Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Re MEDRS guideline and my action in edit war

WP:MEDRS was/is meant as further help and infomation (as guidelines are meant to be) on some aspects mentioned briefly in the main WP:RS guideline. Having been developed over some 22 months and a RFC to promote to guideline for about 3 weeks with heads up posted widely, I concluded that at 84.2% a clear majority consensus had been reached and promoted the essay to guideline (not that this seems strictly needed by an admin). See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline. Long discussion threads then had on the talk page, as well as my user talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC: definition of consensus and its following thread) where, IMHO, the minority opinion sought to have this overturned on two aspects. Firstly issue of whether secondary sources should be prefered in general over primary sources (WP:MEDRS merely reflects current WP:RS in this regard) and secondly that WP:Consensus needs be an absolute 100% unanimous decission for WP:MEDRS to be a guideline and that even a small minority dissent therefore equates to no consensus. Majority view has been that consensus requires only an overall clear majority (but respecting of course minority views). 3 editors removed the guideline tag from WP:MEDRS, with Paul gene (talk · contribs) removing a total of 7 times in the last week (being reverted back by 4 different other editors).

Yesterday I took several actions which have been critisied on the talk page, which would be more appropriately aired here and therefore I welcome other admin review:

• Paul Gene seems to be edit warring and against multiple other editors, I so issued a warning on his talk page and reverted the page back to (IMHO) the consensus version. (others have commented on his involvement per User talk:Paul gene#MEDMOS and MEDRS)
• Given though he has not been the only editor who has expressed disquiet at the guideline status, it would not have been best approach to directly temporarily block this one editor, but instead given the constant to & fro over the page's tagging seems a edit war in general and I have for now protected the page (open to issue of "wrong version protection" given previous restoring of what was RfC 84.2% opinion). Explanation for this given at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Edit warring - page protected (in essence guideline tag does not imply total agreement from all editors and thus promotion to being a guideline does not require total unanimous agreement, else if I alone objected to WP:RS or WP:MOS should these not be guidelines? Also example given of WP's 1st policy promotion being just a few % more than this RfC's).

Subsequent critism of my actions at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Administrator's poor judgement and improper actions. Thoughts please both on my approaches here (if I did wrong or poorly, then I appologise and please do unprotect or revert back from "the wrong version" as well as take over admin mopping around that page). David Ruben ^Talk 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like a straightforward case of a user trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" real-world problems. At root, he seems to be opposed to the use of review articles because, well, they don't support the conclusions he'd like them to support. And up to a point he's right - I have seen complete twaddle published by Cochrane - but in the end he is saying that we should, as editors, make the judgment between the competing merits of primary surces ourselves, and that simply is not permitted by policy, so in the end if the real world is wrong, Wikipedia will be wrong too. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As Guy says, a lot of users want to use directly medical studies insted of medical reviews because they don't agree with what the reviews say. This guideline just makes clear that medical studies are primary sources. This dispute is really about "Reviews X, Y and Z, which were published on the leading journals of the field, are all wrong because they don't take into account studies U, V and W which I personally consider relevant". Exact same situation as the homeopathy arb case. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is unfortunate about this particular timesink is that, in a content dispute, WP:V suffices to cover the content at MEDRS anyway, and the additional info there was only intended to provide specifics about medical sources. Whether the page is or isn't a guideline will not change good, policy-based editing on medical articles in practice; the absence of the page as a guideline will, however, make editing harder for new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• So, would you suggest a topic ban from that page? Guy (Help!) 11:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Judge from the verbosity below. I've stopped following that page, and will fall back on WP:V if editing issues arise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed this with some people, and I think we can assume good faith on the part of Paul Gene. We just need to explain consensus to him better. I can't immediately oppose a temporary topic ban (for failing to work on consensus) or temporary block (for edit warring), but I'd like to see if it's possible to talk with him first. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the same group that recently tried to remove all information about malpractice from the Medecine article. A "consensus" of tendentious editors does not count as such, specially since they are trying to overrule RS. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What is what same group? I helped craft MEDRS months to years ago, and I don't believe I've ever had anything to do with editing the Medicine article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

+ See: Wikipedia_talk:CONSENSUS#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Paul gene's announcement that he's starting an RFC/U. Perhaps he doesn't trust ANI to deal with admins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page).

