was that redirects from template namespace pages to templates were unnecessary. That is irrelevant to what I'm doing. The category was not populated by any template until I added the functionality just before it was deleted. It was meant to be populated by all the redirect templates for template namespace but somehow it never got done until I did it. There is no policy which states I must ask someone before making an edit. You are the only one who seems to be opposed to cross-namespace recognition and for no apparent reason. Reverting edits for no apparent reason is against policy. Unless you can actually give me a reason why this functionality is not needed, I will continue to improve the encyclopaedia. And the fact that no cross-namespace redirects have been tagged yet is not a good reason to delete things – it's a good reason for them to be tagged. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is basically: I think that what I am doing is The Right Thing To Do, and therefore I will ignore the fact that I am the one trying to make the changes (WP:BRD), I will ignore your opposition (WP:CONSENSUS), I will ignore the fact that one deletion discussion showed clearly that people do not agree with me (here) and that the other one shows that no one supports me (here), I stay with my explicit refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines about what I am supposed and not supposed to do [12], and I will do as I please (WP:OWN). Will somebody please call Mclay1 to order. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am really getting sick of having to repeat myself. The TFD was entirely, completely unrelated to what I'm doing. {{R from other template}} categorised redirects from template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects from other templates. They were deleted after the TFD. {{R to template}} was a redirect to {{R from other template}} so was deleted too; however, I created a new template under the same name to categorise redirects from non-template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In no way was I going against the consensus determined at the TFD. That other TFD you linked is the one where you agreed with me to add the cross-namespace recognition to {{R from other template}}, so I don't see where you get the "no one supports me" idea from. You are not a consensus. The fact the one editor continually refuses to allow me to edit without explaining his/her reasons is definitely a violation of policy. Can we please discuss this properly without a ridiculous attempt to get others to gang up on me, which, as you can see, isn't working. Let's settle this like the sensible human beings we are. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is behavioral. You are trying to make up a completely useless and empty category and populate it with additions to templates. You call this "improving the project", while in fact you are ignoring consensus and trying to enforce your own sense of order with repeated recreations of a deleted template and edit warring. It is a little too late now to play to reasonable guy say "let's talk it over". Try and seek consensus, and come back, even though I have already shown that consensus is against you. But in the mean time, you have to stop with your numerous violations of Wikipedia rules. Which is what I'd like to community to explain to Mclay1 Debresser (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 has done some good work in the area of redirects, as has Debresser, but these allegations of WP:OWNership are serious and worrying. It's clear that both of you are interested in working in the same area and your style's are clashing. Mclay1 needs to temporarily step away from particular areas when it's become clear that his actions, good or bad, are having an adverse effect on another editor. Debresser needs to accept any possible chance of resolving this matter civilly, if Mclay1 extends a token of good faith to discuss this sensibly then by not taking full advantage of that you are propogating this dispute. I call upon one of you, either one, to make a decision to accept the others way of doing things before this escalates into an ugly mess. This shouldn't require any blocking, you are both valuable editors, and we don't want either of you blocked. And you're both mature enough to not need any scolding from the community. -- œ^™ 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross-name-space redirects are generally a sign of something that has gone wrong, therefore I am not wholly opposed to any means of gathering information about them - even about those that are not a problem. I would suggest that the template in question is taken to TfD, or discussed at the Redirect forum (I forget exactly where that is). It would be great if soemthing useful could come out of this. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree. I have stopped since I've realised this isn't going anyway till the matter is resolved. However, Debresser claims I'm going against a consensus but as I have repeatedly explained, there is no consensus one way or the other because this has never been discussed before. Also, Debresser, criticising me for edit warring is a little hypocritical: it takes at least two to edit war. Now, let's discuss this somewhere else, such as Category talk:Redirects to template from non-template namespace, the talk page of the category in question, which wouldn't be empty if it weren't for Debresser. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 has again removed a Cfd tag from Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace in this edit. Without adding an opinion to the discussion page, btw. If Mclay1 wants to discuss it, that would be the first place to go. Instead, he removed the tag. I ask for an immediate block of this editor, until he agrees to stop removing tags from pages. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Mclay1 meant to forestall the CfD until the discussion he proposed above is complete? Regardless the CfD is started, and representations can be made there to have it delayed or thrown out until some other forum has completed its work, if that is appropriate. If CfD agree to postpone the discussion or Debresser withdraws in favour of discussion on Category talk:Redirects to template from non-template namespace or elsewhere fine. If not the CfD will run, and should be a suitable forum anyway, and the result should be followed. Any problems with that? Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry, I thought it was a speedy deletion notice, which would have been enitely innappropriate. I clearly didn't read it properly. I will restore the notice; however, the matter should be resolved elsewhere first – since Debresser and I are the only two editors who seem to care, it would be easier to have a conversation between ourselves (if that's possible) before resorting to a CFD. P.S. Please don't ask for me to be blocked; it's getting a bit pathetic now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not support a block under these circumstances. It seems that both you and Mclay1 need to step back from this issue and go do other things for a time. This is just the sort of thing OlEnglish spoke of when the escalation card was pulled. So, please, both of you, step away for awhile and go do some good editing separately. You've both been here long enough to know that this works.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And he did it again [13], removed a tag. Note the text of his self-revert "My mistake - I thought it was a speedy deletion tag". And if it were? I have no problem with discussing things. As anyone can see from the fact that I opened a Cfd. But Mclay1 even after this discussion thinks that he may remove tags. If not a block, then at least a serious reprimand is in order. And note that in his last reply here, he calls my asking for the community opinion by nominating the category for a Cfd "resorting to a Cfd". That is not the attitude of someone who cares about consensus. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a Speedy deletion template, then Mclay1 will hopefully discover and use the {{Hang on}} template, rather than to remove the SD template, if the page is one created by Mclay1. I said I didn't want to get in the middle between you, and here I am. I should respectfully dismiss myself and hope that you and Mclay1 can resolve your differences amicably.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify at this point that I didn't do it again. I removed it twice but both times were before my previous reply. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we mark this as resolved and leave it to TfD/CfD now? There seems little point leaving it to the protaganists here to discuss between themselves right now. The TfD has already started of course, so unless it were withdrawn it would have to continue there anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

user:97.90.124.232

Unresolved

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

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• This request was completely ignored for 36 hours before being archived by a bot. Restored. 63.134.128.4 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-notified, for fairness. Also, 63.134.128.4, are you Simon Dodd? GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I just forgot to sign in. It happens. I wouldn't have thought that renotification was necessary since this isn't a new issue?. It's a little disappointing that a dig through the archives (and this conversation) became necessary, truth be told. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of socking or whatever, I just wanted clarification - it happens with me as well! I re-notified because the IP may well have seen your notification, come here, and found nothing (the discussion already having been archived) - now they know that 2 days later, it's back up, and the issue still isn't resolved. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• T+62 hours. Would this be better served by taking it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe, what's the COI? Maybe have a try at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and solve the dispute? GiantSnowman 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, as I mentioned above, the user is an SPA; that, plus the tone and content of their edits and talk page comments tell me that there's a COI problem. The article edits are too numerous to detail here (check the history), but the talk page comments in particular are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," user:97.90.124.232 objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was trying to do, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." And as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.

Having opened this case here at AN/I, I don't feel that I open a case anywhere else without leave from an admin (I'll be accused of forum shopping). I opened the case here because at the time, my immediate concern was the user's actions in blanking my user page in retaliation for proposing a merge and the attempted removal of the merge templates. Well, that was two days ago (certainly demonstrating the kind of prompt admin response that encourages people to use process rather than dealing with problems themselves), and those problems haven't yet recurred. At this point, the COI is the larger problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You could easily defend yourself from any accusations of forum shopping by pointing them here - you've posted twice over a period of days, and received no reply or help from admins. Now you've explained it a bit more, maybe the COI noticeboard is the place to go. GiantSnowman 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Case opened at COI; I'll notify the user. I'd still like an admin to do something about the user page blanking, so I'm leaving the request here open.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP seems to have stopped editing on the 20th, and a note was left about the page blanking. I'd be inclined to let it go as a newbie mistake for now. Sorry no one responded to your post, I guess the drama-filled threads are more attactive? Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich—I guess it's good that I'm not bringing drama! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• User is back and being disruptive again, removing the merge templates: [14][15][16][17][18][19]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I have reverted the tag removals and warned the user again.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Still unresolved and basically unaddressed after six days.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? Until opining on the talk page last night, the IP hadn't edited since removing the templates (which you had already reverted). If the IP vandalizes again, we can block it. --B (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "until"? There was the original incident which led to this report being filed. And then, as I mentioned above, there was another round of it after five days of this report languishing unanswered. So are you saying that you will block them if they come back for a third round, or that you'll block if if they come back for a second round, which has already happened since the original report was filed?

As to what admin action I'm asking for: I want someone other than me to slap the user's wrist (whether with a warning or a brief block), because obviously hearing it from me—whether because I'm involved in the dispute or because I'm not an admin—ain't getting it done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to understand another user's block

Hallo, I'm trying to understand the block of Otto4711 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely on 25 September 2010 by user:Vanished 6551232. So far I found the page

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive,

which however does not explain the reason for the block of Otto4711. Also, around the time of this block I found the threat

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#PROD_nominations_by_Are_You_The_Cow_Of_Pain.3F.2C_sock_of_indef-blocked_user,

and from there to the Diff [20].

First I first thought Vanished 6551232 would be some kind of name, however it turns out that this is the former account "Rlevse", which entirely has been deleted as an account by another administrator. Why has Rlevse been deleted, and is the person Rlevse still an administrator in this project?

I understand that according to a Difflink provided by Rlevse, Otto4711 has changed a signature of Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk · contribs) in an AFD on 26 July 2010: [21].

Also both accounts, Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711, have been Checkusered, again by this (former?) administrator Rlevse/Vanished 6551232. And Are You The Cow Of Pain? and Otto4711 have edited on a large number of the same pages. However, I don't know of a discusion, where both accounts would have edited stimultaniously without revealing their possible identity, or how one of them would have used the other as a Sockpuppet in any other abusive way.

So, from what I know so far, I don't understand how Are You The Cow Of Pain? or Otto4711 (or the person behind them if he is the same) would have abused the project, and what the excact reason for their blocks is,

--Schwalker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Otto, but I do know that Rlevse left the project not too long ago because of certain incidents and asked for his account to be deleted under the right to vanish. That's why his username is like that. Silverseren^C 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder why people dig into these things, but the SPI report is quite clear: Otto4711 created an account named "Eddie's Teddy" in order to evade a block.—Kww(talk) 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's the Wikistalk result comparing Schwalker (the OP) and Otto4711. There's not a great deal of article overlap between them, but what there is cannot be explained by simple commonality of interest: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, List of persons considered father or mother of a field, Godwin's law. I bring this up not because of a lack of AGF, but because there doesn't appear to be any particular reason for Schwalker to care about Otto4711, and he or she is being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject of Otto4711's block. Naturally, that brings up concerns about motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask Schwalker how they missed this on the block log: ‎(Abusing multiple accounts: do not unblock without contacting arbcom first), which would have indicated that the place to go to inquire about this block was ArbCom. Why have you not contacted ArbCom, instead choosing to post on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 and here? Why not go to the source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the archive, confirmed socks of Otto4711:

• User:Eddie's Teddy
• User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• User:Jetblack500
• User:Greatsouthbay
• User:A Radish for Boris
• User:Cosmo Donovan
• User:Sousa Blaine
• User:Sapphire Steel
• User:Seventh Thief
• User:Archibald Noaccount
• User:Screaminsista
• User:A-List Arrangement
• User:Derek Tenley
• User:Eddie Tenley
• User:Pranking Member
• User:Orrin Knox
• User:I Want My GayTV

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your responds. I don't have the impression that all of my I questions have been answered so far, but since some questions have been posed to me, I will try to answer them.

