Edison Academy Magnet School

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Hubschrauber729

The User:Hubschrauber729 has been deleting citations for Israeli footballers religious beliefs and personal life. He tries to use his own interpretation of Wikipedia rules to remove content. He refuses to debate his removal of content and acts as a sort of ruler over any article that I have edited. Even in instances like the Dudu Aouate article and the headlines he caused in Israel for saying he would play on Yom Kippur, the user took off the categories. Secondly, a player like Oshri Roash, whose reference clearly states how visible he has become as Under-21 national team captain and his persistence to be a religious Jew, have been taken off his page. He took down Alon Harazi being the grandson of Holocaust survivors and many other interesting facts that are all cited! He deleted conversation that I put on his talk page and hides behind his own interpretation of Wikipedia law. I am requesting that he not be allowed to touch anything related to the Wikipedia Israel portal since he lacks knowledge of Hebrew and can not even do a simple search for references or citations. He is simply a vandal. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, I would suggest; therefore you need to take it to dispute resolution. I might suggest that you also WP:AGF, as the position as outlined by Hubschrauber729 might have some merit in it - the religious beliefs of football/soccer players (certainly those outside of Israel) are not usually notable - for instance, the Roman Catholic country of Italy plays matches on the Sabbath seemingly without comment. Also, it isn't usual for a players parents or grandparents history to be notable (unless the relative was also a player) and I would further suggest that an Israeli citizen being descended from a concentration camp survivor is not (regrettably) so unusual to be notable of itself. I think you need to review WP's guidelines on subject notability and perhaps open a dialogue with Hubschrauber729. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alon Harazi is a Mizrahi Jewish name. It is notable that his grandfather was a holocaust survivor from Poland because it qualifies him for an EU passport and to be listed as an Israeli of Polish descent. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did try to have a conversation with him but he removes all my comments from his talk page (and labeled it 'crap' in the edit summary) and refuses to have any dialogue! I have no problem debating notability etc. but when someone says that Dela Yampolsky being one of the few non-Jewish players on the Israel U21 side has no relevance, than it shows me that they are unwilling to even debate. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given Hubschrauber notice of this discussion, and an informal warning regarding the edit summary when reverting you. Let's see what they have to say, if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have been doing is removing the category "Jewish footballers" from articles that don't have information regarding them being Jewish. As far as Dudu Aouate, I must have missed that. Also I thought stating a players religous beliefs was a violation of WP:BLP. Even as Jews being an ethnic group, its sort of hard to differentiate when something says "John Doe is Jewish". And about the edit summary, when someone says they are "stooping to my level" and calling me a vandal, im going to remove it because I believe it is nonsense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go on a one by one basis, but all these people are ethnically Jewish. You asked for citations and now I am bringing all the citations and adding to their personal life sections details of them participating in active Jewish communal life. So why did you take the categories out on Kfir Edri, Johan Neeskens, Tomer Hemed, Oshri Roash, Dela Yampolsky etc. etc. etc. I am not trying to make these guys Jewish. I routinely take the category out of profiles like Steven Lenhart and post on David Loria's talk page a source that he is not Jewish. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that when there is specific published RS controversy about his religious beliefs in relation to his field of notability, that the material is relevant. Whether religion is relevant otherwise i think depends on the degree of notability; ditto for grandparents--for really notable public figures we do seem to include that sort of information, but not routinely for everyone with an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Being Jewish doesn't mean that it is your religion. It is an ethnicity too, and most articles on Wikipedia note the person's ethnicity. Everyone from Sacha Baron Cohen to Jordan Farmar are noted for being ethnically Jewish, even if they don't believe in it. So naturally, Category:Jewish footballers from Israel should be noted too. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this conflict a symptom of a wider problem with our categories? Category:People by race or ethnicity and all its subcategories (such as, potentially, Category:Catalan world citizens) is an invitation to label as many BLPs in this manner as possible. At least it will be read as such by a large number of editors. As a result, statements about ethnicity (possibly sourced) will be added to many articles where they don't belong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't just debating the use of the categories but also the user's preference to consider Jews only to be a religious group. The user targets specific articles but remains silent on pages he edits of footballers of Turkish descent ala Ramazan Ozcan etc. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jews for the context of a WP article or category are people who self-identify as jews in any meaning of the word they personally care to use. We should no more argue tis than about the actual racial identity of someone who self-identifies as Black, or the particular sexual preferences of someone who calls himself gay. . In the extremely rare case where it actually is relevant to an article there will be sources discussing it. In my experience, people here or elsewhere who get involved with wether a person fits or does not fit into an ethnic or similar category are either trying to make a POINT, or are indulging unproductively in gossip. . DGG (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even true. Jews in Wikipedia aren't just those who self-identify as Jews, but also Jews who are considered Jewish according to halakha, ala Bobby Fischer. I am only trying to apply the category to those who the category should be applied to. By applying Category:Jewish footballers to an Israeli footballer who is indeed Jewish, I don't think I am trying to make a point. The user we were talking about is claiming that it has no relevance whatsoever. Even if they are black, or Jewish or Asian, according to Hubschrauber729, it has no value or purpose and shouldn't be on their profile. -NYC2TLV (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a resolution? The user is still targeting every contribution that I make to Wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking once again for resolution. Or else we will have to edit every black, Asian, Jewish, etc. person on Wikipedia since it has no relevance to what they do. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From the outside, I can't even begin to fathom why those distinctions would be considered relevant at all, let alone enough to make categories out of the farce! What's next? Category:Footballers from southern Mozambique (except the south half of the province of Maputo) and Category:Footballers who followed the tenets of Judaism between the ages of 7 and 14? Those categories are anathema no an encyclopedia, they signify nothing, and no relevance whatsoever, and populating them is an invitation to POV warring at best. In the extraordinarily rare cases where a person's ethnicity or religious leanings are relevant to their biography, then it can be mentioned, with the appropriate justifying context, in the effing prose! Otherwise, to the fire with all of those harmful and pointless categories! — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We should be getting rid of Category:People by race or ethnicity and its children. It's an invitation to editors to label people who may not want to be labelled, it's often (usually?) done with no reliable source involved, and it's rarely relevant. Doug Weller (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Word. I've gone ahead and started the proper discussion. I'm also going to poke the AN with it to get a wider participation. — Coren ^(talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Jaimaster

user:Jaimaster is an aggressive POV pusher on global warming related articles. Since arriving here in August and fomenting multiple edit wars, he has been warned about this behavior, both by myself [1] and user:John (an uninvolved admin I asked to look into his behavior). [2] (Having reviewed your recent contribution history, and as an admin who has no previous history in this area, I independently agree with Raul that your behavior merits a block. ). This has not dissuaded him. During his latest round of POV pushing (using the false edit summary Gave the section a copy edit cleanup), in the global warming article, he changed several instances of "caused primarily by human" to "attributed to human activities" - a pretty clear attempt to white wash the article. I reverted, and (as par for the course with him) he began to revert war. I reminded him of the previous warnings about his disruptive editing, and he threatened to open an ANI thread on me. I'd like someone to look into his repeated disruption. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that a neutral admin will fully investigate this and find it to have contain no substance. I believe this ANI has only been posted in response to my statement of intent to post an ANI of my own regarding Raul654's behavior, per my response to his "warning" left on my talk page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244306725&oldid=244305293

I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August (that discussion available for review here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John/Archive_28#Disruptive_user_in_need_of_block) has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above. Jaimaster (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think both of you are behaving very childishly. "Stop disrupting our articles..." and, "Over the next few days, we'll find out if the wiki is based on..."

Stop treating this like Battle of the Giants and start trying to do what's best for the project. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done what's best for the project - which is to revert his attempts to white-wash the global warming article (changing "caused by human activities" to "attributed to human activities"), using a false edit summary to do it. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening ban over content dispute

Administrator Raul654 has threatened to ban me for "disrupting" the global warming article with this grammatical clarification -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244262247&oldid=244195678

Per this talk dif -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244305293&oldid=240621874

I am at a loss as to how correcting a major grammar problem in the first line then going on to replace "caused by" with "attributed to" counts as "disruption". The latest official IPCC stance (IPCC being regarded as the most Global Warming reliable source) is 90% confidence in causation, lending itself to "attributed". In any case the reversion of the "attributed to" took out the correction of the major grammar problem on the first line, with no attempt made to fix it.

I believe this warning is a nothing more than a deliberate attempt to bully, and is in contravention of administrator guidelines per

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor),

It is my opinion that this warning should be withdrawn. Jaimaster (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread, describing Jainmaster's disruptive behavior (for which he has previously been warned by multiple admins). Raul654 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the chronology. What you say here is not possible without a time machine Raul. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a dispute over the use of sources is a grammar problem. That seems to be a total mischaracterization of the situation, and totally disingenuous on yourpart Jaimaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "major grammar problem" is the missing "the" before "increase"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, dispute over the use of sources? I dont follow. The dispute is over "attributed" vs "caused by". Neither was a direct quote from a source.

Roger, the first line was horribly written. Im quite happy with calling it a major grammar problem. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. And let's not snopak those crucial adverbs out of the discussion: there's a huge shift in meaning between "caused primarily" and "mostly atributed". This should have been discussed on the talk page first to obtain consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On review i pasted the wrong link (to a talk page comment of all things. I do not know why). This has been corrected. The link now points to the Global Warming edit that Raul654 says is "disruptive". This should clear up for Jayron32.

Roger, is not discussing a change of this type on a talk page, then reverting it back when the bathtub is thrown out with the water with a note of "inaccurate watering down" (which is most certainly was not) disruptive? Jaimaster (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of principal to me. I believe I am being bullied because Raul thinks skeptics are equal to holocaust deniers (I can find a dif to support that last), and per our past interactions he knows I am such a person. If you, the impartial administrators of wikipedia, agree that my edit was disruptive and not a mere a content dispute, and as such warranted the warning given, please block me for a period you deem appropriate for wasting your time. Otherwise all I want is the warning withdrawn. (added - I wont be back till Monday au time to answer any other questions. TGIF, have a goodun) Jaimaster (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jaimaster's edit in the diff above was in no conceivable way merely "grammatical" or a "copy edit". It was a substantive edit which sought to dramatically change the paragraph to say something different than what it had said before. His edit summary was innacurate and misleading, and it's practically impossible, despite as much AGF as I can muster, for me to believe that it was not deliberately designed to be deceptive. Because Jaimaster's posts here indicate that he is intelligent and well understands the meaning of words, I find it difficult to believe that he truly thinks his edits were simply superficial alterations that did not radically change the meaning of the statements in the paragraph.