Why I started Rfc [1] instead of answering Davidruben here.

1. Because WP:Administrators policy recommends it: "The first step is to discuss the issue which has led up to the problem with the administrator in question in an attempt to resolve the situation in a mutually acceptable manner. If no resolution is reached, file a Request for Comment, outlining your concerns with the administrators behaviour"

2. Because he did not respond to my question about his actions[2] as WP:Administrators policy recommends. Instead he posted here.

3. Because he did not extend to me a courtesy of notifying me that my actions are discussed in a posting here, as this page recommends.

4. Because Davidruben here raises irrelevant content issue (secondary vs primary sources). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard recommends: "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content".

5. Because the real question is – is it appropriate for an administrator involved in the content dispute to use his administrative powers? It is clear from Davidruben's posts at WP:MEDRS that he is very involved in the dispute. He believes that the dissenting editors are incorrect. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to protect the version he likes.

In my Rfc I only seek a minimal remedy - Davidruben should excuse himself from the discussion WP:MEDRS page. I do not seek to defame his character or place doubt on his otherwise excellent work as administrator. If he excuses himself voluntarily, I would strongly support closing the Rfc.

Relevant paragraphs of WP:administrators policy. Skip them if you know the policy by heart ;)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others... Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another."

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed."

"Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools...In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action."

"[When administrator] actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, [administrator] is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute.... That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to)....However, if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible."

Paul Gene (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, re point 2: RfC/User started "Because he did not respond to my question about his actions", yet I posted (modified) notice 14:16, 22 September 2008 of seeking review here at WP:AN/I, yet the RfC then created 04:05, 23 September 2008 - that's not a failure to respond, but seems forum shopping. re point 3: no direct need inform editor on their page, partly as I had notified at WT:MEDRS where discussion had been active but more that I very specifically sought views on "my approaches" (and not a request for Paul topic ban or block). re later comments, I'm not sure an admin closing a RfC and then explaining their reasoning (as I had done, but which Paul sees need to include quote "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed") is itself participating in the content dispute, nor therefore taking action in an edit war therefore inapropriate - but that was why I happy sought this AN/I (as Paul quotes "to ask an independent administrator to review") and indeed I offered (above) an appology if due and excuse from further oversight to another admin if thought appropriate; subsequently seeking RfC for reasons stated seems at best therefore superfluous. David Ruben ^Talk 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

David, please keep your cool and refrain from charged accusations in "forum shopping". Do you call my following the WP policy (see point 1) - "forum shopping"? David should have responded to my and Colonel Warden's conserns on his Talk page instead of proceeding to AN/I. That would have been a proper and polite thing to do. That would have been real communication. David should remember that "Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." (see WP:DR). In his reply to my points 2 and 3 David seems to insist on his right to be discourteous. I have no comments on that. Paul Gene (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You posted a significant commentary at MT:MEDRS at 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC), and a short note on my talk page 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC). My responding at MT:MEDRS was the primary place both historically and substantively, it was clearly responding to a discussion thread you had set up and finally seemed the place more editors would see & perhaps help comment at WP:AN/I.... whereas you failed entirely to notify me of RfC/Davidruben. Your accusation of "proper and polite" I therefore reject. My preceeding posting was not trying to be discourteous to you - for read this section's header openly worded for comment on "my action", not yours - that others focused on your actions rather than directly commenting on mine is a different issue that I've already agreed with you over on RfC/Davidruben. WP:Truce seems appropriate at this point, so can I politely suggest therefore that you transfer over to helping move the promising WT:MEDRS#Steps towards consensus forward. David Ruben ^Talk 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza13