Thanks Silver seren for the information about Rlevse. I've now learned that he has left the project, so he probably formally ist no administrator anylonger. I don't know of the "certain incidents" for which Rlevse left the project, and if he did something wrong as an administrator, but am not yet convinced it was all correct what he did in the case of the Otto4711 account.

Kww, you probably misread the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive. Otto 4711 had been acused in October 2009 of having evaded a block by using the account Eddie's Teddy. Back then, Eddie's Teddy was blocked, and Otto4711 was warned, but not blocked for using a sockpuppet. But this old incident is no sufficient explanation for blocking Otto4711 now in September 2010.

As already stated on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711, I don't know Otto4711, but have read very reasonable contributions in many discussions about categories, so I'm completely surprized by the block of this user.

I must also admit to feel a bit surprized by tone and content of Beyond my Kens's answer. Actually, when I posted this request here yesterday, I did not expect that the first thing an administrator would have in mind would be to start a statitistical analysis of my own edits, and compare them with the edits of blocked users.

How Beyond my Ken can easily see, I had made exactly two edits so far yesterday concerning the case of Otto4711 (here on the admin noticeboard and on the sockpuppets inverstigations talk), so I don't know how he comes to his assessment of me "being fairly persistent in pursuing the subject". Further, how "being fairly persistent" would even be a matter of "concerns about motivation" is beyond me.

I did not miss the block log entry. I am no administrator in this project, so I can't unblock users, and even have no very concrete idea what an "Arbcom" is or does. Since the "source" of this block is user:Vanished 6551232, to my understanding Vanished 6551232 would be the first place to inquire about the block, who however as explained above has left this project.

Of course my concern is that a mistake of law should be avoided. That is to avoid a situation, where first an able author (who probably has a number of opponents in this project) is blocked infinitely for unclear or even unjustified reasons, and then other sockpuppets are again and again attributed to this user, so that eventually it is almost impossible for him to return to the project.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the reasonable suspicion, Schwalker does not match Otto4711's recent socks on a technical basis, and I personally don't find the behaviour compelling evidence. To answer Schwalker's basic question: whether Otto4711 originally should have been blocked is really no longer the question. His account is blocked, and he has been using alternate accounts to get around it. He's been doing that so persistently that now the only way to get his account restored is by contacting the arbitration committee and making his case.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction: User:Beyond My Ken is not now, nor has ever been, an admin. Also, despite the negative CU check (which did net a couple of new Otto4711 socks) Schwalker's interest in Otto4711's block remains inexplicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yep: inexplicable. Just not compelling in my view. There are a lot of things people do that I can't explain. Heymid has gotten very interested in a few sockpuppeteers that I deal with, for example, but there's substantial evidence that he isn't any of them. He just found my treatment of them objectionable.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've occasionally taken an interest in blocks I'm not involved in, mostly if I am trying to learn more about the finer points of policy or if the reason for the block wasn't entirely transparent. In this case the block log is pretty clear, but I can see how a block log with a final entry from "Vanished 6551232" would look odd to someone who isn't familiar with the right to vanish. I'm not comfortable with the way the spotlight was quickly turned on Schwalker (even though I'm aware that boomeranging is always a concern). It's not like they could inquire with the blocking admin, after all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but they could have contacted ArbCom, which would have been the logical thing to do, given the notation in the block log. And Kww, I'm not disputing your decision not to block, with the negative CU that was entirely reasonable. The behaviorial evidence was, in my opinion, sufficient to run a CU, but not enough to block on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good evening.

A basic question is not answered by simply claiming that the question "is no longer the question". So far, the only two sockpuppets of Otto4711 which were confirmed through checkuser were "Eddie's Teddy" in 2009 and "Are You The Cow Of Pain?", according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive#21_October_2010 and the answers by Rlevse on his user talk. To my understanding, all later accounts have been attributed to Otto4711 because of their edit behaviour, but not by direct checkuser with "Otto4711", "Eddie's Teddy", or "Are You The Cow Of Pain?". While I would agree that it is likely that they are sockpuppets of Otto4711, the only "abuse" would be to evade the questionable block by Rlevse from September 2010.

Can anyone please explain to me what is going on here? First I have to read that apparently I am under "reasonable suspicion". I've been working for this project over a period of more than four years now, and have collaborated on articles and in discussions with a number of other authors.

Then I have to read something about a "technical basis". I really cannot believe this, but have to ask if this means that you have now checked my private user-information, just because I've asked a simple question here?

Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I really aren't seeing what Schwalker did that was so bad here. If he would like to question a block I would say he has every right to do so. Now, would someone please answer his questions? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to answer his questions, but I'll try again. A user doesn't get to create socks to evade a block he believes is questionable. Questionable or not, the initial block has to be undone, or any subsequent account believed to be from the same user will be blocked. It really doesn't matter why Otto4711 was blocked in the first place, his actions subsequent to that block are blockable in and of themselves. And yes, a checkuser was run on the Schwalker account. I provided a link to the investigation above.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Schwalker hasn't done anything "bad." However, there've been a lot of blocked users who come to ANI using a sockpuppet account, trying to argue they should be unblocked, while pretending to be an uninvolved party. Folks here are a bit gunshy when an uninvolved person pops up randomly asking about a blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This inquiry is possibly related to Schwalker's recent retirement from the German Wikipedia, although I haven't read much into that. It would of course be easiest, if Schwalker were more forthcoming in telling the reason for this inquiry, rather than calling it a "simple question".--Atlan (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, Schwalker is not letting go of the issue: [22] Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why we have editors failing to assume good faith here. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I rarely see any good, faith or otherwise, in editors white-knighting for one another. If Otto4711 wishes to be unblocked, then he can make a request to do so on his own. We don't need wiki-public defenders. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it. If an editor wants to call an action into question, let them, and treat them civily and assume good faith, particularly if it is an established editor as Schwalker is. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by demeaning the idea of a "wiki-public defender.".. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between assuming good faith, and not applying due diligence for the sake of it, also known as naivete.--Atlan (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making about "wiki-public defenders" is...don't be one. If a user wishes to be unblocked, the solution is in their own hands. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your second statement is undoubtedly true, up to a point. However I have seen many cases where someone has needed a "wiki-public defender" or at least would benefit from one. We even had a system for it at one point. And while I would advise anyone who asked me "don't be one", I still have admiration for anyone that takes on that role. Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

And I can't believe we ran a checkuser on Schwalker, maybe the system has changed, but last time I read the procedures that would have been counted as a fishing expedition. Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

This is a clear breakdown of good faith here, the check user was a fishing expedition and inexcusable. If I questioned an editor's block, would I then have a check user run to see whether I am somehow related to them? That's ridiculous, I may just question a few editor's blocks to make it more commonplace if that's the case. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's only fishing if you have no idea which account is linked to which. In this case, the Schwalker account was checked to see if it was related to Otto4711. I think the checkuser was kind of a knee-jerk reaction, but I certainly wouldn't call it "inexcusable".--Atlan (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As the old saying goes, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out." We've had so many socks troll this page trying to get themselves unblocked that it's at least worth questioning why an unrelated account is becoming involved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc has frequently accused me of bad faith because I defend other editors, even editors who may have been doing some things wrong. I consider doing this a moral obligation for myself as the way to prevent the ill effects of bullying and mobbing. The classic explanation for defense attorneys in the legal system is that anyone is entitled to defend themselves, but the system is so complex and technical that most people need somebody who understands the rules to speak for them, and their role can be seen in the same way as the role of a translator: they say no more than what the person would say himself if he knew how to say it. A second frequent reason--the reason why lawyers themselves employ other lawyers to defend them--is that nobody can be objective in their own case, and will not be able to tell what are the arguments that should and should not be made, or know when it is best to remain silent, or will defend themselves in so improper a manner as to arouse antagonism. The refusal of effective defense counsel is generally seen as characteristic of tyrannies. In the US, from the beginning of the Republic, such refusal was one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independences, and reiterated in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps Wikipedia should be a place where this is not necessary, but that's contrary to the plain facts. The system here is complicated, with many of the rules both abstruse and self contradictory, with many of them unwritten, and no one who is not very experienced in how we work here can properly defend themselves against an attack by someone who does know how. The system of community judgment is very susceptible to vote-stacking and sockpuppetry and manipulation, leading to piling-on and mobbing. And, of course, people who get into trouble are frequently inept in being apply to articulate a proper defense. We are not a formal governmental structure, but even administrative agencies preserve this right. Wikipedia --despite initial expectations--is now so important in the world and so prominent that this gives us a commensurate responsibility to act and be seen to act, in an open and equitable manner. This applies very strongly to our articles: that why we found it necessary to adopt the rules of BLP and (probably) accept the inconvenience of pending changes. It also applies to our treatment of one another.

If anyone wonders, I'll give a personal note: the reason I did not become a lawyer is because I could not face the emotional effects of losing cases involving people whom I would inevitably come to know personally. The reason I can adopt a role like this at Wikipedia is that I do not know the people personally and thus can maintain sufficient emotional distance. I am aware that some people employ this sort of emotional distance here to attack more freely than they would be willing in the real world--the counter to that is to use it to muster up the courage to defend them.

As I understand ethical defense attorneys do, when someone has obviously done wrong, I advise them to admit it, & if they intend to conduct a clearly dishonest defense, I will not assist them. And I am saying this in the context of an attempted defense of Otto, an editor with whom I came into very frequent context. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the check here is well within checkuser discretion. There's at least a reasonable suspicion that Schwalker may have been Otto. Second, if we are really going to borrowing from legal systems, then forgive me for not seeing how someone who is not Otto has standing to challenge Otto's block. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the running of a checkuser in this situation, nor am I disagreeing the block. But with respect to the question you ask, I think any user has standing to challenge any action by an admin. The unique feature of being an admin here is our ability to take drastic action even without prior consultation. Hence the need for accountability to anyone who might ask: the necessary counterpart to our very facile use of authority is the knowledge of the very facile ability to challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh. That's totally not the impression I got from your soliloquy above. Thanks for clarifying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone should have the right to question any admin action at any time. That is one of the few, and yet weak, protection against rogue admins. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone does. Anyone that investigates the block of someone with 19 confirmed socks should expect that reasonable people will suspect that he is sock 20.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of a "Fellow traveller" argument? Are you now or have you ever been a sock of Otto? :-] Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

OK bottom line. Otto was blocked by a then ArbCom member, and the instruction was not to unblock without asking ArbCom first. As far as I know Otto has not requested an unblock, therefore no one has the desire to ask ArbCom about it. The reason for the actual indef block (as opposed to previous blocks) remains obscure. Is that correct? Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Not obscure. Checkuser confirmed socking combined with a block log like Otto4711's would have prompted many admins to issue an indefinite block.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation Needed

Hello. I am having a problem with another editor. Out of the blue last week I was given a very stern warning by Fut.Perf. on my talk page which stated that if I continue pushing a fringe POV I would be blocked. I then asked this editor for specific details regarding my actions as I consider this a serious matter but have been ignored instead. Is it considered just to threaten another editor with sanctions and not specifically explain why?