  Whether Jaimaster should be blocked or not is not my business, I'm not an administrator, but he certainly should be admonished to use accurate edit summaries, and not to change the fundamental substance of controversial articles without consensus on the article's talk page. While the center of the matter is indeed a content dispute, blocking may be appropriate for Jaimaster's behavior in editing without consensus and in attempting to hide the nature of the edit. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That was no grammar edit, but a meaningful content change. Given the high profile and high controversey (never mind history) of the article, the proposed edit should have been brought up on the talk page first. At the very least, the edit summary, along with Jaimaster's post here about the edit fixing a "grammar problem," was wholly misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008
  • Calling a substantial content change a grammar change is, IMHO, tendentious editing, and depending upon the context would be good grounds for a block - at the time it was done, that is. And it should be taken into account if the editor's behaviour is subsequently be questioned. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a warning to Raul654's. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, it's a *huge* no-no to threaten to block someone when you are involved in a content dispute with them. This ArbCom ruling maintains that the editor is allowed to question your actions and this ArbCom ruling clearly says that admins are only allowed to use their tools during a content dispute in an emergency. This is not an emergency but rather a simple content dispute. Threatening to block during a content dispute that is not emergent is a violation of policy and ArbCom rulings. What say you? Bstone (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say, the warning was ok but Raul may not have been the one to make it, which is why I left one myself. Although I understand why Raul uses his admin tools on this article (and he may indeed see it as an emergency), it may be time to talk about whether there is community consensus for this, or whether it's allowed on some core articles, for some trusted admins. If the latter is true, I wouldn't mind seeing this written into policy. I see worries whichever way the consensus would go so I'm neutral but I do think it should be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Gwen, pursuant to this ArbCom ruling admins are instructed to not issue warnings etc while in a content dispute but instead use the appropriate noticeboards to ask for uninvolved admin attention. Raul did not do that and has violated the ArbCom instruction to admins. Bstone (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote verbatim where the decision says that administrators can't issue warnings. I am not seeing it. Administrators can't use tools when involved in a content dispute (and should not threaten to do so either), but any editor can issue warnings when called for. A warning means, "there is danger, be careful". Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul said "I'm going to block you" and not "You will/may be blocked." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the editor above asserted. My comment specifically recognized that threatening to personally execute a block while involved in a content dispute is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three topics in this thread. Thanks for clarifying your take. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, Raul very clearly said he will block the fellow. That is very different from issuing a TW warning or similar. It was a handwritten and threatening note coming from an involved admin regarding a content dispute. Raul should certainly know better. There is no way to whitewash this. Bstone (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone (I think). The edit in question was not a simple copyedit, the summary was misleading, continued reversion without discussion is disruptive, Raul is involved in a content dispute and he should not block Jaimaster. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But any of us uninvolved administrators can, if there is a need. Hopefully the parties will sip tea until they realize that this is just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the edits of Jaimaster and I find his edit summaries to be misleading. Jaimaster should avoid this type of edit summaries. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs weren't "grammatical corrections" at all but attempts to subtly bias the entire sections. Please don't hide behind the excuse of grammar corrections for policy violations. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per an earlier comment, I am in favour of a tier of trusted admins being permitted to use the sysop tools regarding articles in which they are currently involved in editing (outside of emergency actions). The definition of "trusted admin" is one of; any admin that would not use the sysop tools in respect of an article that they are currently editing or otherwise involved in - except in an emergency. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have no problem with Raul (or others) being a gatekeeper for the global warming articles, or even running checkusers to look after various areas of the encyclopedia, but he and they do need to recognise when a line gets crossed and they need to ask for opinions from others (and, to be fair, Raul does do that in most cases now), and think carefully about the threat carried by some of their comments. Not everyone stands up for themselves like Jaimaster has. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Carcharoth. New global warming editors are frequently bitten by Raul and others who quickly roll back good faith edits and cite mysterious consensuses from years ago to justify it. Except for obvious vandalism or sockpuppetry, I believe that we almost all agree that admins should not use or threaten to use their privileges (including rollback) to advance their own position in a dispute. Oren0 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that they may be justified in that. Linking to the older discussions would be a good step. Organising the older and perennial discussions into a FAQ would be even better, but I think that's already been done. See Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that the vast majority of new users who come to the global warming article are either aggressive POV pushers (like Jaimaster) or actual sockpuppets (like the recently uncovered scibaby sock Punctilius). Oren0 would have us re-discussing the same issues ad-infinitum, when in fact all the important things have already been discussed many, many times already - there's nothing mysterious about the fact that there's a consensus, or that they want to disrupt it without prior discussion. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
        • So you do point people to the Global warming/FAQ then, do you? Let's put the question another way. If people raise issues not covered at the FAQ, what do you do? And I have yet to see a proper analysis of all the "new" users to justify such comments are "the vast majority of new users are...". Until there is such an analysis, that is your opinion (though you may well be proved right by such an analysis). Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
          • What do I do? I tell them what they are doing wrong and how they can improve their editing. Raul654 (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there is unanimity here that Jaimster's edit was both disruptive and that his edit summary was transparently false. How do we proceed from here? Raul654 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it an ongoing problem that can't be dealt with by discussion at the talk page? I would note this thread somewhere, keep an eye out for similar behaviour in future, and request further action if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, didn't work, as this latest round of misbehavior has proven. So, again, how do we proceed? Raul654 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading User talk:Jaimaster/Archive1 and User_talk:John/Archive 28#Disruptive user in need of block. From what I can see (on the basis that there was no block), John was satisfied with what Jaimaster said there. Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved: "I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August [...] has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above." Given also that Jaimaster has said they won't be back until Monday (last edit on the 10th), then I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user (if you can't demonstrate that they are not a new user, assume good faith and accept that they are). In either case, a response from Jaimaster when they return on Monday would be good, and I've left a note asking them to comment here before returning to those articles. I've also asked them to consider broadening their interests into other articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works outside of controversial articles.

If I may also comment, requesting attention with messages like "Disruptive user in need of block" (the message you left on John's talk page) doesn't really encourage independent review of behaviour (though John did, IMO, a good job of a fair review and warning). It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion, which is perilously close to block-shopping. There is a reason why places like WP:AN3 are set up for the reports to be focused on evidence and not the way in which the report is presented. Something like "I'm concerned about the behaviour of user:X on article Y: could someone please review this" is more of a neutral request. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds more like you are looking for someone to confirm your own opinion - my opinion of his behavior has already been confirmed unanimously on this page. Not a single person disagrees that he was POV pushing in the article and that his edit summary was obviously false. This is one of those rare cases where the POV pushing is obvious from a single diff even to non-experts.

Jaimaster has also said, above, that he or she thinks their behaviour has improved... I suggest that you either shows what aspects of the behaviour haven't changed, or acknowledge that the behaviour has changed and stop referring back to the behaviour as a new user - Yes, we could take at face value his self-serving claim that his behavior has changed, or we could actually look at his behavior. In August, he was warned by myself and John because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. (After which he promised he'd do better) He's on ANI now because he was aggressively edit warring on a global-warming related article against consensus. In both cases, he's the one who precipitated it. In both cases, he was warned, and in both cases, he tried to wiki-lawyer his way out of it. Other than edit warring over exactly the same diff again, I can't see how they could be more alike. Also, the fact the he's decided to spend 3 days away from Wikipedia is not reason he should be allowed to escape sanction for his misbehavior Raul654 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I said he should come back here before resuming editing on those articles. I too strongly disagree with people leaving for a short period of time to avoid answering difficult questions, but unlike some people who refuse to even post at ANI (including some admins), Jaimaster was responding in this thread, and did announce he would be away (it is the weekend, after all), and that shouldn't be held against him. As for your opinion being confirmed, opening sections titled "Disruption by Jaimaster" and "Disruptive user in need of block" are not the best way to set people off on a neutral and unbiased assessment of what is happening here. I can't stress enough that I'm not saying you are wrong, but that if you are looking for an unbiased review, that is not the way to do it. If you are not looking for an unbiased review, but merely want people to nod, then fine. Do you see the difference? Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we put Jaimaster on a 0RR regime for all global warming related articles for a while. So, he can continue to edit, but if reverted he cannot revert. If he defies this restriction, he'll be banned automatically for some time. You then have a clear cut situation, the issue being whether or not he has violated his restriction. To avoid a ban Jaimaster will have to discuss what he wants to edit in the article, which is exactly the kind of behavior we want to promote. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. Jaimaster does participate on talk pages, and that, in such articles, is the only way to achieve a lasting change. And that need to discuss on talk pages applies to any editor of those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd support it too. If he makes a revert (except for vandalism, obviously), he should be blocked by an uninvolved admin for 1 month, than 2 months if it happens again, than a year, than indef. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has a clean block log, I'd start at 24 hours, then go 48 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months and then go to RfC, and then ArbCom or a ban discussion. A topic ban could come earlier than that. I know people have different views on the steepness of such escalating block scales, and have varying levels of patience (those with little patience like to indefinite block and move on - but I don't think there has been an analysis of whether this encourages socking). Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This strikes me as an reasonable approach to dealing with him. Raul654 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Good. Now, Raul654, what about your own blatant edit warring in that article? --Abd (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting his biased changes back to the more accurate, consensus version that's been there for months/years. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the accepted way of dealing with POV pushers across Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how many times I've seen that same reason given by edit warriors, who were blocked? The difference here is simply that by having more than one user taking this position sitting on an article, a minority POV can be excluded without the majority POV editors having to break 3RR. ("Majority" is not consensus.) That's the meaning of WP:Tag team. The edits made by Jaimaster were at worst, harmless, including the one you objected to so strongly. The arguments he made for them were civil and cogent. Perhaps it's time for an RfC on this. However, first things first, one step at a time. I'm inspired to take this to the article itself. See you there. --Abd (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if you plan to defend an obviously disruptive POV pusher, you might want to stick a bit closer to reality. His edits were far from harmless, as pretty much every single other person on this thread has already commented. The claims he put forth - that he was only correcting the grammar - are transparent lies. Pretending that his edits were harmless, and claiming that his reasons were cogent simply proves that you have no credibility to speak on this topic. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not not defending him, I'm noting your behavior. His comments in response to the charges levelled against him have no bearing, in fact, on the original edits; users often become defensive. If what I'm seeing is correct, the article did move quite well in the direction he was "pushing," it was simply done better by another user. I.e., instead of the cause of global warming being "attributed" to human activity (from the original "caused by"), the actual source attributing it was given. What I'm noting is the hostile attitude toward GW skeptics; that's poisonous to consensus process. They should be welcomed (and educated). I'm not opposing the 0RR restriction for him; I'll be proposing, effectively, one for you. We'll see if that is necessary. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice way to try to spin your own behavior here. Unfortunately, you again seem to be having issues with reality. When you come here and say "The edits made by Jaimaster were at worst, harmless" - you are, in fact, defending his behavior. And you are utterly wrong, as everyone who has commented in this thread has already said. Furthermore, you clearly do not know what you are talking about with regard to the direction he was pushing the article. With this edit I let stand some of the changes Jaimaster made. I simply reverted the POV pushing parts but left some others intact. The diff from then to today shows that nobody has touched that section except for The use of the term "climate change" -> The term "climate change" Raul654 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read a nice compendium of wisdom, etc., on Wikipedia. It's not that simple. The "POV" being "pushed" was closer to NPOV than the prior text, but spinning in the opposite direction. I was indeed confused about what had happened, due to similarity in language in the lead and in the section that Jaimaster had edited, which I'd confused with the lead. To go into detail on this here would be a waste, I'll save it for the article. However, people who have strong POVs become very good bias detectors for opposing POVs, that's one reason we need them to stick around. We are often very poor bias detectors for our own POV. Absolutely, the changes in wording made by Jaimaster -- and then back by you -- changed the spin of the paragraph. It was spinning in one direction, he reversed that. He sees your spin, you see his. When you both agree it isn't spinning, we'll know it isn't spinning, until someone looks at it from an different vantage point.