I have blocked Misza13 for running an unauthorized bot and refusing to comply with the BRFA policy. Work it out. Prodego ^talk 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This must be one of those advanced forms of satire, involving actual indefinite blocks. east718 // talk // email // 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goddamn I hate this board. Immediately unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, are you intending to stick around and discuss the block, or are you leaving the block for others to deal with and hopefully lift as we see fit ? Nick (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, unblock Misza, leave a flaming bag of dog-doo on Prodego's door for such a flagrant abuse of his tools and violation of WP:POINT. WilyD 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with unblocking. Was Misza13 really running an unapproved bot? Surely such users get blocked. -- how do you turn this on 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punative. Nondisruptive users don't get blocked without warning - period. Prodego has had this explained to him many times in the last week or two while he's been plotting this block. He knew it was a bad block, and he did it any way. Not to prevent disruption - there was none. Only to punish Misza13. Terrible, terrible action remarkably unbecoming of an administrater. WilyD 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I should also note that as of only a few days ago, this version of the bot policy had stated that should the measure pass, admins would have about 2 weeks to comply with it by filing a BRFA. The new version of the page is different, but it does seem, at least to me, way excessive to immediately block someone due to the page only changing within the last couple days. Very angry mob-ish. --slakr^\ talk / 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's last admin action was over an hour ago, and the one before that was nearly 20 hours ago, so I don't see why an immediate block was necessary before discussion. Not to mention that Misza's bot is immensely helpful, despite lack of official approval. Mr.Z-man 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock - even if the allegations are true, Prodego was not the admin to have blocked in this case - throwing WP:POINT out of the window. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Got beaten to the unblock :( I don't see any necessity of an immediate block. I also haven't heard of factual complains about Misza's work ever. Nor he ever wasn't available for discussion. There is no need for such a pointy block. Sorry, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. Seriously, Misza's been openly running an adminbot for more than a year. His code is open source and public. And given your involvement with Wikipedia:RFAr#Unapproved admin bots it seems strange you wouldn't block any of the other admin bots. Wikipedia talk:BOT#adminbots proposal already has an ongoing discussion about adminbots, which you have apparently ignored. One of the unresolved points of active discussion is how to deal with existing admin bots, including discussion of a grace period and/or grandfather clause. Misza is participating in that discussion, contrary your statement about "refusal". There is no need to start handing out blocks right now with no evidence that Misza is causing harm. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to undo this incredibly bad block myself, but I see Anetode beat me to it. Blueboy96 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block and am glad Misza13 was unblocked by Anetode (talk · contribs) and then this action was supported by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). Also - why is this discussion taking place both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because otherwise people might only make a complete tit of themselves once? Guy (Help!) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments need a health warning Guy. That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dammit all to pieces, Guy, I've spewed Pepsi all over my keyboard. That was awesome. Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. (multiple edit conflicts) To call this action harsh would be a severe understatement. What was the WP:POINT of all this? RFerreira (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hearby propose that every single admin be desysopped and banned, and 1500-someodd new admins be chosen at random from the pool of remaining editors. I'm guessing there is about a 75% chance that this would improve upon the current situation; there's a distinct lack of sanity, rationality, calmness, respectfulness, and humilty around here lately. --barneca (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good fricking grief. it seems that any time an admin blocks, shouts 'i blocked X' in here, then logs off, there's going to be drama. More and more lately, I feel they know that, and do it in that way for that reason. Ugh. ThuranX (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not always, no... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Misza filed a BRFA to get his/her bot approved by the community? I do agree this does look punitive, and should have been discussed first. But it does not excuse the fact he's running it without required approval. -- how do you turn this on 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anetode also beat me to the unblock. Does it not matter to anyone that Misza13's bot is able to stop pagemove vandalism after only 1 or 2 pages are moved? Please don't reinstate this block unless and until the issue is fully discussed somewhere, including an opportunity for Misza13 to comment. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ask again - why is this discussion taking place in two places - both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add your personal opinions, admin or not, filled with drama, below this line. Be sure to stay on whatever side of the general debate of adminbots that you've previously been on, else someone will bring up a diff to dispute your new opinion: Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ----