I also noticed that three other editors (Immortale, Arydberg, and Killdec) were blocked for certain periods of time from the aspartame controversy talk page within a period of less than a week (Feb. 8-14). Each of these editors (including myself) at one time or another expressed concerns on the talk page stating that they believed the aspartame controversy article was biased. Is it possible that these warnings were given to each of us because our efforts conflict with other editors? Can a fair uninvolved administrator look into this please? Jmpunit (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To fill everyone in on the missing details...Immortale (talk · contribs), Arydberg (talk · contribs), Killdec (talk · contribs) & Jmpunit (talk · contribs) received warnings, blocks and/or topic bans after various ANI discussions (e.g., 1, 2, 3) highlighted tendentious editing by a series of WP:SPAs at aspartame controversy. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) distributed sanction warnings based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision; Immortale & Killdec earned blocks for their edits and behavior related to this article. — Scientizzle 02:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still wondering about the specific edits that I made which deserved the warning that I was given. Scientizzle, I am not disagreeing or agreeing with you but I did ask for uninvolved administrators for help (which you are not). So again I ask the above. Jmpunit (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an overall pattern of unacceptable behavior which you all exhibited. Count yourself lucky that you didn't receive a block or topic ban. You got a warning, and that should have been enough to keep you from making this frivolous complaint, wasting more of our time. Read that warning and just heed it. If you can't see what was wrong with your behavior after all the times you have been advised, warned and read our policies, then maybe you really should get a topic ban. You all exhibit the same type of behavior, which is rather discouraging. It's a pretty bad case of "I didn't hearitis". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of not hearing: I asked for an uninvolved administrator. Not only are you one of the most involved editors on that talk page Brangifer (at the moment) but you are also not an administrator. Jmpunit (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't make the decision as to who replies to you. I am not preventing an uninvolved admin from commenting, but as one of those whose time you have wasted, I have a right to share my opinion, and I think you've got a problem with understanding the nature and seriousness of your disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith and be civil. Jmpunit (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like the editor who placed the warning to kindly come and explain exactly why they felt the templates were necessary if I may? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not helpful to expect admins to take half an hour to respond to ANI posts on matters like this. A glance at Aspartame controversy and Special:Contributions/Jmpunit should clarify the situation (the article concerns how conspiracy theorists have once again found another conspiracy, and some editors cannot grasp Wikipedia's NPOV procedures). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed your editing history, Jmpunit. All of your edits since August 2010 have been on the subject of the aspartame controversy. 83% of your total edits have been on the talk page of that article, which you have now edited 167 times ([23]). There have been concerns about inappropriate POV editing on that article and disruptiveness on the talk page, about which I believe you were aware, and your edits indicate that you have strong feelings on this matter and appear to be interested in adding your own views to the article. In my view, the warning was correct, and any further disruption on this article or related ones should be met with preventative measures. I would very strongly advise you to diversify your editing; there is plenty of constructive work which can be done, and arguing on talk pages is very rarely fruitful. Consider this a fair, uninvolved administrator's view if you wish. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times I have edited a talk page no one has discussed SPECIFIC edits that I have made that show that I am pushing a fringe POV there. As I said before, this is a serious accusation and I do not take it lightly. I feel that I have a right to know what specific edits are in violation of pushing a fringe pov. Since I have caused much "disruption" these statements should be easy to find. If these specific edits are not found I would ask that my warning be withdrawn. Jmpunit (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy with rules that precisely regulate who can say or do what (see WP:BURO). All we need to see is that you are stridently pursuing a POV in an article concerning a conspiracy theory—that is not Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Please provide specific edits that I have made that are stridently pursuing a fringe POV. Jmpunit (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell us that we have completely misunderstood your stance all along; that you have not been pushing for and defending the edits, content and POV made by User:Immortale, User:Arydberg, and User:Killdec? Your arguments and actions have been so identical that sockpuppet investigations have been filed against all of you! Single edits cannot show a tendency, but the accumulation shows a very strong POV which you, along with the other editors, have very aggressively pushed against the objections of many much more experienced editors and admins, over a very protracted period of time. You have all been warned and instructed many, many, many, many times on the talk page, and that should've been enough, but it wasn't for some and they got blocks and topic bans. (There's an abundant supply, so keep pushing here and you can have one, free of charge!) Since you were all obviously so allied in your actions and POV, Future Perfect at Sunrise was very justified in placing a warning on all of your pages, even if you hadn't edited for several days. You could have taken it as a friendly "FYI" and kept it in mind for future reference, but instead you caused more IDHT disruption by posting here. That's a frivolous use of a noticeboard, and many of us don't take kindly to such a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to mislead other editors and lie about me (to push your points and muddy my name), no sockpuppet allegations have ever been filed against me. КĐ^♥ 18:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Again, since you seem to have ignored that in favor of repeating your demand for specific edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg has left an unhelpful comment on Jmpunit's talk page. While this isn't Jmpunit's own fault, it shows that these editors still labor under mistaken impressions of what Wikipedia is all about. Maybe Arydberg needs another explanatory warning. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brangifer you continue to repeat false accusations (i.e. sock puppetry, pushing a fringe POV, etc.) but you have NO EVIDENCE. You continue to be rude by invalidating my concerns calling them a "disruption" and threaten me in a sarcastic manner saying that there's an abundant supply of topic bans "FREE OF CHARGE!" Then you post an irrelevant message on the aspartame controversy talk page saying that there is an issue here on this message board that is relevant to the talk page, as if trying to recruit others here. Finally you give the trifling revelation that one of the editors that was blocked contacted me and somehow (even though it's not my fault) their message proves that I and other editors are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. You make many claims without providing facts- doesn't this go against the article in question?

It is editors such as the above mentioned that continue to hinder the progress of the aspartame controversy article. When a reference is presented that does not go with the view of some of these editors it is immediately shot down and the presenter is accused of "wasting time" or being "disruptive". These editors are attacked with sarcastic comments and threatened to be blocked such as I am now. This is why that talk page is a mess because a significant number of editors who read the article and are concerned about its neutrality state so on there and are met with antagonistic, uncooperative editors who refuse to allow a collaboration to take place. Jmpunit (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the "unhelpful comment" is not a reflection about you; it simply shows that there are a group of editors who have no clue about Wikipedia's role (hint: the encyclopedia is not available for partisans to push their points of view). Your stridency (repeated requests for "specific details" and comments about "no evidence"), along with a glance at Special:Contributions/Jmpunit, is all independent editors need to see that this case is exactly the same as the hundreds of other cases that appear here. Editor who cannot comply with WP:5P will be removed, eventually. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to have a little input from someone who ran across your complaint and has no vested interest, you seem to be missing a major point here, Jmpunit. The warnings you received were in no way an official administrator action. Absolutely anyone can post a warning on any user's page. So it's not an action that has to be justified, as you were suggesting when you linked that admin policy, nor is it something that needs to be or should be brought to this noticeboard. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite correct in this case: it was a notification in the context of a "discretionary sanctions" Arbcom procedure, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Warnings. Those are in fact "official" in some sense, and they are normally handed out only by such administrators as would also be entitled to enact the actual sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, how am I pushing my POV? I keep asking this because I don't see how I have and I haven't been given any direct answers (saying that my edits in general push a fringe POV do not explain anything). Fut. Perf. now that you are here I am asking that you justify this warning per WP:ADMINACCT Jmpunit (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a bureaucracy, and not for advocacy (see WP:NOT). In the above, several independent editors have commented, and this section is now almost 2000 words. No one has supported your position, in fact the reverse has occurred. Experience shows that debating the finer points of procedure is not productive. Please read the links already given and refrain from attempting to extend this because the only result would be to confirm all the advice given above, and to strengthen the need for the warning on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Editors incapable of working on Christian Terrorism Article

Resolved

 – Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

The editors User:Ion Zone and User:Rpeh have been engaged for a second time (earlier AN/I here [[24]] in bickering and derailing legitimate discussion on this page Christian Terrorism. Neither seems capable of working on the article and keeping a cool head, as I think the talk page there will bear out. It is becoming increasingly frustrating for other editors to discuss there due to the way these two editors persistently bicker. I have warned both and tried to be impartial. User:Ion Zone is being provocative by mispelling User:Rpeh's name. He excuses this by saying he cannot be bothered to spell it correctly. User:Rpeh has closed discussion and implied improper behaviour against an experienced editor User:The Four Deuces. Neither of these editors is demonstrating any degree of seriousness in the discussion. I would suggest a block for a definite period of time from this article is required for both, but would like Admin. opinion.DMSBel (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am serious about the section I'm trying to improve. I keep trying to get somebody to respond seriously to my queries about parts of the NI section. Reph, or whatever his name is, constantly tries to bend the rules to his advantage, refuses to answer legitimate questions, and launches near constant accusations at anyone who disagrees with him. I have trouble telling what the letters are and find it silly that anyone cares. If it was his real name, 0k, but it isn't and I don't see why DM, or anyone else is bothered. I didn't even know it meant anything to him until he started accusing me of making fun of him - and he is very good at accusing people of things.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to this fully in the morning. In the meantime it's worth stating that DMSBel is one of the editors trying to push a POV on this article. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

R - this is exactly what I'm talking about. The moment someone tries to do something you don't like you accuse them of pushing an agenda.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm just as serious. Every time I try to point out something, I get a big whack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in reply. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then could you please go through the section with me, in order, point by point, justifying the concerns that me and others have raised about their legitimacy. So far you have simply ignored all of us and parroted the same line over and over without trying to validate any of the sections. If it's so simple, as you claim, then you should find it incredibly easy to explain to us all. If our raising concerns about the section is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then why did you try to close down that poll when people were simply voting on how to make the article better?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)In fact, screw tomorrow morning: here's my initial reply. On the couple of issues mentioned: 1) I notice no diffs have been supplied. 2) I notice DMSBel decided not to mention his/her own conduct.

On concomitant issues 3) Ion Zone has had his/her WP:COMPETENCE examined previously on AN/I 4) He/she kept displaying the same conduct after a warning

On issues related to the article in question 5) I have done nothing except try to present evidence why the existing material should not be kept, while other editors such as Ion ZOne and DMSBel (plus others like Eli plus) have done nothing except try to delete it.

As I said on DMS's own talk page, yes the closure of the "vote" was provocative, but then the entire poll itself was an exercise in senseless provocation and had absolutely no place on any article's talk page.