Just to make one thing clear: I oppose restricting Jaimaster at this time, I don't see that the behavior reported here warrants it. I've said I don't oppose it, because I think it may help him to stay out of trouble, but that is far from agreeing that he should be restricted, unilaterally. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight clearly showed that the group of editors (the collective hinted at with "our articles" in Raul's warning to Jaimaster) maintaining the global warming articles were edit warring and uncivil, and the only reason there were no sanctions against them, out of that RfC, was explicit in the close: the RfC wasn't about them. If this report here results in 0RR for Jaimaster, it should likewise result in 0RR for Raul654. Not a bad idea, actually. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Before this thread can be closed, someone needs to notify Jaimaster of the 0rr restriction. Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time, I thought I understood how we made decisions. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't the close create (or not create) the restriction, and the closing admin then is the one making the decision, being responsible for defining it precisely as needed, enforcing it (such as by listing it with editor restrictions), and being the go-to person for the restricted editor with any questions? Normally, the closing admin would then take responsibility for notifying the restricted editor. I.e., close thread, by uninvolved admin, who presumably independently confirms the evidence provided here is adequate to support the remedy, then notification of the editor if that's needed. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here based on the heading, of course. ANY use or threat to use admin tools based on content rather than behavior is absolutely and completely unacceptable. It is one of the most serious breaches of internal ethics on Wikipedia (threats or outing would be "external"). This and this were done in the same minute, making it clear that the warning was based on the content of the edit or at lest the current dispute.

Raul was in a current edit war with Jaimaster. He nevertheless took it upon himself to threaten to personally block Jaimaster. These are utterly unacceptable breaches of admin ethics, and good and sufficient reason for desysoping. Such abuses have happened before.

I would like to ask that there be no stalking of me for this post, which I feel is incumbent upon me to save. I hate to do so, because in the past people follow me around if they are mad at me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from Jaimaster

Quite alot to digest. I am sure the weekend will help me respond without being overly defensive. I will address the points in the order they were made.

• Charactising my edit summary as "misleading" - at no point did I expect my edit to be the least bit controversial, nor did I intend it to be "misleading" to "hide" a "POV whitewash". The difference between "attributed to" and "caused by" is (in my opinion) a grammatical cleanup; further it is accurate. I believe my edit history clearly shows my willingness to use talk pages to the point of overuse, and had I believed the edit to be a potential cause of controversy I would have proposed it on talk first (example - Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor). Now, if I had been changing "caused by" to "not caused by" or a similar unsupported POV shift, I could understand that "no amount of WP:AGF" would suffice. "Caused by" to "attributed to" is no where near the "whitewash" accused, is completely factual, supported by definitions used in our most notable source (IPCC), and used elsewhere on wiki - such as the title of attribution of recent climate change. I acknowlege I should not have reverted after Raul's revert; however the history between us is such that it can be difficult to assume good faith, especially given the incorrect summary the revert itself was made under.

• Indeed, this charge of "misleading" I find quite ironic. Raul's revert charactarised my edit as "inaccurate", which it is not; Raul stated my ANI thread to be a response to his, which it was not - a cursory examination of the edit timings will support the opposite - that Raul only started his own ANI in response to my declaration of intent to start one about his warning. Even if this is not so, the comment made in response to my initial ANI post Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread is not only inaccurate, but was almost certaintly a deliberate deception. I would like this to be addressed in some manner before this ANI is closed as I find it disturbing.

• Characterisation as an "aggressive POV pusher" - I personally believe this could not be further from the truth, but be it so I will quote the age old adage "it takes one to know one". Raul654 is quite aloof in his attitude towards the GW articles; as shown in his referenced warnings to myself he regards them as "our" articles that "you" are "disrupting"; he has been known to revert without giving reasons, then when reason is given, ignore challanges to the validity of the reason and continue reverting, ignore opposing consensus and continue reverting. From my perspective Raul regularly ignores WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BRD. This aloof attitude towards protecting his POV in "our" GW articles quite arguably lends itself to as much "disruption" and edit warring on the GW articles as caused by any "aggressive POV pusher".

• "Wiki-lawyering his way out of it" - in your opinion one aught to be able to do whatever they want as an administrator without the option of people taking their grievances up with other administrators, because that is "wiki-lawyering"? I disagree. Insomuch as wiki is not a court of law, the dispute resolution processes are available to us for a purpose.

In any case, I voluntarily accept without prejudice the proposed 0RR restriction as defined by Carcharoth - I have little reason to revert, and personally being able to revert only lends itself to situations as this (as much as reverts are not supposed to be taken personally, when we make what we believe is an accurate edit in good faith and it is reverted it can be a source of irritation). I ask for the following caveat - that Raul not be the one to enforce this, nor should he forum shop anything he believes to be a violation of it anywhere except ANI. I also need a clarification about how this "0RR" applies when an edit is made, reverted, discussed and remade. I do not intend to be blocked on thin technical grounds because I remade an edit after discussing it on talk. Jaimaster (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Please_dont., it appears that after the recent block discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Pigsonthewing, Pigonthewing used email to do the similiar he was requested [3] not to do here. Docu 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you hear that the Titanic sank?

You are noting a talkpage comment dated 1st October, while the discussion you are linking is from 27th September to 1st October - or later, since I stopped reading at that point - so therefore that email occurred before the conclusion of the discussion and the confirmation of any restriction... Now, is there any particular reason why you were reviewing Andy Mabbutt's talkpage? Has the "...stay away from each other..." advice lapsed? I would suggest that if you are sanction shopping re Pigsonthewing then you had best make sure that your own house is in order first. Please stop, and stay the hell away from each other for the foreseeable future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Per LessHeard vanU, you'll be doing something constructive if you stay away from each other. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See also [4] [5] - Atmoz (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your point? It isn't Pigsonthewing, because Andy Mabbutt isn't so stupid and it won't be Docu for exactly the same reason. It's a troll, and trolls are born to be ignored. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: TenOfAllTrades should be able to clarify the exact date of the emails. The block was 27/28. If he continued after the 28, it's clearly unacceptable. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who left the warning for Pigsonthewing, I have to say that I'm also unimpressed by the way that Docu has conducted himself of late. (Why didn't he choose to notify me of this thread?) Since Docu commented on the warning I gave to Pigsonthewing on October 1 ([6]), one does wonder why he's only bringing it to AN/I now—ten days later.

This type of sanction-shopping is petty and entirely unhelpful. While redundant, I've left a warning on Docu's talk page that he needs to find non-Mabbett interests. Neither user should be campaigning in any way to encourage harrassment of the other. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least we've stopped threatening to block Docu for being the only one whose signature doesn't rattle like a bottle of pills. Definitely progress. I agree, there will always be people you can't get along with, best to avoid them as much as possible, take them off your watchlist, etc., act like they don't exist. — CharlotteWebb 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I just got this really odd note from TenOfAllTrades on my talk page [7]. It doesn't seem to occur to him that I might have looked at his contributions.

In the past TenOfAllTrades already came there noting that it's an "inconvenience of scrolling back" to get there [8] .. obviously it is if he was reading emails rather than editing onwiki. It was somewhat unclear what brought him there, as I don't recall participating in any discussions with him on pages other than my talk (did I forget one?).

Anyways, it might be interesting if he could detail the type of emails he received from Pigsonthewing and their dates which may have prompted him to post to my talk page. Possibly others received similar. -- Docu 05:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the "copyright" issue. He might want to publish those e-mails himself someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Having failed to stir up interest in one non-event from Sept, docu seems now to be raising an even more trivial non-event from Sept. Enough. Occuli (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a request on 18 September for Docu to sign his talk page posts normally. (For the record, Docu had been signing posts with just his name, absent any link to his userspace and without a datestamp. The former is discourteous to editors who might wish to contact him, the latter can make it more difficult to follow the timing of complex discussions and breaks the functionality of some archive bots. I urged him to return to the standard sig or some variant of it, or to offer some explanation why it would be harmful for him to do so.)

I received exactly one email from Pigsonthewing, on 25 September, to which I made no off-wiki reply. He noted that Docu had blanked my request – essentially unanswered – from his talk page. I asked Pigsonthewing to stop emailing me in a message to his talk page on 1 October, and in that message noted that both editors needed to stay away from each other: [9]. (I had been travelling extensively during the previous week and had little time for Wikipedia editing.)

Also on 1 October, I renewed my request to Docu on his talk page. His response was to refer to his previous non-answers, and also to point to the warning I had left Pigsonthewing—implying that I was acting at the behest of POTW: [10]. Seeing as Docu clearly read my comment, I didn't think it a great leap to assume he understood that he should stay away from Pigsonthewing. To make that warning absolutely, explicitly, abundantly clear, I renewed it on Docu's talk page yesterday: [11]. The forum-shopping he started in this thread is a disruptive waste of time.

As to what brought me to Docu's talk page in the first place, it was his conduct on various noticeboards recently: first the obstinate refusal to sign his posts normally, now his inability to play nicely in the same sandbox as Pigsonthewing. (Note that I'm also unimpressed by Pigsonthewing's conduct at times, but as far as I know he did at least pay attention to the warning I left him.) I was not recruited secretly off-wiki as part of some conspiracy, and I'll thank Docu to stop implying any such thing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table misuse by 2 editors: Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and 2 administrators: Toddst1, Jayron32

I looked over this article recently and noticed that there is a lot of "opinionated" information in this article. Almost 80% of the sources in this article refer to blog sites, which are posts that primarily written by 1-2 people. After wondering why no one has bothered to change this, I referred to the "history" page where I noticed a user PigeonPiece had tried to put up some information from factual 3rd party sources that was not opinionated, and was immediately taken down by 2 users Academic38 and Nomoskedasticity. I googled the history of these "blogs" and it stemmed from 2 users (coincidentally) talking about creating a defamatory page on the Oxford Round Table.

My main concern here is not the article, but the misuse of Wikipedia power privileges to create pages full of opinionated information by citing those. The other part of this problem is an administrator Toddst1 seems to put a block or indefinite ban on the users adding the accurate 3rd party sources while "warning" the other two editors mentioned above to seem like his actions are neutral. Recently, another administrator Jayron32 has been involved in blocking users suspecting them of sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. After looking at the discussion, it seems like other person who came up Astutescholar had looked through the history for the sources PigeonPiece put up and believed that information was accurate enough to put back up there and in the process, both of these users were banned indefinitely by Jayron32.