Cirt, the AN one's been closed. Obviously, the thread starter didn't notice this one here. -- how do you turn this on 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much to How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) - it will be much easier to follow one thread. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I strongly strongly disagree with this block, less than a week ago Prodego was warned by an Arbiter not to follow through with a proposed adminbot block [3] to cause an RFAR at [4]. That Prodego would block now, after Arbcom has found no issue worth exploring, seems in incredibly bad faith, if not outright disruption. Prodego has indicated previously he has issues with the Admin bots practice, most notably by filing an RFAR on the topic, how does he even begin to approach uninvolved status of a blocking admin? MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a comment, from someone who ran an adminbot in the past: I can understand why Misza did not file a BRFA. The reason is because going through a BRFA would result in it not being approved, because opposition will be raised even if there is a 0.0000001% chance of false positives. Xclamation point 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about random sysop actions. This block was ridiculous, if the bot was unauthorized, block the bot not the user running it. I can't believe this is how we pay Misza13 for all the work done by MiszaBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

X!, there's always false positives with any bot. Why are some people allowed to run bots without approval, just because they think they'd fail a BRFA? If the community don't want such a bot, they shouldn't have to have it. Misza (and you, and others) running bots anyway is in violation of the bot policy, and not the community's wishes. -- how do you turn this on 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Misza was wrong for running an admin bot is a separate question, since it was not an emergency (he has been doing things that look admin bot like for probably a year), Prodego should have filed an RFC on Misza's conduct, and if that did not change things, filed an RFAR on specific actions Misza took. I do not see the need to leap into a block for this clearly non-emergency situation. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean, he was running the bot on his own account. Normal editors get blocked for doing plain old edits in a "bot like" manner. Why is Misza an exception here? -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Curps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) some time. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Normal editors" usually get a query in their talk page, if a block is issued in such a case its most likely because the user didn't respond and continued the edit pattern. If Misza was running a "full" bot instead of a script, it would have been logical to at least allow a chance for explaining it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Misza runs a full adminbot. He has done so for ages. The code is public. It's even been mentioned in the Signpost. This is not a secret. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then that's just lovely, the block was issued even when its old news? I think someone wanted to create random drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) This shows a severe lack of judgement and temper by Prodego. Utterly unsupportable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I think the bot was a bad one and agree that removing it is a good move. I would say, however, that people follow Misza's suggestion below, and chime in on the talk page of the bot policy, so that we never have problems like this again. -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also let Prodego know on his talk page of the fact it was overturned. -- how do you turn this on 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a kill joy here, but Prodego did have policy on side. WP:BOT reads "Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval (for example, by editing too quickly). A block may also be issued if a bot process operates without being logged in to an account, or is logged in to an account other than its own." Now, Misza was running a fully automated bot on his admin account that has had no approval. Maybe policy needs to be changed to reflect current practices (i.e. the current discussion on approving admin bots) but it's not fair to completely shoot down Prod for it. I think it was a bad block really, but policy certainly suggests it's within his discretion to block a bot without approval. Instead of concentrating on shooting Prodego down for the block, let's move our efforts onto clarifying the bot policy to say that admins who run bots on their accounts must take fully account for any wrong actions and face any consequences that come about from them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I believe Wikipedia would be the poorer for the loss of either Misza or Prodego over this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego has stated his intention to depart. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Policy is what we actually do, and sometimes it gets written down, and sometimes what is written is reasonably current with what is done. There are several admins who run bots that have gone undisturbed for a long time. Prodego filed and RFAR which was declined with advice to start a discussion on updating the policy. If the arbitrators thought there were serious violations of admin authority here I'm sure they would have accepted the case. As things are, Prodego's action was clearly calculated to be disruptive. Thatcher 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what happened here, I was surprised to see that Prodego would make such a mistake. Nonetheless, I still think that he has been doing an amazing job. One mistake, as bad as it is, can't end everything and I'm entirely sure that Prodego still has a place here. As for Miszra13 (whose comment was added below), I hope that he/she wasn't negatively affected by this incident. Bots (don't get me wrong, I could never run them) are difficult to maintain, and hopefully Miszra13 can confirm anything in regards to his/her bot. ~ Troy (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave blocked Why should admins get special dispensations that we ordinary peons do not? What makes them special? Jtrainor (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, usually admins would have to be very experienced, as most requests for adminship are often rejected due to a lack in any of the key requirements. Second, we non-admins (like myself) can still make many meaningful contributions (the basis for any adminship in the first place). You don't need to be an admin to do what's needed. You can still report any major concerns/issues on here, at ANK, AN3, AIV, RFP, SSP, RFCU or at requests for editor assistance. Also, I'm just going to note that I am against blocking Miszra13 again because, under the previous circumstances even, that block wasn't warranted. ~ Troy (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts I ask everyone read that before passing judgment. I added the relevant section below Prodego ^talk 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not request any approval simply because a) I don't play process for the sake of it or to the process wonks' (such as yourself) satisfaction b) the bot already is approved, authorized or whatever you call it and operaties within policy. If that policy is IAR (which is the default if nothing else can be applied), it doesn't matter - the admin bot section of WP:BOT does not have community consensus and remains tagged as proposed until few hours ago was only proposed (still, it's disputed and doesn't apply retroactively anyway, so this is moot).