I have been incredibly restrained given the sustained campaign of IDONTLIKETHAT aimed at the article, and if anybody should be banned from editing it's the train of people who have deleted HUGE chunks of material with NO consensus while discussion was still taking place!

Now I haven't provided diffs either. THEY will wait until tomorrow. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1) what's a diff?

2)I think DM Has been fine, beyond telling me off for not being fussy about my spelling in talk, but I haven't seen anything worth complaining about.

3) What you mean to say is that you started a thread in admin complaining about my competence and were told off as well. And 4) if I make fun of you on my own talk page after you suddenly start screaming at me for misspelling your name, why are you blaming me? I don't like people trying to hide that they are being rude to me by saying it behind everyone elses' back.

6) If the vote was provocative, lodge an objection in the vote. Don't try to close down the discussion because you don't like what's being said!

7) So now everyone who disagrees with you should be banned?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)See my previous AN/I that demonstrates Ion Zone is not WP:COMPETENT to edit this site. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an Admin. but have I have tried to be impartial here as best I can, and waited as long as possible before bringing the matter here for more experienced consideration. I commented in the earlier AN/I linked to above and suggested both editors take a break from the page. I don't agree with Rpeh's assessment regarding the Proposal section, as from my understanding of the whole of WP:VOTE, it is not entirely prohibited to hold a vote or make a proposal, and in any case the result of a vote is not binding, so I don't see that anything improper was done in that regard. Could Rpeh maybe indicate what aspect of my conduct he thinks I should have mentioned here? DMSBel (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I did take a break - and User:Ion Zone did not - but s?he continued his/her pattern of editing regardless. I have tried again and again to assume good faith on his/her part, but s?he keeps making the same sort of edits over and over again. Enough is enough. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes in all fairness you did take a break and were away from the discussion longer than Ion Zone.DMSBel (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Placeholder: I would like to comment on this, and will have an extensive collection of diffs tomorrow. Almost had them now, but my browser crashed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)) done

• The article as it currently exists is a disaster; WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN]—the list goes on and on. I'm not sure which of the contending parties here is on the side of fixing it, but any of them who defend the status quo are wrong and should lose here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I won't be able to comment for a bit, I need a break for a few hours at least from wikipedia, and I have things to do in the real world. Oh and just a word of thanks, to the two aforementioned editors: putting out rubbish, topping up my electric meter and other mundane tasks have become appealing since working on that article. DMSBel (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In the time between my initial attempts to change the article and the current time the only edit I have made has been to change one word in one sentence that didn't affect the meaning of the phrase. This was quickly reverted in any case. Thus far the only significant opposition to the removal of the unnesessery portions of the Northern Ireland section, is R. In fact, most of the comments I have seen are from people who think I should remove more of the section or delete it entirely - the conflict in Ireland being Nationalistic and there being no attempts to prove otherwise from any side. I have not taken a break from the talk page myself because I saw R's brief leave of absence to be, effectively, as good as.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending anyone here but every time i have to address "RPEH" i have to scroll up or down the page to get his name right, and sometimes i don't bother. I did not imagine he would have this kind of reaction. On a second note, user Rph is acting as if he owns the miserable article and always defending the horrible status quo. In brief, he has to stop being so territorial and just relinquish to reason and evidence and stop derailing the discussion with silly accusations. Eli+ 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that I commented just last night that I fully support a rewrite, your statement is demonstrably untrue. I've given up anyway. The page is no longer on my watchlist and you and your cohorts can whitewash it to your hearts' content. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rpeh, there's a wealth of material about Christian groups acting in the name of Christianity in books about terrorism. Someone could probably write an entire article about the Pacific Northwest alone. It's not about whitewashing, POV pushing or editors having a "faulty interpretation" of policy. There are several experienced editors voicing their perfectly valid policy based concerns. There's no need for you to give up. Can't you just tone it down a little, be a little less paranoid about people's motives and focus on the material out there that actually does belong in the article rather than defend the material that doesn't belong in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've had the dubious pleasure of being in the midst of this situation. If I may interrupt this discussion, I'd like to step in and try to offer some pieces of information and interpretation.
  • Although not a good thing, the misspelling of names has really been a minor part of this conflict, and is something of a distraction here. I also note that Ion Zone has indicated that he has dyslexia, and makes mistakes typing as a result: [25].
  • What is actually going on is a very heated content dispute about whether the article does or does not contain material that is cherry-picked to have an anti-Christian POV. There are editors with good-faith concerns, arguing reasonably, on both sides of that dispute. Not surprisingly, some of the involved editors are getting very hot under the collar. There have been a lot of incivility and personal attacks, some low-level edit warring over deleting and undeleting sections, and a great deal of IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument back and forth on the talk page with editors restating their own opinions instead of listening to the opinions of others. Actually, one can get a bit of the flavor of it from Simon Dodd's comment here, just above, about winning and losing sides (to be determined at ANI, no less).
  • It seems to me that Ion Zone has been attempting to participate in the discussion mostly in good faith, although he seems to be rather unsophisticated about how Wikipedia works. Recently, he made some needlessly incivil remarks needling Rpeh, leading to the complaint here: [26], [27], [28], [29].
  • Rpeh has been an editor of the page for quite some time, and in my opinion, has been very helpful in countering the recurrent efforts of pro-Christian POV pushers to sanitize the page. He is usually responsible about sourcing and accuracy. (His observation here, lost in much of the jumble, was spot-on: [30].) However, he easily becomes hot under the collar in talk, and starts commenting on editors rather than on edits, without listening to the merits of arguments made by those who disagree with him. Recently, he has made some incivil edit summaries in response: [31] and [32], and displayed poor judgment in hatting a discussion with which he disagreed: [33].
  • Actually, it seems to me that the editor who has done the most to raise the temperature is not mentioned above (although he just commented while I was writing this). Elie plus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who single-mindedly follows a pro-Lebanese Maronite POV, has, over a period of time, repeatedly made incivil remarks directed at those who disagree with him: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and my personal favorite [39]. (The last pair of diffs also includes a comment by DMSBel directed at me, which I should explain. It refers to the use of the word "hyper-ventilating" in these comments: [40], [41], and [42]. I think DMSBel has acted entirely in good faith throughout this whole business, but maybe he over-focused on an isolated word there.) When an editor (who disagrees with me about content) contacted him about that at his talk, Elie plus responded unapologetically: [43], and later was sarcastic about it at the article talk: [44]. Elie plus also engages in WP:POINTy edits to the page: [45], [46].
  • I don't, ultimately, see anything in any of this that requires administrator action in the form of a block or such. Rather, I think that this thread should serve as a notice, on the record, for all named parties to be careful going forward, and I hope that some uninvolved administrators will keep an eye on the situation in that regard. Thanks.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Eli plus notified: [47]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

R - no you didn't say you supported a re-write. What you said was that you supported improvements to the article....which flies in the face of your constant refusal to let anyone do anything to it - and demands for 'more discussion' (there has been plenty of discussion - nothing but discussion) - there is approximately five different threads for each edit.

And I do know this was you: [48].

Ion Zone (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you can tell me your secret method for adding improvements to an article without rewriting it? I'd love to hear it. 2) That edit was nothing to do with me and I'm seeing it for the first time now. Are you accusing me of vandalism? If so, ask somebody to run a Checkuser of apologise for your baseless personal attack. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, given that both times these two editors have interacted on ANI it has led to lengthy and heated arguments, which do not show any sign of abating after your thoughtful summary, that some kind of short interaction ban might help matters. A week of not interacting on any talk page, not posting on each others talk pages, and not reverting each others edits, might be constructive?--Korruski^Talk 10:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left the article that was the root cause of this problem and would have left this alone except I saw myself having been accused of vandalism. Could you let me know what you plan to do about Ion Zone's personal attack against me? --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let's not over-complicate this Tryptofish - this is about a simple case of two editors who have shown little sign of being able to work together without slipping into squabbling on this particular article. I see no need to go into all the in and outs of the discussion about POV on that page to resolve the immediate issue. Once it is resolved then other issues can be considered if necessary, for instance if there are any editors still pushing any POV. That is not always deliberate in every case. So we should be hestitant and circumspect before alleging it. We can't tackle some issues until more basic ones are addressed. I brought this here because I was finding it nearly impossible to follow discussion on that page due to the squabbling between Rpeh and Ion Zone which was flowing over from their talk pages to the article discussion page. An interaction restriction might be best here, I'd agree with that being for a week in duration. DMSBel (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if I sound frustrated with this, but it feels very much like he has been trying to obstruct improvements to this article in order to push a POV, particularly with regards to the colossal number of accusations he makes against others. I really just want to make the article better and it annoys me when people act like they own Wiki pages. With regards to the linked edits....I'm sorry but, hidden by a proxy server or not, I would bet money he made them. The style is exactly the same, he is the one who has objected most to changes made on this page, and he is the only one who left the page in disgust around that time yesterday.

If this is genuinely an unfair accusation, then I am sorry and you may consider it withdrawn. But, in honesty, I think it is fair - particularly if we remember the sheer number of accusations he regularly makes against other editors. Certainly he isn't one who should get upset because someone accuses him of vandalism.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If this could be wrapped up fairly soon by an Admin. that would be great. Ion Zone has given what is probably his best stab at an apology given his concerns about POV, and it seems to me better to just close the matter now without further sanctions.DMSBel (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, there's a difference between over-complicating something, and getting something right. I recommended no action beyond administrators keeping an eye on all involved parties for a while, and that's hardly complicated. I've been watching pages that involve criticisms of religions for a long time, and this wasn't simply a case where a page was moving along just fine until two editors started squabbling with one another. Editors, more than just these two, were behaving as I described, as a result of a content dispute, not just because a squabble materialized out of thin air.

And getting it right matters. In fact, I'm very happy to observe, on logging in today, that the article has quieted down to where constructive editing is moving along just the way that it should! Actually, I would have no objection to a ban against either of these two editors commenting on the other's user talk for a while, and likewise for either of them reverting the other's edits to the page. But interaction bans can be tricky, especially with regard to the article talk page. Telling someone they cannot respond to a comment in talk can skew the discussion, can disenfranchise editors. If after all this they interact on article talk in a manner that is counter-productive, then that's where administrative action will be appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Marked resolved, previously both editors have indicated they will disengage one way or another. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Weston Price, NPOV, and MEDRS

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Yobol (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• BruceGrubb (talk · contribs)
• Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

The threat of a RFC/U by Ludwigs2 saying that I had "no consideration for other positions, consensus, or (apparently) common sense." has forced me to bring this mess to here. Furthermore any attempt to collapse ANY part of my comments will be viewed by me as an effort at censorship and a tampering of my posts. There are serious WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS issues with the Weston Price article.