My problem is that wikipedia is supposed to be a place of discussion and ability to add information to accurately display the subject/topic, and this article is internally controlled by 2 editors and 2 administrators and any other attempts by outsiders to get involved will automatically be blocked or banned by administrators Jayron32 and Toddst1. This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved. I would like to add neutral and unbiased information, and I am able to, although I am sure that Nomoskedasticity and Academic38 will complain to "their" administrators and block me, and I have no intentions of adding any information if it will result in losing privileges for myself. In all fairness, I would like a neutral party of adminstrators to review this information when they get a chance. I honestly think Oxford Round Table should be nominated for deletion if this is how the page will stay, but I know if I did that myself I would be banned for one reason or another. Thank you for taking the time to review this. Treasuryrain (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let the other editors you've mentioned know that you have raised this matter for discussion here, so that they will have an opportunity to respond. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, it's pretty rare for an editor with less than a dozen edits in mainspace to make such an involved ANI report. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, not one of those references are to blog sites, and all abide by the relevant policy. Also, not to be rude, but per Toddst1 - it's best if users with under 100 edits avoid ANI so as not to draw suspicion towards them. Valtoras (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"This poses a problem to the authenticity of the article, and also scares editors off from getting involved." was mentioned above. I take no sides here. However, I have heard complaints that a small number of editors/administrator can control an article and drive away editors. I contribute to a technical message board and this was a complaint. Again, I am neutral in this particular dispute/article. I am not saying that this is or is not happening here. Chergles (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

When I read this notice, my first thought was "Why would anyone want to launch a defamatory page against Dorothy Parker and James Thurber?Gladys J Cortez 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

For a brand-new user, they sure know a lot about admins, sockpuppets, wiki-format, ANI, and deletion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), it would be beneficial at this point to reveal who you are a sock of. Quite frankly, I don't see "abuse" here. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also worked on the article from time to time, but never acted as an admin. The actual nature of the organization is in my opinion open to some question, as are its methods of publicity; there has been a long-standing push by some eds. to keep material that I & Nomoskedasticity & the other admins mentioned all thought inappropriate content--the "accurate third party sources" are a list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors, and the like. I commend their efforts after i lost patience with maintaining this article. DGG (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock of any other user. For those accusing, please refer to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to help your understanding of what a sock puppet is. In fact, this helps me demonstrate what I was talking about. Minutes after I posted my concern, one of the involved parties Toddst1 came in and gave me the accusation of being a sock (see above) without addressing any of the issues to try to adequately address my concerns. I was just bringing up an issue that takes place on certain wikipedia articles with a group of editors and their alliances with administrators. This is the same concern that Chergles noticed. All I really wanted was an administrator who is uninvolved in the Oxford Round Table to see what has happened to the page. Editors with accurate sources and citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) should be able to put up information as they wish. I am coming from a neutral point of view and do not appreciate wikipedia pages that are bias. The Oxford Round Table, for example, contains a source that is a blog website full of opinions, false facts, and inaccurate and irrelevant information, which is the The Chronicle of Higher Education. I do not care what opinions they post on their blog website, but it should not carry over to wikipedia if it is indeed known as an encyclopedia. Also, a lot of the sources access dates are outdated, and information has changed since that time, and it is not updated because of the control the involved parties are administrating. DGG mentioned sources taken off being "list of papers given at the conference, a list of members, present and past, of its board of directors", so wouldn't it make sense for those to be mentioned in the article? It didn't seem right that two users can write a whole page and others are prevented from getting involved. If you look into this, you may understand where I am coming from. I am just trying to promote the reason wikipedia was created in the first place. Thanks. Treasuryrain (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, a better set of questions is where you heard about all this from and whether you have a conflict of interest? From what I remember last time this came up, there was a mailing list or internet discussion forum, and several people from there created new accounts here to edit the article and bring the dispute on to Wikipedia. Some of them have since gone on to become productive editors, while others haven't. Apologies for putting this so bluntly, but which will you be? Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasuryrain, this is the second time in two posts that you've made the false claim that the The Chronicle of Higher Education is a source for the article on the Oxford Round Table. Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us what information in the article is defamatory. As for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, you sure know a lot of policy for a newbie, and you have PigeonPiece's loopy logic and her constant refrain of "accurate third party sources" down pat. For the record, I added the information from Astutescholar that was correct on October 3, i.e., the info on the U.K. incorporation, which would be 8 days before you first posted here. I did not add the Listcruft she kept insisting on. As you say, this is an encyclopedia.Academic38 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Old discussion (one of them at least) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Is it just me.... Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd request that nobody blocks anybody for sock puppetry without first compiling a formal report. The last time somebody shot from the hip on sock accusations surrounding this article, they stirred up an unnecessary drama. I recommend gathering all the new users involved in the recent edit war and checkuser the lot of them. If they are socks, that will be good to know. If they were canvassed here, we can advise them about our policies and encourage them to become productive editors. Jehochman ^Talk 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • From the article history, I picked out User:PigeonPiece and User:Astutescholar and User:Educationatlarge. They've been blocked already as socks or sock masters. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar (September 2007). Actually, the block log for Astutescholar might be more helpful. See here: to quote the blocking admin: "Abusing multiple accounts: [12] and [13] show this". The block is recent (10 October). See also User talk:Astutescholar. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh dear. Jayron32 seems to have quoted the same diff twice in the block log. I'll ask what diffs he meant to quote. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now notified Nomoskedasticity, Academic38 and Jayron32. Toddst1 has already posted here. Treasuryrain didn't do the notifications, but in fairness, being a new user and defending themselves against sock-puppet accusations is excuse enough. So can we try and work out what is going on here. I have absolutely no intention of writing as much as I did last time... Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Compelling evidence

I blocked the this person's multiple accounts indefinately based on the use of sockpuppets to repeatedly edit war. I have never edited the article in question, and being accused of "misusing" an article I have never edited is funny. The compelling evidence in the block is this dif by PigeonPiece which was an established account at Wikipedia and this dif by Astutescholar which was created on September 18, while in the middle of the edit war, and only did edits to the article in question. I am at a loss to how two accounts could commit largly similar edits (these are almost identical) and be somehow unrelated. It should be noted that neither Astutescholar NOR Pigeonpiece (which are likely, based on all existing evidence the same person) has come forward to refute this evidence. Unless and until that evidence can be refuted, I stand by my blocks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Treasuryrain was an account created within a few days of Astutescholar, and while Pigeonpiece was blocked. his contributions history shows no prior contact with either editor or with the article in question. Take what you will out of that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

checking my first admin action....

Resolved

 – A block is executed correctly. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is noncontroversial, but since it's the VERY VERY FIRSTEST adminn-y thing I've done. I want to quintuple-check to make sure it was done correctly: [14]? Si, or no? It's my first block EVAH, so I want to make sure I did it right. Comments?Gladys J Cortez 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It worked. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The proof. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you probably should have blocked for only 24 hours, as it was the IP's first block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those extra 7 hours were really an example of admin abuse... Are you open to recall? </sarcasm>31 hours has become the de facto standard first block for vandalism, so it was fine.--barneca (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I am open to having all my major limbs hacked off with a dull machete, so there's that going for me. Gladys J Cortez 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've often wondered where the "31 hours" bit came from. Most of my vandalism blocks tend to be for 12 or 24 hours, 31 seems a bit of an awkward number to use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

31 hours covers the potential of an IP coming back the next day at the same time. A good example would be a shared IP at a school. Computer class is at 1:00 PM. Kids vandalize and get blocked. If a block is set to 12 or 24 hours, the kids could return the next day since vandalizing was "fun" during the "boring" class. With a block for 31 hours, this prevents the mischief from returning the next day as when the kids get back, the block is still in effect and continuing through the rest of the school day. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Which...okee then, Saturday late-afternoon/early-to-mid-evening FAIL...hey, it's POSSIBLE they might-could be having a slow Sunday, right?? RIGHT?????!!??? (/quasi-frantic justification)Gladys J Cortez 08:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your block was fine. No worries about it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been using 31 hours as a default block duration for smalltime vandals in forever; it might just be a gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure it reduces repeat performances by a significant amount. Even outside of school context, the inability to simply "return tomorrow" appears to be strongly dissuasive. — Coren ^(talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, please remember that in future all your admin actions now have blanket approval and require no double checks or appeal to the community for input in case you have concerns. Now you have "broken your duck" the cabal expect nothing less than unilateral action by yourself. ;) Pedro :  Chat  08:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...

I didn't have to deal with this one; Lankveil and Apokryltaros cleaned up after User:HowDumbAreYou, who moved Big Bang to Big Bang Myth. However, my question is... why does the log say that HowDumbAreYou protected Big Bang Myth? The user, who first registered in August, has only a handful of edits and does not have admin status. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If a protected page is moved, the target is automatically protected, and the log lists the protector as the moving user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is relatively new, so it's still freaking people out when they see it for the first time; I've seen, I believe, 2 other similar threads in the last week. --barneca (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I wonder if it is worth a tweak to the software to avoid such log entries? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, that would have skurred the bejabbers out of my new-admin self, had it been something I'd done. You'd have one of those panic-stricken threads, along the lines of "OMG! OMG! I FUBARred EVERYTHING! Main page baleeeetion! Jimbo banninated! OMG!!!" (no sig, as I'd have dropped in my traces, twitching slightly) So...um, how do we fix that? Or do we? (Would that be a "bug", or a "feature"?)Gladys J Cortez 08:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have to admit I saw my name here while looking for something else, and had a panicky "oh shit, what did I do!?!?!?" moment before I realised what was going on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

User:Heyheygimmemore

Resolved

Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already as a {{uw-unsourced4}} warning level on his talk page from adding this gossip to Joe Jonas. His previous warnings 1 through 3 have all been related to adding rumors to album and single articles. Well after the level 4, we get a lovely series of edits to All I Want Is Everything (album), which you can see adds nearly every possible rumored song title to the album. Time for a tap with a blockstick.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

*thwap!* — Coren ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a good Mad response. :) Given the editor's petulance, along with his ID, and the temporariness of the block - if he doesn't improve his behavior, he should change his user ID slightly, but with more direct meaning, to "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat and other problems