Furthermore, I am surprised these questions come from you, who has a longer tenure as an administrator - the bot has been operating for nearly two years now and everyone and their grandma is aware of its existence. Finally, if you still perceive that the blocking policy "tells" you something you cannot resist despite no evidence of damage being done, I must suggest (per Luna above) switching to knitting every now and then.

I hope this clears things up so we can move on to building a free encyclopedia. Regards, Миша13 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I point you to the above, Misza was warned, and admitted to knowingly violating policy for a reason that doesn't seem to be quite acceptable. Prodego ^talk 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's bot has been publicly operated for several years, and is common knowledge. It has been discussed on ANI before. Given this, Misza's assertion that his bot has community approval is perfectly accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was just about the dumb idea of the year. We were talking through the issue in a more reasonable manner at WT:BOT, and I got the idea that Misza13 would run his adminbot through the process as long as we tried it out on some new bots first.

When I was concerned that Misza was hiding something about his bot, he even took the time to point me to the source code and explain to me how it worked. I left convinced that he wasn't hiding anything, he just didn't want to be the sacrificial goat that went through the process first. Seemed reasonable to me -- on the off chance that the new process is a big clusterfuck, we might as well not make a big clusterfuck around a bot that's been running for a while.

Guess what: it's a clusterfuck now. I hope this ill-advised action by Prodego hasn't set back our progress toward a sensible adminbot policy too far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say?

Thanks for the support to those who voiced it, much appreciated. This raises hopes should I (and other operators) decide to go through a formal approval with my (our) bot(s) (unless its made obsolete by the abuse filter sooner). But before that happens, I encourage everyone to hop in to WT:BOT#adminbots proposal and lend a helping hand with an ongoing discussion - we could really use more input to iron out the policy before we start rolling bots through it. Cheers, Миша13 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that where the bot is being discussed? Are all your bots (admin or otherwise) either approved or up for approval? If so then somebody should call curtains on any drama, mark this resolved, and be done with it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The conflict here arises from the gap between actual practice, and where are policies lag behind practice. This is one of the reasons we have an "ignore all rules" policy, which I still think is one of the most brilliant ideas in the history of our project, since it always gives us an "out" in situations like this one. Our actual daily procedures on Wikipedia always runs slightly ahead of our policies: for example as we develop more robust vandal-fighting tools, and as we encounter difficult situations not foreseen when we wrote the bulk of our policies years ago. As we age, policies become harder and harder to amend, due to inertia, due to "we've always done it that way", and due to the rise of the bureaucracy which always follows as the pioneering spirit fades (Franz Kafka: "all revolutions eventually evaporate, leaving behind the slime of a new bureacracy.") Prodego believed his block supported by policy, and it actually was supported by the letter of it: but at the same time it was a harmful block, because blocking Misza's bot opened the door to various odious types of vandalism. Clearly we have a need to amend a policy.