Extended content

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities. (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9) The problem is that this claim is NOT supported by the majority of the reliable sources (see Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory and so I want to put in the following which IMHO better shows the state of affairs: The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work. The referenced material in Ingle's Endodontics of 2002 states "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment rationale. (Easlick K.An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 1951;42:694.)(Grossman LI. Focal infection: are oral foci of infection related to systemic disease? Dent Clin North Am 1960;4:749). and yet that very same year by the very same publisher it was stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory. The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades. Prophylactic antibiotics are routinely prescribed before some dental procedures to immunosuppressed and other at-risk patients, to combat the spread of oral bacteria into the blood stream." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" Page 159) THEY CAN"T BOTH BE RIGHT. Despite the following sources presented that support Silverman and contradict Ingles regarding focal infection theory itself user|Ronz and Yobol insist on ignoring the relevant points and going into side issues: 1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). (1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal; pg 27) Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33 O'Reilly, PR Claffey NW "A history of Oral Sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodontal 2000 1997 Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich Textbook of Endodontology Wiley page 135-13 Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200 Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?" Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell munksgraard Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33 Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459

I wanted to add in the more neutral:

Extended content

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

and yet I have been repeatably stymied by Ronz and Yobol and now get this RFC/U mixed with insult by Ludwigs2

User:Ronz has already has issues with pushing certain POV in the Weston Price article (see [49] and Yobol has insulted other editors with /groans and /rolls eyes (see [Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2].

Ludwigs2 ignores the fact that Billings (referenced to in some of these sources as the main driving force behind focal infection theory) himself stated "A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3) a point repeated in several MODERN journals and textbooks.

Furthoermore "In the 1920s, Dr Weston Price ) published a series of rabbit experiments and case reports of remarkable improvements in various medical conditions after dental extractions and asserted that ‘practically all’ infected non-vital teeth should be removed rather that endodontically treated to prevent or cure focal infections." [...] "The three most documented, publicized and litigated examples of focal infection are bacterial endocarditis, brain abscess and orthopedic prosthetic joint infections. Opinions abound on many aspects of these infections, but little attention has been paid to the absolute risk to the patient that these infections pose from dental-treatment-induced bacteremias" [...] "Numerous studies have attempted to determine the significance of various microbial pathogens in pulpal and periapical infections" [...] "Once again it appears that the Focal Infection Theory fails to pass scientific scrutiny. While isolated reports of focal infections appear, there is no evidence that focal infections or even antigenicmimicry are responsible for anything other than sporadic abscesses/infections and possibly rare autoimmune disorders." (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) [2] "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?" Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell munksgraard)

So here we have a peer reviewed article by Blackwell munksgraard whose web sites "Wiley-Blackwell is the world's premier dentistry publisher, representing the very best in academic research, student learning and clinical expertise." which is supported by two textbooks also printed by Wiley and even mentions Weston Price and we're supposed to ignore it in favor of Ingels who contradicts about every source I have found because doing so has "no consideration for other positions, consensus, or (apparently) common sense." How does THIS make sense common or otherwise?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs)

Comment

• Woah, holy wall of text, Batman. This seems to be a content dispute, though. Also, please, it is spelled Munksgaard, not munskgraard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• This appears to be a content dispute - open an RfC or go to WP:MEDCAB. Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have collapsed your comment above. I'm sorry if you view this as attempted "censorship", but this is not the forum for this conversation. Administrators have no special powers to settle content disputes except in enforcing clear community consensus or addressing clear policy violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that BruceGrubb needs to brush up on WP:DR processes-- he has posted twice to WP:RSN, where I pointed out to him that his posts were confusing and WP:TLDR, and that he was asking RSN to mediate a content dispute. He may not understand dispute resolution, but this is looking like forum shopping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that the above kind of response is precisely the reason I am considering an RFC/U. I've seen dozens of variations on this same wall-of-text, a new one every time someone objects to the addition he keeps trying to make. Content-wise, the issue seems clear to me:

• The argument about the putative resurgence of focal infection theory belongs on the focal infection theory article, not on the Weston Price page.
• Any effort to connect Price with any modern forms of FIT (be it real scientific work or pseudoscientific material coming out of more fringy sources) has to be carefully balanced so as to (a) not give Price undue prominence as a misunderstood genius, and (b) not diminish the significance of Price's work in his own time period.

As far as I can tell, what we have is a few reputable modern sources suggesting that FIT may be redeemable (despite the problems with Price's earlier methodology), and a few less reputable sources trying to build something off of Price's old discredited work. Why Bruce objects to that kind of balance I don't know (because it's such a pain trying to parse his massively repetitive posts); all I really know is that trying to get the point across is a bit like trying to have a debate with a cruise missile. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone can attempt some form of mentorship before an RFC/U-- I just don't have time to wade through his wall of text, and frankly haven't been able to determine what is up with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will happily barnstar anyone who wants to undertake that task. I'm even tempted to offer $5 via paypal, if extra incentive is needed. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Ludwigs2 is ignoring the fact that administrator Will Beback stated ""WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere."

Regarding focal infection theory the Weston Price article currently states "These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities"

Ludwigs2 has just admitted with his statement that there is a currently a revival of oral focal infection theory; several peer reviewed articles express concern that given focal infection theory's easy explanation and economic incentive one could easily see the same application as seen in Price's time. Ergo the not currently considered viable claim is NOT a valid MS:MEDRS statement!

More troubling is just what the Ingle article actually says--a point that everyone keeps avoiding like the plague.

"In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment rationale. (Easlick K.An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 1951;42:694.)

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection ; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111).

"This introduction to the focal infection of disease should not be construed to mean that the theory has no basis in fact. There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale. (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

Ingles: "However, a recent book entitled Root Canal Cover-up Exposed has resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price. (Meinig G. Root canal cover-up exposed. Ojai (CA): Bion Publishing; 1993.) This body of research has been evaluated and disproved.

New York Academy of Dentistry 1994: "[h]owever many clinicians appear today to have lost sight of the fact that endodontical treatment shall be based on biology and not on the use of various gadgets to sweep canals. Also, one-visit treatment of necrotic, infected teeth is being advocated and practiced even if no long-term study has been performed to investigate this kind of treatment. The work of Dr. Weston Price is therefore still to a great extent valid and important and the role of infection can not be underestimated."

I AGAIN ask how can Ingles can be reliable given that what it actually says (In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection) can be proven to be wrong. How can a theory "refuted" in the 1930s still be presented as having validity clear into the 1950s?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has tried, in vain, to discuss this situation with BruceGrubb for months now, I could ask for no better example of what it is like to discuss anything with him than the above text. Comments, suggestions, rebuttals, or reply is more often than not met with a repeating of multiple walls of quotations from various sources that do not address any points raised. It is almost impossible to collaborate with someone who responds like this, and I now actively avoid discussion on any talk page with Bruce for this reason. (As an aside, I note that Bruce has also spread this conflict to yet another venue. RFC/U, mentorship, anything to get this to stop, please. Yobol (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The response by Yobol above is a perfect example of what I and other editors over at the Weston Price article have been deal with--a bunch of text that avoids the actual issues raised. Note that no attempt to even address the issue of what is being said by focal infection theory either in the article and by the source itself being demonstratively wrong is made.

I must again ask how can the statements of "focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine" in 1947 and "There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale." in 2000 be reconciled with Ingels 2002 statement "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection"? Answer is it can't.

Given that I have provided Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?"Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell Munksgaard

1) talks about Weston Price

2) goes into the history of focal infection theory,

3) in greater detail goes into the current situation focal infection theory

and we still have Yobol harping on Ingel it is he not me that needs a RFC/U or mentorship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving along, can you explain to me precisely what administrative action or intervention is needed in 80 words or less and without resorting to bold text? If not I suggest you accept what plenty of people have told you above and move this discussion to a more appropriate place Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio-pictures in Ol' Dirty Bastard

Hello,

User:Vdn12 constantly uploads copyvio-pictures (en, commons) and puts them in mentioned article. No response to talk page messages. He also uses IPs to vandalize his copyvio pictures in to the article [50]. This has an international dimension, because after uploading he replaces existing pictures in nearly all language versions with his copyvio-ones. When his copyvios get deleted, CommonsDelinker deletes all the references to the pictures, so the article becomes pictureless. Please block the user and semi-protect the article. --bluNt. 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both the account, and the IP, for one week, to see if they will just get the hint and go away. However, this only applies to the en: Wikipedia. If this user is causing trouble across multiple wikis, you may want to ask for wider enforcement than a single admin can deliver -- I can't do it, but I'm sure someone here knows someone who can. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the big problem in the scenario you describe would be his ability to upload to Commons. We can't do anything about that here; accordingly, I've courtesy-listed this at the administrators' noticeboard on Commons. If you have further input, you may wish to give it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to thank both of you. Even though I'm on ArbCom in the German Wikipedia, it's really hard to find the right page, template etc. here or on commons. You sort of feel like the newest newbie… --bluNt. 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. :) When I run up against OTRS issues that take me to other language wikis, I face the same thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

He appears to have been blocked on commons. Does anyone have an AWB script that can restore the original images on a multi-project level? It sounds like we have a lot of red links in multiple languages thanks to this guy. N419BH 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It took care of that, by hand. bluNt. 12:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a rangeblock?

I've lost count of how many times I've seen it in the last two days, but an IP user has been engaging in a vandalism spree, most recently from 88.243.72.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Every time I've seen it I've checked the WHOIS, and it's all coming from the same ISP. I'm wondering if maybe it's time for at least a short-term rangeblock instead of playing whack-a-mole for hours on end... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is Grawp. Anyway, if you list some of the other IPs you've seen then we can do a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment - Range blocks are asked for and sometimes granted way too quickly lately. Isn't there a better way of dealing with this? Block the ips that are creating the chaos, but range blocks have too much collateral damage and should be used in only the most extreme cases.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on the behavior, I'm almost positive this is an extremely prolific vandal/socker. And I think we could justify a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well lets be sure based on WP:Range before literally affecting thousands of ips.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Additional IPs used for identical vandalism: 88.241.117.182 and 88.241.155.148. They all come back to Turk Telekom. I hate thinking about rangeblocks, especially for that large a block of addresses, but watching the "Ghostface Killah" edits pop up over and over again wears thin after a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • There's no range to block here - he's also using 95.8.114.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 78.176.10.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). We can't really block him unless we block the entire ISP. I semi'd three pages for a week. T. Canens (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yikes. Never mind. I'll just go get a spare mallet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I protected Biscuit earlier today, I figured it was probably someone familiar but forgot to ask here. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• If it's Grawp, he's not going to be that easy to block. HalfShadow 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on the IPs that hit Daytona 500 alone, even a bunch of /16 range blocks won't cover it. Turk Telekom includes a very large number of IPs and this vandal seems to have rapid access to IPs throughout Turk Telekom's ranges. The pages targeted are random, and he just moves to another when each is semi-protected. Abuse filter(s) should be considered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd look for some regexes to submit to the filter creation list, but all the revisions have been hidden from us mere mortals.  :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Filter request is now submitted. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) The edits themselves are still visible (at least at biscuit and Daytona 500) so you can have a look at those. The edit summary for every incident I can find is the same: "Came up with the right dough? Bigger dick? I don't know, must have been the best flow." -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Edit texts almost always include some combination of "ghost", "face" and "killah" too. That should keep the filter fairly simple. I don't speak regex well enough to produce it myself or I'd offer one up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I made a bunch of rangeblocks. Looking for more feasible ones. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, for any passing by admins, please disable talk page access for any IPs that come up. They abuse them too. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a bunch of these yesterday and protected four articles which are all related to Ghostface Killah lyrics in some way. The line above is a copy vio and some of the material inserted into the articles was copy vio as well. The ones I saw were too widespread for a range block: 78.176.3.76, 88.243.78.108, 88.242.208.72, 85.100.95.238, on Waco, Texas, for example. The other articles protected were Dust, Kilogram, and Uptown. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise protecting these pages. This type of vandal moves from one page to the next. Protect the page, they move to a new one. I didn't do a widespread rangeblock. I made a bunch of smaller rangeblocks were no one else appeared to be editing. Check my logs. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

holy crud! that was what was going on yesterday! are you saying that the ghostface killah guy is Grawp?? I had to deal with all the crap he was putting on daytona 500, funeral and hinge yesterday and funeral has not been revdelled yet--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Threat by User:Brianwazere

• Brianwazere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello fellow admins. This deleted revision by this editor contains a threat against me personally, and I request eyes on this user especially following the expiration of their block in a week (placed for blanking another user's page with clear evidence of bad faith).