A single purpose account, Gingerhillinc, is making legal threats [15] [16] and personal attacks [17] on other users as well as vandalising an Afd [18] [19] . Edward321 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacation time. Tiptoety ^talk 05:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety, not directed so much at you, as at everyone who does this same thing all the time. If you hadn't done it, I have no doubt someone else would have. Clearly not a terribly productive user at the moment, but I'll renew my periodic plea that we don't keep interpreting stressed out, new editors saying "this seems like defamation of character", or yes, even something obvious like "Please leave it alone or we shall follow with legal action" as something worthy of a [WP:NLT]] block. Gingerhillinc isn't going to sue anybody, and all of us here know it. Let's save WP:NLT for the actual cases with a realistic chance that there's a legal threat. Someone warned the user about this before the block, we could have waited to see what happens. If we want to block for disruption or something, let's be honest and block for disruption. Let's not hide behind WP:NLT and pretend our hands were tied and a block was required. This isn't a vandal, it's a new user (or users, but that's another issue) making an honest attempt to create an article about their acting teacher or something, and being offended at the terminology typically user at AFD, but not so typically used by normal humans in everyday life. I can't help but wonder if a simple refactor of the offending phrase would have made this go away. Of course, now we've got an even more pissed off indef blocked user on our hands, so it's probably too late now, but maybe for next time. --barneca (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. NLT is partially for the "real" legal threats but mostly to ensure that people don't say "ZOMG, my lawyer will sue you if you delete this". although most users wouldn't be cowed by that, it is easier to just enforce a policy that ensures debate can't be impacted by legal threats. I'm sure any admin will unblock this guy if he says "I didn't mean it, I'm sorry" or something to that effect. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT does not require a block. I was looking into this as well, when I refreshed the talk page and saw Tiptoe had blocked the user. It's not worth a wheel war, but I agree with barneca that this may have been a time where an explanation was warranted, not a block. -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not invested, unblock if you see fit. Tiptoety ^talk 05:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said you were, Tiptoety. This is not a complaint about you, per se, just a bit of a lament at the atmosphere surrounding NLT. See Wikipedia talk:No legal threats#Block should not be automatic for a longer discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it came across if I thought otherwise, I was just wanting to make it clear I am fine with a unblock if it is seen fit. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a "general lament" from me too. It's way past my bedtime, I was just still up to see if the Red Sox could pull this off (sigh :( ), so I can't follow through tonight, but if someone doesn't try to salvage something with this user tonight, I'll leave a message on his talk page in the morning. --barneca (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The best practice is to block them ASAP and tell them why, and tell them that they can appeal the block, i.e. they can withdraw their "threat" and say "I'm sorry". You don't want to be sending mixed messages on the legal-threats situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, Bugs...you think so?? Faced with a new user saying anything less-blatant than "You can expect to hear from my lawyers", I'd seriously consider saying "Please understand that (whatever they said) could be interpreted as a legal threat under WP:NLT, and as such could lead to a block of your account. I strongly urge you to refactor your original comment; also, please choose your words more carefully in the future. Thank you." Now, if they decide to view that as a challenge rather than an invitation to refactor, well, THEN I'd block them. But the path you suggest....well, it just seems a wee bit BITEy to me. (Of course, I'm a squishy-hearted new admin, and haven't yet experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia, so YMMV.)Gladys J Cortez 08:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This slightly less-squishy hearted admin that as a matter of fact /has/ experienced the dark underbelly of Wikipedia tends to agree with Gladys, here... Most new people don't realize that legal threats can get them blocked- in some cases they don't even realize they've made a legal threat. Giving them a chance to learn and grow is the whole point of WP:AGF. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most legal threats are totally frivolous, that the person making them has no intention of following through with what they claim. But once we start saying "Well this threat probably isn't worth blocking for" or "He's new and probably won't actually sue us", we get into that vague area that I'm uncomfortable being in. Users can be unblocked, when they withdraw the threat. But until they withdraw the threat, I tend to agree the best policy we can follow is "block if a user makes a legal threat". MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good way of looking at things at all. All that type of mindset leads to is pissed off users, and users who simply become disillusioned with Wikipedia and leave for good. Neither of those situations are positive. What does it cost us to leave the user time to reflect on the warning? In this situation, I would think nothing. If he had done it again, it would simply have been reverted and he blocked, everything tied up neatly. (and I'm with L'Aquatique; I've seen this type of situation with that type of response before, and it usually doesn't end well) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Don't realize they've made a legal threat"? Maybe the educational system has deteriorated further than I had thought. "Become disillusioned and leave"? If a newbie starts right in with threats, how likely is he to become a useful editor? Sure, warning them first is fine. And if their next edit after that isn't a retraction, they're outa here. The two axioms: (1) How badly do they want to edit? and (2) How much time do you want to spend messing with them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It takes very little time to check the user's contributions, see that they've made another legal threat, revert, and block them. Avoiding biting takes very few resources and keeps the our image shinier (I can't be the only one who has read forum posts and blog comments about people being driven away from here by biting?). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no end of users who have been indef-blocked for any number of reasons and have started or joined websites criticizing wikipedia. I know plenty of folks who go to wikipedia looking for information, who are unaware or only dimly aware of all the behind-the-scenes drama. The reliability of wikipedia as a source is what the public cares about and is the surest way to keep it "shiny". The primary focus in wikipedia should be on reliable article content, not on kissing up to belligerent users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user, and my warning on their talk page is still there (though I have removed the block template). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, there's more gray area here than you might think. A while back I was involved in a situation with a user who loved to say that people were slandering him. He would respond to any criticism with a demand that the criticizer remove the slander against this user's good name. At one point, he was blocked because his comments strayed too close to a legal threat, but was unblocked soon after when he retracted the comment. However, he still continued to say that people were slandering him, to the point that an arbcom case was started. Arbcom ruled that even though there was no actual legal threat ("you'll hear from my lawyer!") using legal terminology like libel and slander violates the spirit of NLT. I don't believe this user was intending to make legal threats, and he seemed genuinely surprised when he was temporarily blocked. It is possible to make a legal threat without knowing it, especially under the precident set by that arbcom case, it's happened before and it'll happen again.

People who make legal threats aren't [usually] an immediate threat to the encyclopedia, there's no reason why the response has to be "zOMG a legal threat, block baby block!" What do you have to lose by slowing down and at least trying to talk it out? The block button will still be there if discussion breaks down, and you may have saved a potentially valuable contributor. Seems like a win-win to me. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You've made my point for me. You messed around with this guy repeatedly instead of dealing with it once. "Genuinely surprised"? Genuinely clueless is more like it - or play-acting. Keep in mind that every minute spent messing around with a belligerent user is a minute not spent on something more useful - like article content, or dealing with other belligerent users, of which there is apparently no shortage. Experience will tell you pretty quickly whether someone is sincere about editing articles and may be just unaware of the rules; or if they are just on wikipedia to fool around and cause trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A good warning: "Please note that your statement [...] constitutes a legal threat. Under wikipedia policy, legal threats are not allowed. Please retract it immediately, or you will be blocked from editing." That's how to handle it. Polite, but to the point. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to people who use legal threats? No fucking way, even the lamest ones may cause a serious chilling effect sometimes. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Durin was unfortunate, but situations like that are rare. To be honest, I'm not exactly clear why he left in the first place, it wasn't exactly a class-A legal threat. All I'm saying here is, be flexible. Take the time to examine each case on an individual basis instead of skimming, deciding it's a legal threat, blocking, and never thinking about it again. Rigidity will be our demise. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, wikipedia's demise will be sincere editors driven away by belligerent editors that were cut too much slack by admins who should have brought the hammer down immediately, after issuing a reasonable warning that was ignored by the belligerent user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there are cases where a legal threat is clearly just an empty threat, but I think the "block on sight" rule is a good one to follow if there's even the slightest doubt. As said above, it can create a "chilling" effect on an article, disrupt cooperative editing, and from what I've seen legal threats usually constitute WP:CIVIL violations as well. Users can always be unblocked and worked with if they retract their threats. We're better off adopting a no-nonsense policy as far as legal threats go, I think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

That's the whole point of the unblock request template. A 31-hour block does no great harm, and far from taking the "shine" off wikipedia, it would tell anyone who cares to look that wikipedia means business and is not run by a bunch of Neville Chamberlains. If anything, a quicker trigger in dealing with misbehavior should enhance wikipedia's reputation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Durin left? As far as I can tell, they are still active. Just not on this project. Shouldn't take long for anyone to work that out, but I didn't realise until SUL (single-user login arrived). Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the user should have been indefed for vandalism and personal attacks, as well as legal threats. Also, it's hard to imagine that a user who said "we will press legal action" did not know they were making a legal threat. If we keep being nice to vandals and malefactors than they will keep vandalizing and doing ill. They won't stop harming Wikipedia just because we're nice and tell them to go play in the sandbox. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good block The user is operating a role account [20], making direct legal threats,[21] and violating our conflict of interest guideline (see prior diff and notice the words "our client"). I also see that the username appears to match the name of a business. I am going to explain these things to the user and invite them to create a new account, to be used by one person, and not to be used for COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

When an SPA with a COI violates NLT, it's hard to AGF. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A-OK Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How long will this person be allowed to edit before refactoring or retracting their legal threat? Do we just say, "Oh, well, naughty naughty" and let them continue on their way without ever retracting the threat? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For policy background, please consult Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats (new language added within the past couple of months, so some people may not be familiar with it) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Perceived legal threats (the arbitration case that led me to propose that addition to the NLT policy). Not opining on this specific case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BareBones and Cabaret

Hello. The author of the above article is insistent about removing a speedy deletion tag from the page. I offered advice about the 'hangon' tag, but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks all. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been speedied by Bjweeks. If the user tries to recreate it, SALTING might be beneficial. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and hoax insertion by 122.2.1xx.xx user.

This user has been inserting hoaxes into various articles in Wikipedia, especially in Survivor Philippines. His vandalism is becoming rampant. Here are the IP addresses that this vandal uses...

• 122.2.189.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.183.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.187.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.176.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.181.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.189.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.2.182.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Will there be anything done against this user? We need action against him ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked 122.2.176.0/20 (anon-only, account creation enabled) for 10 days. Let us know how it works. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the only ranges used by this vandal are 122.2.176.xx and 122.2.18x.xx; there are no vandal edits from 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx. But we're never sure if the guy also uses 122.2.177.xx to 122.2.179.xx, so that'll be fine. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

122.2.177.227 (talk · contribs), 122.2.178.134 (talk · contribs), 122.2.179.253 (talk · contribs), and 122.2.190.155 (talk · contribs) all appear to be the same, but let me know if you want the range adjusted. These edits remind me of someone, but I can't think who. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an editor from the Philippines who added/created hoax articles on radio stations, if I recall correctly. Don't remember the name. Thatcher 13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reverting a vandal who constantly turns Hong Kong TV/celebrity articles into Filipino TV shows and celebrities. He's in the 122.54.X.X range. See my edit history for more details. HkCaGu (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that the range block currently applies to any IP from 122.2.176.0 to 122.2.191.255 (generate 122.2.176.0/20 on this page to see). It should be sufficient, now. ~ Troy (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Zografski

Resolved

 – Vandal blocked, article speedied. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My article about Vladimir Zografski is always vandalised. Please lock it for new user or something. I also think it is sockpuppets owning the same IP as me thats makes the vandalism. AlwaysOnion (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was only one user, and that user has been indefinitely blocked. Resolute 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there were actually a few users, but two of them have been indef'd. In any event, the article is currently a speedy-deletion candidate. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TTN mass nominating articles for deletion with the exact same wording

I don’t know what this guy has against fictional characters and television episodes, but every day he makes a spurt of deletion nominations with literally the same wording (see here). Surely the exact same wording cannot apply to every single article on a fictional character or television episode? I find this style insulting to those who wrote the articles as it says, “Sorry, but I don’t have to consider the individual merits of the articles you worked on or help look for sources as every character or episode article I see is the same and must be redirected or deleted.” And to top things off the only edits to actual articles I see (see here) are slapping on deletion boxes, merge boxes, or just going ahead and redirecting them. WTH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.130 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been 6 months since TTN has been placed on editing restrictions by ArbCom, and because he obviously feels that he now has the right to go back to the exact same behavior that led to the arbcom sanctions listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Remedies Based on the return of the exact behavior that led to these sanctions I propose, formally, that the community decides to return the same sanctions that recently expired, and to extend those sanctions indefinately. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block him immediately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that most of those articles have no merits on their own and should be merged or deleted, I think his nominations are excessively pointy; there's got to be a more constructive way to try and establish notability guidelines for works of fiction. Considering that this is only the repetition of behavior that caused a restriction in the past, I would consider it appropriate to return those restrictions (per WP:GAMING). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do so because he is not currently under restrictions. They technically expired 6 months after the ArbCom ruling, which was March 10, 2008, so he has been "free" from sanctions since September 10, 2008. Therefore, I wanted to get a clear go ahead from the community before blocking, so that we have covered all of the bases, and we are sure that we are ready to take the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify, the reason for the restriction was edit warring over redirects, not the actual actions of merging, redirecting, or nominating AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for extension here. TTN (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Block and extend sanctions immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has already requested an extension of TTN's prohibitions, but its been pointed out that what TTN is doing is not the same as his actions before: he has followed WP:BRD appropriately for all of these and is neither edit warring nor using fait accompli tactics that he was admonished for. This is not the same behavior, and even a prelim review of the extension suggests that its the fact that this is not TTN's fault, but instead those that cannot compromise in defining better standards for fictional elements (My attempt to get a compromise WP:FICT in place failed because 25% thought it too harse, the other 25% too loose). TTN is being used as a scapegoat and easy target in light of the case, which also noted a general community sanction to get people to work towards compromise and that has not happened. --MASEM 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Going right back to the same behavior you just got out of proverbial "jail" for when your sanctions expire isn't a sign of being here to benefit Wikipedia, if the old behavior was judged to be harmful to the encyclopedia (hence the sanctions). If TTN is here for Wikipedia he should immediately stop doing these until the current RFAR request is closed one way or the other. If not, an enforced community break from deletion and redirection is probably a good idea. The stupid massive ongoing drama he triggers is too destructive. rootology (C)(T) 17:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, happen to agree with TNN's philosophy on these sort of crufty, fictional articles. TNN isn't breaking policy and his restriction was over redirects, as stated above. Unless someone can show how this is against current policy, no action should be taken. Tan | 39 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Are we serious? There is an ongoing request for extension where at least one arb has said he isn't doing the same behavior that lead to sanctions. the previous request for clarification was archived with the same outcome. Don't block him. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the specific tools being used, TTN is attempting to use the availible tools to force his own, personal view of what Wikipedia policy should be towards articles such as these. The volume and number of the nominations and the obvious fact that each nomination is not carefully considered shows that TTN is simply looking to eliminate an entire class of articles. Now, it is true that the community has not made any consensus one way or the other on how to deal with these articles, and there may be good reasons for most of these to be deleted, however the act of making policy through massive AFDs, which is what this ammounts to, is exactly the same as making policies through massive redirects. The redirect tactic didn't work for TTN last time, so he is trying a new route. However, the actual behavior, which is attempting to personally create Wikipedia policy where the community has not done so, is the main problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no mandate that we are forced to consider and contemplate one bit of trivia and plot summary differently from another bit of trivia and plot summary. What do you suggest he do? Write an individual summary noting the nuances separating Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maya_Gallo from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Van_Horn? Honestly, if people don't like this behavior of nomination they can file an RfC to see the community input, not ask for a bad from An/I because articles that are outside our inclusion criteria are being considered for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I find it very difficult to accept the use of BRD and AFD as means to "force" one's views. These are all means to discussion. Now, I will admit that a step that usually is considered (but by no means required) is to discuss a redirect or a possibility of deletion on the article talk page. The problem is that when you deal with fiction you will encounter mini-cabals of editors that will defend such articles, making it impossible to get consensus even if the article fails policies. Bringing such articles to AFD as a first step may seem aggressive, but it also gets the participation of a much larger group of editors involved thus getting better consensus of the issues. Unfortunately, we lack any other type of process that is meant to gain larger input than just those that watch an article's page regularly (which is why AFD is sometimes called Articles for Discussion). There's no required process that TTN is violating here, it just may speak badly of the lack of process that we have for better discussion of such articles. Should TTN be blocked for that? Not unless everyone else that uses them is too. --MASEM 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see this kind of thing coming to ANI, especially being supported an admin that I generally respect. It is not TTN's fault that there are tens of thousands of bad articles on Wikipedia. His AFD nominations are generally on target, and the results of his AFDs are generally to merge, redirect, or delete. If the only way that policy can be formed in this area is by running enought stuff through AFD to generate changes to WP:OUTCOMES, that's sad, but nothing to block an editor for. TTN is not violating any policies or guidelines, and is not deserving of even a short block, much less a ban.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has this board (perhaps others) become tattle boards to try to get TTN in trouble? I've seen many of his video game nominations: and the articles are indeed cruft, clutter, game guide content, etc...in many cases. He can't redirect: because people will just undo it, and then tattle on him. But he can't put them in AFD either apparently, because people have had issues with him in the past. Frankly, I think people need to settle down. Other people nominate numerous articles for deletion, but they don't get tattled on. I believe this is a matter of "TTN has past issues, so let's just report it everytime he nominates things", which is a bit wrong. Also to comment about what Jayron said: I highly doubt TTN is trying to make up policies. There is already policies that back up what he nominates. He states what policies the article violates, and in most cases he is right. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just you at all. I really think that we need to consider establishing some kind of sanction for filing ANI or Arbcom reports on this topic. The block and sanction requests cause more trouble than the AFDs.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• In my humble opinion, the suggested sanctions in this thread are slightly excessive. If TTN is going to be restricted, it should be to limit the number of AfDs he is allowed to file in any 24 hour period to a reasonable number, perhaps 5 or 6. Similarly, the number of redirects could also be limited, if deemed necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that, aside from these AfDs, TTN continues to continue his pattern of willy-nilly, discussion-free merging. [22] (an article he had previously made into a redirect and was specifically named in the last arbcom decision against him) [23] [24] [25] &c. &c. &c. Ford MF (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to waste my time counting any more, but it looks like in the last 24 hours alone, he's redirected over two dozen articles without a word of discussion on any. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A good chuck of which, now that I'm checking, recently went through AfD as kept from lack of consensus. Ford MF (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm having trouble finding the policy that says redirection is a crime. Can you point it out for me? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • TTN has been blocked in the past for disruptive patterns of behavior, which continue unabated. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a crime to redirect, because TTN has had issues in the past. If it was any other editor: it would probably go unnoticed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, nearly all of my hundreds (over a thousand?) of bold-mergers and bold-redirects went unnoticed, so it really must be TTN's name that makes bold-mergers and bold-redirects a crime. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a crime, obviously, but the mass removal of content that targets a very narrow range of communities is disruptive--particularly when it is an editor's entire raison d'être. I might feel differently if I had ever seen TTN do the work to provide references for any article or series of articles, anywhere, but he takes advantage of the fact that improving articles is quite a bit harder than blanking it with a redirect template, and keeping up with his redirects and AfDs would be a full time Wiki-job, leaving little left to actually do the work. Ford MF (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially if the redirected articles already had a consensus to keep at AfD discussion at AfD with no consensus to delete.Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So one editor imposes his will, and everyone cries, "What shall we do? What shall we do?" This is an all-too familiar theme in wikipedia. Bullies get their way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you and I agree on a lot, but you're WAY off base here. I suggest everybody read Thebainer's suggestion of where the fault lies at WP:RfArb, where this issue is currently. This smacks of forum shopping and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I suggest the editors on the eternal crusade stop asking Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? and start working WITH TTN, not against him. 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except TTN's pattern of behavior is essentially one of directing the work of other editors, not even remotely in any way "working with them". As I said, if TTN ever worked to improve an article in a way that wasn't deleting something, or nominating it for deletion, or pointing out that someone (someone else, naturally) needs to come in and provide references, not in time, but NOW, then yeah, there would be grounds for that, but there isn't. Working "with" TTN is essentially agreeing to work "for" him. Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically the Betacommand approach: "I'm following policy, therefore no discussion is needed - nor wanted, as that will slow me down from my appointed deletionist mission." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The AfDs I spot checked looked ok, didn't see a snowy keep (or more than one or two keep comments throughout), lots of delete comments, sometimes merge comments instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly feel that we would benefit from a RFC/U on TTN. Enough people feel that his behavior (rather than the underlying content dispute) is unacceptable that we should provide a venue for them to give feedback. I'm wholeheartedly against (and so, evidently, are the arbs who commented on the requests for clarification/extension) just using AN/I to thwack TTN for what some editors feel is bad behavior, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the underlying problems with his methods. the place to sort out a thorny content/conduct dispute is RFC, not Arbcom and not here. I don't want this to turn into an inclusionist/deletionist back and forth, because that benefits NO ONE. But I don't want to dismiss the concerns here as "content dispute". the right answer is an RFC. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that we'll get any new insight into TTN/deletionist/inclusionist conflict, but we can certainly try. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better than coming here and riling up people with the Scarlet "D" on his chest from that arbcom case. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is finally an effective means to rid wikipedia of bad fiction articles with community consensus (AfD), and people are still badmouthing TTN to arbcom and AN/I in the hope to get him sanctioned again (even the first sanction was not as widely supported as some editors wish to believe). Is there also the possibility that not TTN is the problem, but the unwillingness of editors to collaborate outside of AfD (accept mergers and redirects or improve the articles to justify as a WP:SPINOUT) to prevent TTN's need to take those bad articles to AfD to get them merged/redirected/deleted just the same? Oh, by the way, wikipedia is a voluntary projects, and just like everyone has the right to add content only, all editors have the right to concentrate on removing content that is not inline with policies and guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If TTN has an issue with "bad" articles, he should note his legitimate concerns on the articles' talk pages. If the editors who created the content (or otherwise wish to retain it) don't respond to those legitimate concerns, TTN should be free to nominate for AfD without being sanctioned. On the other hand, if TNN is not attempting to engage the editors of the content he obhects to before mass nominating for AfD, that is a different story...Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal: if TTN is mass-nominating articles for deletion, and most of these are ending up being kept, then he's being disruptive, wasting a lot of editor time, and he should be asked to stop. (I find it a little strange that the community doesn't seem to agree that what he's doing is a problem, yet the proposed solution is to block him. If we aren't agreed, his behavior is marginal, not clearly offensive, and so response should be measured, not abrupt.) On the other hand, if most of these AfDs result in delete, he's serving the project, as long as the AfDs themselves don't show disruptive behavior. I find it a bit refreshing if the nominator sits back and doesn't comment any more, beyond his original reason, letting the community decide. It's tendentious argument at AfD that can be so poisonous. I'll note that if the nominator can mass-nominate with identical reason given, surely !voters can comment with the same comment. Lots of complaints were registered about User:Kmweber for that, but it was always found to be acceptable.