I would additionally request counsel from the WMF with regards to how I should react to this threat. I am unsure if something of this nature needs to be reported, and who it should be reported to.

Thanks, --Chris (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not expiring in a week anymore.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reported things like this here before, and always been told to revert, (ask for a) block, and ignore, since these are just trolls clamoring for attention rather than real death threats. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I've seen how suicide threats are handled but haven't really dealt with violent threats yet. I appreciate the insight. --Chris (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

emergencywikimedia.org. If you consider that a serious threat, Chris, email them immediately. IMO, it's trolling, but I'd err on the safe side if I were you. That address works for all threats (suicide, violence, bombs, etc.) and other such emergencies. Response time should be very quick; it's monitored by WMF staff and certain volunteers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

btw, I've added a note about this to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; we've had a number of threat reports recently and people should know about the emergency address. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,

Remember this exciting ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach? See this item from Flavorpill and this editorial. I'm considering a lawsuit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work in spotting those pics in the first place.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

? Sue for what?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For use of my words without proper attribution, but I'm just joking about a lawsuit, of course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They seem to have included signatures with the comments, even Bugs' carrots; that attributes their authors :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with one of the commenters on Flavorpill: "If this is an example of art from Brooklyn, I'm sorry for Brooklyn." It's a stunt that someone's trying to pass off as a dig against Wikipedia, nothing more. Move along please, nothing else to see here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Relax Delicious carbuncle, you're famous! ;) GiantSnowman 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting piece of art to say the least. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny that an "artist" has to add photo's of himself to Wikipedia to get noticed but given the low quality of the images themselves I think we all know why. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conquered?" Meh. There are certainly far less constructive ways to try to game Wikipedia. And I don't think it was intended as a dig. Taking them at their word, they just wanted to put the pictures out there, and didn't anticipate their removal. At most, it may have been more open ended, as in "I'm going to do this, they're going to react, and I'm going to combine their words that result with my pictures." So in the end, we have the juxtaposition of the figure contemplating each beautiful landscape, the informational article text about the place, and the oft arcane posts and edit summaries of the behind-the-scenes workings of the articles. Meh. John Berger would be proud.

The photos weren't useless for the most part. If they haven't all been overzealously deleted, and there are any that can't be cropped easily to remove the figure, drop me a note and a link and I'll photoshop the figure out, at no extra charge. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) (and I, too, was quoted in their art project)

An excellent idea. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They were deleted from Commons due to irregularities with the professed public domain release; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Honestly, some of them were not bad photographs, although none of them were great. My biggest reason for opposing those images was my certainty that the endgame was something exactly like this, using the uploads as "proof" that something (pick anything consistent with the narrative) was evil about Wikipedia. Meanwhile, all I have to show for it is a random space inserted in my ellipsis for some reason. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it would have been a win-win for this guy if the photos were kept or deleted. If they were kept, he'd be able to say "Look at these crappy photos I put Wikipedia and they're too stupid to get rid of them". But instead my critiques of his shit attempt to subvert this site get immortalized in an art installation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more than an example of attention-seeking by someone with little real artistic talent. Meanwhile, the real contributors and/or real hoax-artists continue their work: "The Riley slice is the quotient of the Teichmuller space of a 4-times punctured sphere by a group generated by Dehn twists around a curve, and so is topologically an annulus". An almost-poetic description of something or other that may or may not even exist in the minds of those who created it, described in a newly-created article. I'm still uncertain whether (a) this is a real mathematical concept, (b) the article is a hoax, or (c) mathematics is a hoax - this is art at its best, leaving one unsure whether one has seen something of wonder, or just been the butt of a joke. A heck of a lot cleverer than uploading a few photos, either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He has some way to go before he hits the epic trolling proportions of this artist, though. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the followup comments, all of which put down the guy who uploaded the photos. Meanwhile, he's offering a PDF to download. On one of the ref desks, someone asked whether the internet has made people any smarter. This little example might be an answer to that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Humans in general are known for being incredibly creative but not necessarily bright... Now what admin action is needed here? N419BH 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppeteer: User:Rasputinfa and User:Free book. --Perseus8235 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, "geek overlords"! :D - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the name "Karellen", thank you very much (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new geek overlords. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

More vandal fighters please

We need more vandal fighters on a regular basis. This has been up for nearly a full day, and this was up for five hours. Who knows what else got missed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is borked right now, which is why NPP is getting flooded as well. Hopefully that's resolved very soon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, all this edit needed was a CN-tag, no? ;) As for Twinkle--that's irritating enough. Fortunately some of the old folk around here still remember how to type "db-band" and "subst:uw-vandal1." Hear that, Blade? A blast from the past! Practice your typing, and re-read this--I'm quizzing you tomorrow morning. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is for pussies anyway; I don't use it and on good days I'm so fast I get mistaken for a bot... HalfShadow 05:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I manually tagged pages for months before I started using Twinkle; don't worry. It just takes longer, that's all. ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, this is a chance to bring our automated edit percentages down, to satisfy those who hate 'em *ahem*WP:RFA*cough*. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• cough*Huggle*cough* I've long preferred it to Twinkle. Banaticus (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For vandalism, yes; for NPP, I'll stick with Twinkle, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing things manually while Twinkle isn't around, but I'm much slower at it when I have to dig out and paste in warnings manually. Also, I suspect a lot of people will just have stopped NPP altogether while they wait for Twinkle to be fixed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's back (although still not marking pages as patrolled), I've been running full tilt- I have to stop for a few hours, but it's good to be back all the way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some way to keep track of the number of active vandal fighters at a given time? Some automated way to see the number of users who have made GLOO or HUGGLE edits in the past 15 minutes or so. I've had a few times lately when I've gone RC-patrolling in GLOO where it seemed like I was the only vandal fighter on duty. The alert levels are nice, but they don't tell you how well-manned the defenses are and that I feel is important for best allocating labor between building the encyclopedia and keeping vandals at bay. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to watch the recent changes feed and count the number of edit-summary adverts for the tools. –xeno^talk 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Systematical removal of edits out of religious prejudice

- Over the last few many wikipedia articles have been improved with edits which reference Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda. Many edits persisted for many years without conflicts, but in the last month or so User:Wikidas began to systematically delete carefully the references on a per auhtor and not on a per content basis. After a discussion on this page, which was not concluded, User:Profitoftruth85 began doing the same thing. There are no multiple pages other than those touched by Wikidas and as you may well know, the balance of edits of Wikipedia is a result of many carefully agreements. If you have one user (and now two) which blindly takes the side with disregard for the content, this gives those who may not agree with all the entries an opportunity to add their own plate to the matter and take advantage of disruptive edits by one user. If I would follow the trail of the edits of Wikidas and undo them without regard to the quality of the articles that would be considered disruptive. But something tells me that in this case I would be immediately be challenged again about what I am doing. Wikidas on the other hand obviously has free hands to violate all the rules and regulations. The problem is not in finding agreements with other editors, but to stop disruptive edits by Wikidas which has decided that Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is not notable and that references to his work need to be deleted. This job has now been taken over by his partner ProfitForTruth following the same rules of behaviour. What can be done about this? Atmapuri (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't notify the two editors as is required. I've done that and added links to them in your text so that other editors can see who you are talking about. I presume you are referring to Swami Maheshwarananda. Without these links it's difficult to understand your post. If you are referring to being reverted at Om, raise your concerns on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue has to do with the attempt of previously one and now two users who have taken it upon themselves to delete all references to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda from all articles which refer to it with the explanation that according to their oppinion he is not notable and that edits are advertisement. I think that such behaviour should be sanctioned by Wiki policy makers, because it does not take in to account the quality of the articles or unbiased view when we are considering that this is a living person with enough notability to be present on the Wiki. Such editing breaks otherwise fragile agreements reached on each articles page. If this is not stopped many articles will be substantially degraded in quality. The two users in question have already teamed up before to remove part of the name from the title of the article. That part of the (legal) name doubled as a honorific, but without it the article title leaves readers questioning if they are reading the biography of the right person, because in nearly all public references, the person is refered to with full name. Together the two editors in question have performed over 50 strict delete only edit over the course of last few months leaving large sections of articles unreferenced or almost completely blank, where the content persisted for many years without any interventions. Atmapuri (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Recent discussion on this issue here [51]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clear example of WP:GAME by Atmapuri, as User:Profitoftruth85 brought a WP:AN/I against Atmapuri. The real issue is Atmapuri spamming his links on various articles, which is clearly WP:Advertising. Thanks--SH 10:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Forming a Sikh tag team now? Atmapuri (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making such insinuations. As User:Profitoftruth85 will testify, I have reverted many of his edits and even issued warnings against him. You are violating the principle of WP:AGF by making such statements. Thanks--SH 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: A complaint was here on this very issue against User:Atmapuri and archived less than a few hours ago. It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive674#Help_with_Repeated_insertion_of_material_2. What we have here is Atmapuri repeatedly spamming other articles with the viewpoints of this one person. This appears to have been discussed at different (but not all) talk pages of articles that he's been spamming the links and viewpoints of Maheshwaranda at, has been reverted by more than two editors, yet continues this behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can somebody please level with me? If I understand this right. The article about

Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is to be orphaned and this will be perfomed by the users that began the process affecting more than 30 articles? This is OK and there is nothing that Administrators have to say about this? Also, what is the point of having an orphaned article on the Wiki? Atmapuri (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no article Paramahans Swami Maheshwarananda. Perhaps you mean Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda? If you don't use the correct links, nobody will know what you are talking about. As you are perhaps unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, may I point out to you that a red link is an indication that the page in question does not exist. Your links above are red, so they are pointing to a page that doesn't exist. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fixed. And thanks for the first unbiased open post. Atmapuri (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again

Champ and Swagger are under attack from one of our regular customers. Some help would be appreciated. A rangeblock cutting off all of Turkey would be acceptable collateral damage right now in my frazzled, Twinkle-deprived opinion. Favonian (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both pages for 1 day, hopefully that'll help.  Bettia  Talk  12:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but according to Elockid in a comment higher up on this page, that may be counter-productive, as the jerk just moves on to other articles. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I think Edgar181 is right; an abuse filter might at least stem the flood. I think my request is still active, although I haven't looked at the latest diffs to see if he's still using the same edit summaries or inserting the same garbage. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Searlsa

The editor Searlsa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) exists only to post external links to various promotional websites. Examples of websites the editor is linking include http://www.greatvalueonlinebooks.com, http://www.photodrama.info, http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com. All of the sites are hosted from the same IP (209.157.71.214, an account at homestead.com).