As to redirects, they are less disruptive than AfDs. It's an ordinary editorial decision. Again, his behavior in that process would be the issue: does he edit war (and BRD isn't edit warring)? Is he uncivil? Being "unresponsive," as some charged, is not offensive in itself. He puts his time where he thinks it's important. No response is not an uncivil response. If he reverts repeated without discussion, that's not lack of responsiveness, it's edit warring. --Abd (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Being unresponsive is uncivil. It's the same as saying "F.U." to the questioner. The non-response says the questioner is inferior and thus unworthy of spending time responding to. "He puts his time where he thinks it's important." Responding to a question thus is "not important" - because the questioner is "not important" - because only TTN's view matters. How is that kind of behavior "civil"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noted that topics concerning TTN tend to get somewhat lengthy, if not heated. Perhaps a page concerning this should be created and a redirect placed here if only to give everyone more elbow room? HalfShadow 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is nowhere near the size of the CENSEI megillah that developed here and stayed on this page.

• I opened some of these AfDs at random. Many are unanimous "delete"s so far (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Roysten Merchant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Tyrell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Beebe). Based on these and on what I have read here, I see no problems with TTN's nominations. If people disagree with them they can say so in the AfDs. I don't understand what all the fuss is about and I am, frankly, most astonished about Baseball Bugs' "Block him immediately" comment.  Sandstein  20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It was stated that he was doing something he had been warned not to do. If that is true, then he should be blocked immediately for misbehavior. If not, then that's another story. The opinion on whether he's behaving properly seems to be mixed. However, if he won't answer fair questions, then he's being uncivil, and a block might effect an attitude adjustment - or at least get him to answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's got a pretty big chain of unrevealed assumptions there. We have to assume that he was actually doing what he was warned not to do. We have to assume the warning came in good faith and from a neutral party. We have to assume that the matter at hand is something worth blocking. And, frankly, I don't agree with the "block because I think he has a 'tude" viewpoint. He isn't 13. We aren't effecting discipline here. I don't think a bold "block him immediately" was the right response to the stated complaint. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, he should be nominated for adminship, since he apparently knows what's best. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't make this worse. He doesn't need a nobel prize. I'm just suggesting that coming to AN/I and treating his malfeasance as a certainty isn't the way to go. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also note that TTN is not only nominating for deletion and redirecting, he's also placing merge tags (example from today) which is hardly unilateral. As Sandstein says above, most of the AfDs seem to be reasonable, and as for the redirects - well, when I see TTN redirecting well-sourced articles with good third-party references and real-world notability, then I'll agree with the editors who repeatedly bring this to the drama boards. Black Kite 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is his exactly samely worded noms suggest that he is just indiscriminately nominating articles on fictional characters and television episodes which clearly he and a few others just do not like and that can/should be merged redirected instead. He is also nominating so many articles that it is overwhelming the deletion debate area. And he is showing no signs of actually checking for sources first. It actually takes some time to search for sources and incorporate them into articles. When he has done that? When he found sources and added them to articles? If people revert his redirects, gee, than maybe it’s because the consensus is that the articles are worthy and hey it seems only a portion of us even know about and find the deletion debates that only seem to last for a few days anyway. How does his cookie cutter nominations followed bye the same handful of others that flock to his discussions who slap down similarly repetitive “delete per TTN” or “delete as fancruft” nonsense rapidly across whatever debates this guy starts actually reflect what the community wants? At least the Protonk has the occasional keep worked in or when he argues to delete shows evidence of having looked for sources, but few of those who agree with him seem to make that effort to be objective and treat these discussions as individuals. What “contribution” do we get from [26], [27], [28], and so on? The same rapid fire posts that show no evidence of actually trying to find sources or offering anything new to the conversation. It’s like that from most of TTN’s defenders. He makes the same copy and paste nomination; a few of his allies show up and make the same copy and paste agreements with him (and what‘s classic is I get warned by someone who himself made a handful of copy and paste deletes not to make copy and paste keeps--what a farce!), maybe someone offers a counterpoint and actually provides sources or makes an effort to improve the article, but otherwise the same big brothers deciding for us is simply not right. Are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.1.2 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think you forgot that you should be on 63.3.1.130, right? Because there isn't a connection between those two IP's, right?  :) Protonk (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this "vanishing" business is trickier than one would think. Deor (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can prove this particular shitstorm was caused by our vanished friend, I think it's a good argument for a nice long rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Someone was going to raise the issue eventually. Like I said above, if people are pissed about TTN's conduct, then we should have a RFC/U, not a backdoor attempt at a topic ban because he used to edit war over redirects and mergers. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any numbers about how his AFDs shake out? if they are 90% KEEP then he needs to reconsider what he's doing but if they are 90% delete, well.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I looked over the articles he put up for AfD, and they seem to deem that treatment. Most of the articles IMHO fail WP:Notability. What TTN does is another segment of keep WP clean. I, for example hit new articles with speedy delete tags, TTN just catches the articles further along the process, and puts them up for AfD. So, TTN is a cleanup warrior, not a vandal. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Redact my original proposal for sanctions After spending lots of time reviewing the entire situation, and reading people's comments, I no longer believe that TTN is commiting any real disruption worth sanctions at this time. I find his single-minded obsession with deleting the episode and character articles perplexing, but all of his nominations I agree should probably be deleted or merged into their parent articles. In the end, even though he is on this extensive mission, he has not as yet really done anything that I don't end up agreeing with. I think its easy to, given the history of this conflict, misinterpret the situation, but none of the individual actions he has taken has crossed the line. I apologize for perhaps starting the controversy this time, but I have carefully reconsidered my position. I don't really support his mission, but I also don't see any harm in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're OK with it, then that's the end of it. Leave him unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• No reason to block him. I've taken part in a few AfDs he has nominated. I found the nominations appropriate, and common closure is usually merge/redirect, sometimes delete. Examples:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baby_Doll_(Batman:_The_Animated_Series), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cad_Lackey, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Tan, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defensor_(Transformers), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doz, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hexadecimal_(character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LarryBoy, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marty_Funkhouser, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ro_Rowen, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tasp. The inclusionists that disagree with him are tying to subvert the AfD process by blocking or banning him, a typical kill the messenger reaction. VG ☎ 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I might not see eye to eye with User:TTN, but I feel someone should offer a little balance. Disagree with his content decisions, but he isn't doing anything wrong. It would be different if he were breaking policy, ignoring warnings, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... or abusing the WP:3RR. But he isn't. Moreover, he's using the WP:BRD process as designed. First he boldly merges or boldly redirects. If someone reverts, he starts a merge or deletion discussion. Even if I don't agree with him all of the time, there's usually a consensus for deleting, redirecting, or merging... suggesting that he's not being reckless, let alone malicious. I think we should assume good faith. And there is no damage. People are entirely free to contest his edits, or his suggestions at discussion pages, and they often do. If he's acting in good faith and doing no damage, then what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:62.40.36.14

Resolved

 – Request denied

The user is asking for an unblock because it seems that he/she wasn't warned like what usually goes on. Whether it should be done, I don't know, but since I'm not an admin, I'd like someone to please take a careful look at it. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it really matters, but it's not really necessary to alert admins to unblock requests here at ANI - there are alert methods in place. Just FYI, thanks for being concerned though. I will review. Tan | 39 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the best method for things like that? Just wondering; I'm still getting use to how everything is ordered (it's only been a few months now...). Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, you don't really have to worry about it - most admins can see that there are pending unblock requests, and in time it will be reviewed. If you see one pending for an unreasonably long time, you can bring it up here if you wish. Tan | 39 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Many admins frequently patrol CAT:UNB; and most requests are acted upon within minutes of showing up there. If it isn't acted upon, it is likely that dozens have admins have seen it, and no one wants to handle it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. ~ Troy (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above IP and User:HighKing - request for eyes

I blocked the above IP (which resolves to an Irish mobile phone company) on September 30 after edit-warring over the inclusion of the phrase "British Isles" on the article Glowworm. I tried to present a compromise, but eventually a revert war between User:TharkunColl and User:HighKing turned into a revert war between a UK BTBroadband dynamic IP and 62.40.36.14. I blocked both IPs and told both editors that they weren't fooling anyone. Both denied that the IPs were them.

Today, I noticed that 62.40.36.14 had continued exactly the same edit warring over numerous articles. After taking a look at the articles, I blocked the IP for a week - the previous block was 31 hours. Looking again at the articles, it is clear that the mobile phone IP is reverting only where User:HighKing is involved in disputes. Apart from Glowworm, we also have Saint David, Doyle, Gildas and Tide.

Now, whilst I am aware that there are almost certainly random socks and SPAs editing against HighKing's POV here, I can only see three reasons for the behaviour of 62.40.36.14.

• 1) It is HighKing
• 2) It is someone else proxying for HighKing (i.e. a meatpuppet)
• 3) It is someone trying to run a joe job on HighKing - unlikely, especially given where it geolocates to.