Possible CheckUser may be warranted to determine whether the editor also runs the websites, but in any case, the promotional links violate WP:ELNO (#5).--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how we could assess that with CheckUser (except if they edit from the server, which I doubt) :) -- Luk ^talk 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why an editor who only adds link spam should not be blocked anyway??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You requested the checkuser, so it's reasonable for someone to respond to that. As for spam links, the user has been warned appropriately; let's give it a rest for a moment and see what develops.  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The CheckUser suggestion simply caught my eye :). I haven't looked further. -- Luk ^talk 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I had thought homestead.com might be an ISP, but it looks as though it's just a host. So, no, a CheckUser almost certainly won't be conclusive. I'll report back here if they continue the link spam, but given previous behaviour it seems to be the only purpose for the username.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible interaction ban between me and User:Kintetsubuffalo?

I will begin with a short summary. The explaining can go later. Kintetsu apparently has a hogwash idea of what WP:FORUM means. On the Republic of China talk page, after seeing this raving post by an IP, I promptly removed it. Then Kintetsu many days later decided that I was "snarking simply for the sake of snarking", and then accusing me of trolling, POV-pushing, editorialising, and the like. In fact, I will admit this... it is only he that I am trolling, as occurred at the page Flag of Tibet.

And it is of the utmost cowardice for him to press charges against someone without allowing him to defend himself.

Because of the hard malice built up between the two of us, I recommend a total, indefinite interaction ban between the two of us...including that we shall not revert any of each other's edits. If the ban is not placed, then flame wars could continue to occur between the two of us. Who knows the level of disruption that could happen then? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really dislike interaction bans. We aren't a court, and we shouldn't have to have the red tape of dealing with what amounts to wiki-restraining orders. If people do something wrong, then sanction them for it. You were completely in the right to remove the "raving post", IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan conflict

Resolved

 – User seeks recourse elsewhere: at present no need for administrative action. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Page: Moe anthropomorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L-Zwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jinnai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juhachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoryMeerkat (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious violation of WP:SELFREF and WP:OR going on, but there is a coordinated group of editors who are fans of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that are tag teaming and preventing progress on this front. See them coordinate here and the blatant personal attacks perpetuated by this group which was canvassed going on at this MfD. When trying to get a third opinion on the matter, they totally swamped this noticeboard request with their coordinated attacks. Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it seems like you borrowed the formatting from the 3R page, but that's OK, I guess. I've looked at the history, and I'm no expert in the field of moe (whatever that is--I guess it's an encyclopedic topic). What I do see is you removing of an image with a very tenuous argument to SELFREF. If there is such a critter for the Opera web browser, surely there can be one for this here online encyclopedia. That this should be Original Research, I don't understand. But all of this should probably have been addressed on the talk page; you left a note there, I see, but didn't wait very long before taking it to the OR noticeboard and then charging people here with tag-teaming (a conspiracy, in other words). This last charge is serious, and the evidence suggests to me that instead of tag-teaming we are dealing with a few (more) experienced editors who may well be right.

  Worse, it appears that you post this here since the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Moe_anthropomorphism (which I haven't read in any detail, and for now it's beside the point) does not seem to be going your way--that's forum shopping, and it's generally frowned upon. Your tone, both in notifying editors ("I reported you...) and on the OR noticeboard, leaves something to be desired.

  In summary, I don't see any need (yet) for administrator intervention, but I encourage the input of other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot get outside input into the actual issues. How is one supposed to get this? All I get is a bunch of people who are fans of Wikipe-tan piling on. I'm fine if administrator intervention is not what is required according to Wikipedia precedent, but what recourse do I have? If someone would read these links and let me know if this is standard operating procedure when a bunch of fans of lolicon get together to try to protect misogynistic otaki illustrations on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Wikipedia:Think_of_Wikipe-tan.21_up_for_deletion
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!
• Wikipedia:NORN#Moe_anthropomorphism

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IvoryMeerkat has previously declared his intents to remove Wikipe-tan from Wikipedia altogether.[56] He has also repeatedly remove the image from Moe anthropomorphism despite every response to WP:NORN#Moe anthropomorphism being against his position. In short. And this report is just forum shopping since he can't get the results he wanted elsewhere. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. Why is it so hard to get a neutral party to look at this situation? Fans of Wikipe-tan shouldn't be the ones deciding whether their favorite mascot should be in article space. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur, looks like forum-shopping to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is one supposed to get outside help if they follow me from place to place? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that people are fans of pushing images of a sexualized cartoon girl as a representation of this website without recognizing the fact that a lot of Wikipedia users, like myself, find that association extremely problematic for such a huge on-line presence. I joined Wikipedia to help add to this encyclopedia but am having a hard time visualizing myself continuing when there is such an entrenched group fighting for a lolicon mascot for the encyclopedia to the point of pasting huge images of her in google-indexed articles. This isn't some kid's blog, this is a highly visible internet site. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps some people just don't want to see the Wikipedia project-space decorated with what could be construed as lolicon. It seems that the text of WP:OI does support the creation and use of the image on the Moe anthropomorphism article, but to be fair, the initial comments at W:NOR were all from the manga fanclub. When assistance with an editing conflict is sought out at our various dispute boards, it is usually to get an outside and uninvolved opinion on the matter, and it an be a bit disheartening to see the only responses come from the people you're already involved with. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So the objection really isn't based in WP:OR; instead, it seems like you have a complaint with the tone of the image and what it connotes for Wikipedia. Which seems to me is a matter that is addressed by simple editor consensus. Where the Foundation has not decreed otherwise, editors make Wikipedia what it is, and you're not always going to like it. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture itself was invented by Wikipedians. I've looked at two books on Japanese culture that discuss this and neither mentions Wikipe-tan. In the meantime, these people are spamming Wikipedia to include images of cartoon at Fan art and Ren'Py and Adventure game and Bishōjo game and Catgirl. These people invented Wikipe-tan and now this image is suddenly representative of all these things? Where are the reliable sources which indicate this? This spamming has to stop and people need to be told that it's not okay to invent a fantasy cartoon and declare it to be this-or-that so you can get it included in Wikipedia. This goes against everything I read in your policies about the encyclopedia striving for excellence. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If we needed a reliable source to tell us what was depicted in every user-generated image, then bye-bye user-generated images. Can you explain why you disagree with Tarc regarding the application of WP:OI here? If we need a reliable source telling us that File:Wikipe-tan full length.svg depicts an example of moe anthropomorphism, then why don't we need a reliable source telling us that File:Gymnogyps californianus -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg depicts a California Condor? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. (Emphasis in the original.) I am saying that the existence of a moe anthropomorphism for Wikipedia is an introduction of an unpublished idea/argument. There are no reliable sources that I've seen which say that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism even though there are reliable sources written about such things (there actually is an extensive discussion on OS-tans in one of the cultural books but there is no mention of Wikipe-tan). On the other hand, the image of Gymnogyps californianus can be verified to have the features of the california condor from reliable sources. For example, there's a picture of such in my world book. If you can find a non-WP:SELFREF reliable source that indicates that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism then I'll accept that this illustration has some penetration outside of this website's anime fanclub. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Either way, how is this a matter that requires an administrator's intervention? I propose this section be closed; there's a discussion on the OR noticeboard, linked to above, and more discussion should take place on the article talk page. Meerkat, I didn't follow you around, and I am certainly not a member of any manga fanclub. I am simply trying to ascertain the merits of this particular call for administrator's intervention, and I find no such need. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, Drmies, but I find it extremely frustrating that just when I finally get someone engaging me in an actual discussion of substantive issues, that you want to shut down the discussion. Can we please just move this to the OR noticeboard? I'm just trying to find some outside help, is all, and it's pretty difficult to see how do to that. I saw some tactics from a group of editors that I thought was against the policies of edit warring and tag teaming and I didn't know where else to turn. As I said at the beginning, I apologize if I got the location wrong. I just wanted outside input and there wasn't any to be had at the noticeboard with the anime club following me around and taking turns ignoring my points. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing--this isn't necessarily the place for substantive discussion, it's more a next-to-last resort. That I mentioned "forum shopping" is not meant as an accusation; it can be difficult to find the proper venue, I understand that, and that's why I linked to the OR discussion, for instance. I encourage the editors here (Tarc, Postdlf, etc.) to weigh in at that noticeboard. I have nothing of substance to say on that particular issue; interested editors (Tarc has already been here) may also have a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, which is related to, if not the cause of, this disagreement. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Whatever the reason, discussion seems to be picking up in the locations of interest with outside editors chiming in finally. It was really frustrating being up against a big group of editors who simply talked past me and accused me of all sorts of nasty things in their group discussions, edit summaries, and comments. It'd be good if there was a place where you could just post, "NEED HELP ON A COMPLICATED MATTER". I was looking for such a place but this was the closest I could find. Sorry about not finding the right spot. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well, you got what you wanted: editor's interest. But for next time--be patient, grasshopper. It's not just one particular crowd that visits the OR noticeboard, though it may take a while for uninvolved editors to check on a situation. Keep in mind also that you come in as a new editor with guns blazing, and some folks here have worked long and hard on these articles and other things; though you might not agree with what they produce, you can understand that they might take this personally. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nasty things? You're the one implying all of us who like Wikipe-tan are mysogenic pedophiles. You wonder why there's such a harsh reaction? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to the OR board for instance, Melodia--there is nothing more here. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When the OP said something about it being a "sexualized" character, I suspect he betrayed what's really bothering him about this innocuous cartoon. "Sexualized"??? "Cute", maybe. But sexualized? Talk about "original research"! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The current cover of Sports Illustrated is more revealing than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing that it would be appropriate to use a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition illustration as a mascot for Wikipedia? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing you should be honest in your arguments against it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's showing that the complains that the sexualization of Wikipe-tan have no merit. And your repeated implications that editors who disagree with you are pedophiles needs to end now. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. Is it sexualization to the the point that we should be clamoring for the head of the artist? Probably not. But it most certainly is sexualization.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. But supposing it is, in fact, a cartoon character that's depicted as having a gender, is it therefore a violation of wikipedia policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Depicted as having her breasts sliding out from the underside of a bikini top goes beyond a depiction of gender. Whether it's excessive is arguable, but the intent was certainly to create a sexualized depiction of the character.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it violate wikipedia rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"having her breasts sliding out from the underside", I think you are looking for something that was never really there in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly depicted in the image, TheFarix: not imagination at all, or something that was "never really there".—Kww(talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the image, by itself, violate any wikipedia rules? The reason I keep asking this is that the OP is complaining about it on OR grounds, but his real objection is apparently that it's "sexualized". Sending this to the OR page is a waste of time, because that's not really what the issue is - it's just a wedge the OP is trying to use. And I'm not saying he's off base to object. I just would like to know, as an ignoranimous here, what wikipedia rules, if any, do this illustrations violate, in and of themselves? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No rule violation, so far as I know. That doesn't mean that the complaint about sexualization is wholly unwarranted, which was my point.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not against the rules, then the complaint IS unwarranted, as it boils down to "I don't like it." Personally, I don't care for anime in general. But only on artistic grounds. I just don't like the way it looks. But if it's not a rules violation, then the OP needs to find something else to work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could they just make her an adult and this whole thing goes away? I am not seeing where it states that this is a depiction of an underage child. But the whole thing is a little crazy IMO. Oh wait, I see now. She was "born" when Wikipedia was started, so that makes her 10 years old. That is a little creepy. But my original questions still stands. David Able 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. Cartoons don't conform to normal aging rules. Peanuts ran for about 50 years, but Charlie Brown only aged from about 5 to about 10 during that interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the appropriate forum is. Probably an RFC. A group of Wikipedian decided to give the whole project a mascot, but I can't see anywhere that the project agreed that a anime-style image of a young girl was a suitable mascot.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipetan is a Moe anthropomorphism. See the article on Moe (slang), but Moe basically always applies to preadolescence girls; it literally means "budding" like a "budding flower" or "budding girl", to make Wikipetan an adult would make her no longer a Moe anthropomorphism, but just an anthropomorphism.AerobicFox (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the huge boobs ain't no "pre-adolescent". Someone needs to decide whether the illustrations themselves violate wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the boobs is a usermade rendition of Wikipetan as a young adult. Why someone would do this is beyond me, but yes, she is clearly not a child in that picture(which isn't being used on any of the articles in question by the way).AerobicFox (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well shit, when put into context it's even creepier. A"budding girl." Sheesh. Japanese culture never ceases to amaze me. But I suppose if essays like WP:PBAGDSWCBY exist, then Wiki-Tan is not too much of a stretch. Still, there is a (perhaps perceived) element of child fetishism here. A very fine line. For instance, the adult Wiki-Tan in a bikini might be over that line. David Able 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where should this orphan talk page be?

Resolved

 – Moved to user subpage. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia which shouldn't exist as the talk page of no article. It's going to have to be recreated somewhere else and deleted I presume. I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate RfC. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd slap a db-talk onto it and dump the contents into a subpage of Richard Norton's. If he wants to file a proper RFC, he can do so from there. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved it with no redirect. It's at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia now. I'll leave RAN a note. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I've been involved in one of the 'diaspora' AfDs, and am not exactly happy with this 'RfC', I didn't want to do any of this directly. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have RfCs in userspace? I see it's 'official', just seems an odd place for one. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--It doesn't belong in userspace. Could somebody please un-hat this discussion? I am going to try putting something useful at WP:OR/N but feel free to move it if there is a better place. Sharktopus^talk 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am very involved in the discussion surrounding this, but I find the RfC extremely disruptive. It's creator has already failed to wait for other processes to come to conclusion before taking matters into his own hands - he did so initially by recreating a deleted page hours after he requested a DRV of the deletion result. Now he has started a straw man RfC (that is framed in a way to omit the POV he objects to altogether) while two related AfDs are ongoing. Can someone please ask the user to calm down and let these processes finish before forging ahead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection between an RFC and an AFD, so there is no reason to have one and not the other. It is framed from my viewpoint, of course! I wrote it. How could it not be framed from my viewpoint? I think Griswaldo is confusing an RFC with a DRV. A DRV, if filed, must come after an AFD that led to a deletion. An RFC is just that, a request for comment, nothing sinister, nothing sneaky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your framing of the issue is as tendentious as if I had made an RfC around the question "Should R.A.N. stop making disruptive rfcs?" or "should articles for which there are no reliable sources be deleted?"·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I stuck it in userspace as preferable to deletion. If you want to move it somewhere else, feel free. lifebaka++ 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Can I get some eyes on Spliced (TV series)? Girloveswaffles (talk · contribs) has started an edit war with me over the inclusion of several one-shot characters and fancruft; see this edit as an example. The user has made no edits whatsoever to any other article, suggesting possible WP:OWN issues. I've left two warnings on the user's talk page and both have gone completely ignored. What should I do now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes on Talk:Spliced (TV series) might be useful. I note a distinct lack of discussion by either party. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a comment there, but does it really matter? Girloveswaffles clearly isn't reading anything except the article. I've pointed out twice on their talk page that they're adding indiscriminate info, but they won't listen. Please don't turn a blind eye to this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, failing to let a deletionist win a content dispute is not yet a formal offense against Wikipedia policy. There's nothing in WP:IINFO saying that minor characters can't be mentioned, or defining a minor character for that matter. I see no harm in allowing the article to be more informative rather than less. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The information that Girloveswaffles keeps on adding is lacking in reliable sources - and so TenPoundHammer is well within his right to remove it; for all we know, it could be a load of nonsense. GiantSnowman 23:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of it does seem valid. I've watched some of the show, and a couple of the one shot characters do match up to the episodes (for instance, Entrée does get a twin in one episode). Unsourced and indiscriminate are my two main concerns — Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor a collection of indiscriminate info. I would appreciate at least one other set of eyes on the article, because this editor strikes only in spurts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

72.87.217.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be the same editor logged out. Also, Girloveswaffles finally responded on the talk page with the following:

There is no reason to remove an entire section because some of listed characters are only one shots. Many of the minor characters are reoccurring (i.e the Wunny Sharbit, Sid) there is also information about people who have done guest apperinces doing voice work of these characters. If you feel that some of the information is wrong, correct it, but don't remove the work of others because you personal don' like the minor characters.

I think the user needs more cluebat. Mine's tired right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I know TPH has been here a lot so I guess he/she knows the purpose of ANI. What particular administrative action/intervention is required here? Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations on Rick Scott

Can someone please look into Rick Scott? This article has been hit by IPs inserting negative material for several days now. Most recently they've been inserting this material, using a source that doesn't mention Scott, to cast a negative light over one of his decisions. The IPs look related so a block may suffice over protection, but at any rate admin attention is needed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've glanced over the page histories and concur with Cuchullain; the IP editor is inserting WP:SYNTH material. I've also warned the IP editor for edit warring. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge needed at Thunderbolt (interface)

I won't use my admin account from this PC ... so hoping another admin can assist.

It's snowing pretty heavilly at the merge discussion at Talk:Thunderbolt (interface). Need someone to move Light Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the existing Thunderbolt (interface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) content, then undelete the target history so as to merge the history records. --- Barek (talk) - 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Vanjagenije's behaviour at Catherine of St Sava

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) has reverted my good-faith moves and edits to the article currently called Catherine of St Sava in a manner I find quite disruptive.

I had previously explained at length at Talk:Catherine of St Sava#title why I came to the decision to move the article, and had what seemed like a reasonable discussion with another user who had previously moved the article twice without discussion.

In return for that effort, my change was immediately reverted and I was accused of not discussing anything at all (?!) and then of not respecting consensus - without a shred of demonstration of there ever being actual consensus on the issue, let alone an actual factual objection to my reasoning.

Consensus decisions on article titles aren't supposed to be a matter of fixating on a status quo, rather any action needs to be supported with reasons. Reverting without providing an actual reason other than "you're changing status quo" is basically Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

These are the diffs: diff diff diff

Vanjagenije had also previously reverted a moves by someone else, which actually wasn't particularly controversial, but in context of this latest behavior, this indicates to me an unhealthy attachment to the current article title for no apparent reason:

diff

Granted, I could have employed WP:RM early. But there's a non-trivial difference between me not being perfectly attentive to procedural matters while making a series of good-faith contributions, and them being explicitly disruptive towards me.

I feel this is a clear abuse of process and a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

In any case, even if I'm wrong, will an uninvolved administrator please intervene? Especially given that this topic can fall under the Balkan topics discretionary sanctions. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone and Stone

A new user created an article at Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the username was StonandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so the user got blocked; they then apparently panicked - I'm guessing because the article was tagged.

In very short order we have:

• StoneandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asparagus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedygal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedybiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Between these four accounts, there is only one subject of interest, Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I have moved to User:StoneandStone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for now. This looks very much like abuse of multiple accounts, or at the least off-site co-ordination i.e. meatpuppetry; if not then it's astroturfing, and from one account, Comedybiographer, there is clear canvassing. That's an awful lot of problems in a very short space of time, so I'm blocking all accounts until we get to the bottom of it.

Anyone who feels disposed to sort it out is welcome to undo any of these actions.

The article's sources look to be unreliable and/or trivial passing mentions, I Googled some, it seems that Stone and Stone are nearly-famous in real life but have some following on the Intertubes. Google was not much help because the word stone is kind of generic. My experience of people who think having a Wikipedia article is Really Really Important and run around looking for help to keep it, has not, in the main, left me particularly inclined to accept their judgement of the vital and pressing need to immediately cover this fabulous topic which the million or however many existing Wikipedians have unaccountably missed for the last ten years. I am somewhat cynical about such things. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI The "StoneandStone" account was blocked, unblocked to change username, but then the user created the target username instead of requesting a change at CHU, so the StoneandStone account was reblocked and they were told to continue with their new name "Comedybiographer". I don't know about the other two. –xeno^talk 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User making legal threats over deleted article

Elementalkarl (talk · contribs) --- here. Article in question was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesa Arcilla. See also the conversation at User talk:Elementalkarl#Deletion review. cab (call) 00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also personal attacks], for good measure. cab (call) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Invited her to retract threat. You forgot to tell her about this thread. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-organization of Amusement Parks and Summer Camps categories and content.

If you look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amusement_parks_in_the_United_States_by_state

you will find more defunct parks than active parks in many states. Since there is a category for defunct parks, and since it is a great waste of time for people looking for active parks to click on all the dead parks, I would like permission to move all inactive parks to the defunct category. This is also true for summer camps.

Also, every state has a subcategory of waterparks, which creates redundant entries and rather ludicrous directories, like a state that has 2 parks, and a sub-category with only one waterpark. So, I would like to get permission to migrate all waterparks to the state level.

Wiki commons has a single category of parks for all states, and that list is going to get huge, as North America has 65 combo parks, 34 large amusement parks, 237 waterparks (and hundreds of smaller aquatic centers and fun parks, which should not be in a Wiki anyway). So I would like to create a set of commons sub-categories for each state, identical to the wiki articles.

With over 850 traditional summer camps (not including scouting, day camps and special needs camps) it gets confusing to have summer schools in the list. I would like to utilize the category for schools, and clean out the traditional camps directory.

I am doing all of this in preparation for a massive 2011 update to the summer vacation wiki categories. Tons of photos will be uploaded, all CC3.0, and hundreds of Wikis created. After that I am going to walk on water and ascend to heaven.

Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer Vacation (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)