Clearly, option (1) is almost certainly the most likely - I would like input from uninvolved admins as to whether

• there would be any justification for extending the IP's block to User:HighKing per WP:DUCK.
• rangeblocking the mobile phone range - there are practically no constructive edits from there - would be useful
• any other course of action would be useful

Note that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#British_Isles_:_Users_User:HighKing_and_User:TharkunColl is also useful - I noted the IPs behaviour there before noting such a strong link to HighKing. Black Kite 20:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend blocking HighKing just yet. There's a certain banned user who has a view point on these articles who's known for using Mobile IP's to evade his ban. I would suggest a CheckUser against that banned user (let me know if you need to know who that banned user is) as well as HighKing. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's very little from this mobile phone range (62.40.36.0/27) - see[29] - apart from these recent reverts, so I don't think a CU would be much use. Black Kite 20:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't sockpuppet. And my opinions on anon IP editors are well known - block the lot of them - they're more trouble than benefit. --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hence why I brought it here. You've got to admit though, the same IP repeatedly carrying on your revert wars over multiple pages doesn't look great, does it? My inclination at the moment is to (at least) rangeblock the mobile phone operator for an extended period, but I'm interested in other views. Black Kite 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what the anon IP does - I recommend that you rangeblock the lot. I made a suggestion a few days ago on Tharky's Talk page - why don't you block any IP address with more than 10 edits. After 10 edits, they must get a login. And I'd be happy to provide you with an extended list of troublesome IP addresses. And I'd also be happy to extend that list to users that appear to exhibit the same behaviour. Although as we've seen with Grawp and GH, blocking IP address ranges isn't always enough of a deterrent... --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Clearly there's no point blocking certain IPs involved here for long periods - many are from British and Irish dynamic pools which change on a daily basis. However, I have anon rangeblocked the mobile phone network for six months. If an editor wants to edit productively from it, they can create or request an account. Black Kite 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking this adress was User:Gold heart returning under a different network if this isn't the previous one. A mobile network in I think dublin was previously blocked for being him, and it was doing practically the same thing as this, backing up HK or TK to exacerbate the row. A 'who is' search shows this IP is from a mobile network in Dublin. Sticky Parkin 21:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

NexTune

NexTune Has been deleted twice now, once for being a copyright violation, but Mdukane (talk · contribs) has recreated it again, and CorenBot tagged it as a copyright violation. Mdukane has several warnings on their Talk page about copyright violations and notability, but they don't seem to be listening. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go issue a final warning and keep an eye on the user. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, no, has one of those already. Just watchin', then. lifebaka++ 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits of User:Yaneleksklus aka 86.57.*.* aka 93.85.*.*

User:Yaneleksklus aka 86.57.*.* aka 93.85.*.* sure is making life miserable for the maintainers of dubstep, bassline house, 2-step garage, and loads of others at present.

he doesn't seem to understand WP:RS and his english isn't great. and he doesn't respond to messages left on his talk page. in fact, it looks like he's causing hassle at about a zillion different pages on musical genres. his intentions do seem good, he just has no intention of discussing the changes he is making with anyone, let alone forming a consensus.

He's unresponsive to messages on his talk page, and causing a lot of hassle for certain editors. --Kaini (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I gave him a welcome message, for a start. He's new here. What administrator action would you like us to take?  Sandstein  06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:69.23.156.97

Resolved

 – IP blocked.  Sandstein  06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

69.23.156.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This anonymous editor seems to have targeted PCE for unknown reasons. The anonymous editor has resulted to using:

• Personal insults and threats
• Personal insults, slurs, and threats
• The same insults, slurs and threats again
• And vandalizing a talk page.

He then asked to have PCE banned on the Professional Wrestling Project's Talk Page. I warned him about civility and also directed him to ANI to lodge his complaints while citing the above links.

Today I saw a revert the anon had made to Owen Hart and noticed that he put in the notes that he was undoing an edit by PCE, even though PCE was not the editor that he was reverting.

I had some minor vandalism done to my own userpage after posting the warnings to the anonymous editor, but they were from a varying IP. I still find the timing suspicious.  Hazardous Matt  01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP does not appear to be shared. Blocked for 6 months for severe harrassment at [30].  Sandstein  06:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Invocation of WP:3RR by Gwen Gale

Self-described sysop (the link on the User page is redirected to Wikipedia: Adminstrators) User:Gwen Gale blocked user User:RafaelRGarcia, citing WP:3RR. See the discussion on User Talk:Gwen Gale where I attempted to restore User:RafaelRGarcia's privileges, and suggested an apology was in order, due to the fact that Garcia at no time reverted the Sarah Palin page four times consecutively, as my understanding is that that is a requirement for WP:3RR. Anarchangel (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(Snipped from the policy's intro):

The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had seen and inwardly digested the distinction between WP:3RR and blocks because of 3RR-like activity. See the Heading of this section. Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:RafaelRGarcia has been unblocked.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost simultaneously with my edit here.Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be four times consecutively, in fact, consecutive reverts count as 1. Grsz^X 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like Anarchangel is somehow misreading 3RR. A violation is 4 nonconsecutive reverts (nonconsecutive by definition, since any number of consecutive reverts count as 1 for the purpose of 3RR). —KCinDC (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your response. The original text is "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert". There are two problems with this text, both of which are potentials for misinterpretation. And there is a major problem with the 3RR rule boundaries itself.

• I misread the text as "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user (each) count as one revert". I suggest removing the possibility of potential misreading altogether by adding the word 'together' to the text to amend it to "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user, together count as one revert."
• The second is that it can be mistaken for a definition of revert as used by 3RR. I was looking for a definition of revert, as at least one of RafaelRGarcia's edits was a single unit of punctuation. Believing four consecutive edits to be the defining attribute of 3RR, I challenged Gale's use of the rule.
• Lastly there is the issue of being outnumbered. I am sure this has come up on the 3RR discussion page itself, to which I shall add my voice shortly, but I shall give my argument against this being Consensus here. Consider the 3RR scenario of 2 reverters each reverting twice, each followed by one revert, by the crafter of the original edit, of their revert. Is it Consensus that has been achieved? How can we be certain that it is not an Edit War, won by a larger army?

I suggest that "on material by an individual editor" be added to the 3RR rule such that it reads: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page, "on material by an individual editor", within a 24-hour period" This allows egregious material remaining after 3 reverts to be challenged on its deficiencies, and prevents worthy material from being bulldozed by a team of detractors. I also suggest that the rule be reduced to 2 reverts and of course, be renamed the 2RR rule to avoid an increase in edits. Editors can bulldoze a bad edit through, leading to poor edit quality and increased arbitration, you say? Administrators can, as we have seen on this page, block users at their discretion, outside of the limits of the 3RR rule etc. Beyond that, I can only hypothesize that there could be ways of facilitating the arbitration process for both arbitrators and their clients. I know for a fact that this page is hard to find; both this page and arbitration pages could be made easier to find and use. Anarchangel (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC) re-worded Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this suggestion. The current rule rewards banding together and ideological policing, the kind seen on many political figures' pages. In my particular situation, those who reverted me were outnumbered by those who agreed with me, but because the reverters were more aggressive and divided up their reverts, it seemed to some that I was in the wrong. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're under the false impression that there exist a "right" and "wrong" side in an edit war. Grsz^X 05:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was this editor unblocked? Undo, Readds "motivations", Undo, Undo, Undo, Readds "two or three times". Looks like edit-warring to me. Grsz^X 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The "two or three times" is well-cited. One of my reverts was to someone who agreed with me, but was using language I knew our opponents would revert. Another user I reverted retracted his revert on my talk page. And on the talk page, consensus was leaning towards the view I advocated, which suggests Connect should not have reverted me. But I did also misunderstand the 3RR rule, thinking I could revert any one user three times in a 24-hour period.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked after an apology, and an instruction to stay off the page for at least 24 hours. Dayewalker (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The instruction was that he wasn't to revert that page for at least 24 hours. Switzpaw (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Missed that bit. Grsz^X 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I've changed the title of this section since it was obviously an appropriate block. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Old but nasty vandalism case

Resolved

 – diffs deleted

Unresolved

 – I object to deleting common vandalism edits

Graham87 09:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to report this, but is has a couple of issues:

1. I refer to this edit. It appears to be a one off case of vandalism by an IP, BUT one of the nastier kind.
2. It was old, sitting there for just over 1 year. I have reverted it.

Just thought I should let someone know in case the IP is part of some wider pattern of abuse? Is there a bot which might have / should have picked up on this ? Peet Ern (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The anti-vandal bots can't pick up everything automatically, unfortunately - there could've been situations in which such an edit could have been factual. I have made a null edit to add an extra diff from yours, and then deleted all the revisions that contained the edit. Black Kite 07:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What was the point of that? The vandalism in question (admin only), changing "appointed a mining engineer" to "raping young boys", was nothing more than common vandalism. The article isn't a biography of a living person and if we always deleted simple vandalism like that, the servers would soon crash. There are GFDL concerns with deleting edits like that, but the only affected diff in this case is an edit by User:Cydebot which is trivial. The fact that the vandalism lasted so long is indeed unfortunate, and I've found a few similar cases myself. However I'm inclined to undelete the edit on principle. Graham87 09:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User 124.189.83.130

According to this user's block log they have recently been blocked for a period of six months for vandalism and have not been unblocked. So how have they succeeded in makingthis edit? Surely not as a result of this rather eloquent unblock request. SpinningSpark 07:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The most recent block was in April. It's expired now. Algebraist 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative account

At Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts, it is recommended that consensus to identify alternative accounts as appropriate or otherwise should be sought here. User:Hesperian has indicated that he considers my second account to be used for "obfuscation".[31]

I would point out that the alternative account is clearly identified as such, and is used for specific purposes as detailed in my reply to Hesperian.[32] DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly marked as such so it's fine, although the only difference being a mispelling can be confusing unless people clikc on the userpage. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Two users insisting on including false & somewhat contradictory information on a page.

In reference to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral

The claim that the Chaparral can only engage in the daytime is false. The system uses (actually USED, since it's out of service for many years) a variety of methods for all-weather/day-time/night-time operation, including, but not limited to, night vision goggles, low-light binoculars, FLIR, & the trained ears of the operators.

This has been Army doctrine on the system for many years & is specified in numerous FM's, TM's, & other military publications. The fact is also known to the several tens of thousands of people who have either worked on, assembled, or operated the system in the past. As far as linking to the source documents, these are official military manuals that MAY include some still sensitive information. The Sidewinder used on the system is still in use & still being upgraded. Trying to include any type of sensitive information on an unofficial site like Wiki may not even be a good idea.

Further, the very statement of "day-time operation only" is contradictory to other parts of the article. Immediately below where the false statement once was, it mentions the FLIR & all weather operation. The reason that FLIR can allow the system to engage in the dark is the same principle that allows it to engage in ground-fog, heavy clouds, & rain....it can "see" the target by it's heat signature.

Two users, Inclusionist & 81.132.105.115, have reverted my corrections multiple times. They have been informed of all information above & even more, yet they still persist in including the inaccuracies. I feel that the IP user is also Inclusionist, since he appeared immediately after I asked the former to please stop with the reverting or I wuld report it as vandalism.

However, I can't prove that, so have to assume they are different people, even though they are doing the same identical thing, with the same article, within hours of each other. Inclusionist HASN'T did a revert back to the false information after I asked him not to & explained why. However, the IP user HAS....after he was presented with the same information.

Therefore, I am asking for a ban or block on him to prevent him simply adding back the wrong information each time that I attempt to correct it.

Also, there are even more inaccuracies within the page, once again disagreeing with Army doctrine, but I haven't changed them yet to the accurate version. I know, due to their past actions, one of the above two individuals will simply put it back the way it is, effectively making the Wiki-Article useless for any real reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs)

Could you paraphrase all of this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit war at MIM-72 Chaparral between User:81.132.104.115 and User:67.14.215.240. 81.XXX is intentionally including text with a dubious tag so he knows it's not proper to be included. User:Inclusionist also reverted and even listed 67.XXX at WP:AIV but it was considered stale there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, 67.XXX was the first to remove content with the others warring to include it. Remains unsourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)