In my opinion the correct solution is not to block Misza, but to update policy to allow Misza's bot to run. I suggest a grandfather clause to allow existing bots, such as this spectacularly successful one, to continue as before. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Misza's attitude towards unauthorized bots was healthy - it was that IAR attitude that lead administrators to enable and apologize so long for Betacommand (who would often run disruptive bots without approval, shielded by administrators who approved of his efforts). However, AN/I isn't the best place to discuss that, nor is blocking and unblocking administrators the best way to make the argument.Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Key difference between me and Beta is the word "disruptive". Миша13 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think much of the IAR policy here is ignored on this case. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; and always subject to change. Misza's bot was helpful, never disruptive; so maybe that policy needs to be changed, and not have an admin blocked for running a bot 2-5 days after a no bots policy was put into effect. Come on, a little common sense would be helpful in matters like this. Prodego is a good admin, and so is Misza. But this was clearly done for WP:POINT, also check out WP:NOT. Only beauracracies have hard and fast rules. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Prodego (talk · contribs) has resigned and left a note on his userpage. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't view that as an actual resignation, and I said so there. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think he wants to actual resign for a terribly long period of time. He said he would be back. I just hope that we can clear this thing up and not have to worry about it any longer. ~ Troy (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Don't worry PM, I will come back" No further explanation necessary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how they will most likely be acting upon this at RFAR, he better be coming back with an explanation. A great administrator otherwise, who made one serious mistake, and then "resigned" promptly thereafter. Not good in my books. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Happily: Part of my ethic is to treat everyone equally. I was forced to make a choice here, between what policy said and what I feel is the right thing to do, and a few users saying I shouldn't block Misza on his talk page. The policy says "Accounts performing automated tasks without prior approval may be summarily blocked by any administrator". I did not summarily block, I left a note and requested an RfAr. With the response to the first being a refusal to request approval, and the response to the second being that arbcom does not take advisory cases, I did the only responsible thing. Followed the policy equally, as I had done before, and blocked the unapproved bot. Additional offwiki circumstances related to an IRC channel required me to either implicitly condone Misza's admin bot, or to block it. I did what I feel was right, block. If Wikipedia doesn't agree to treat everyone equally, I don't know that I know how to be an administartor, and if that is the case I might need a break to sort things out or until things here get sorted out. I hope I have been a good administrator, I have spent nearly 3 years trying to do exactly that, and it is really all you can ask me to do. Prodego ^talk 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagreed with your block and run behavior, because it leads to this drama, I also don't think you abdicating is a responsible attitude. If you really intend to react this way to every admin action you make which gets questioned, then give up the buttons. But if you can learn and move on, then keep the buttons. Misza13 should have sought approval, and the 'horrible results of your block' were instead on misza13's shoulders, because if the bot had approval, then there wouldn't be such misplaced reliance on the 'bot to protect from vandals. Now the bot can get approval, go back to working ,and all will be well, AND approved. Stick around ,jsut don't block, dump, and run again. That's the bad judgment in my view. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Prodego said he would retain admin rights until ArbCom decided they could take them from him, AFTER the 'I resign' message, he obviously does not mean to surrender his access immediately. Indeed, I suspect he is now hoping for an ArbCom case on the chance that it would address the policy-contradiction underlying this action... retaining his admin rights gives the 'angry mob' reason to try to take them away. Which creates the ArbCom case he had previously been denied. I like it. In short, Prodego is placing his Queen in jeopardy for a chance to capture the enemy King. Nice move.
That said. There has been some progress on bot policy lately. It is possible that this already was moving towards resolution. Prodego's action has demonstrably had the, almost certainly intended, result of pushing that movement further along. Drama? Yes. Disruption? A little. POINTy. Yeah, that fits. But... ultimately good for the project.
Good block. Even though it was wrong. --CBD 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already been an ArbCom case in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Back in 2006, Marudubshinki was desysopped for running an unapproved adminbot. So right now, any admin running an unapproved adminbot is at risk for desysopping. The problem seems to be that we've had some "below the radar" adminbots running succesfully for a while, but without policy to support them. We need to fix policy in that area. I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots that adminbots need to be operated like other bots, with their own 'bot account, user page, etc. That would improve the transparency of adminbots, which is needed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not interpreting the ruling correctly, or not stressing the relevant parts. I've been below the radar for about a year, but for the next year, it was pretty much a "public secret". Still, not until someone with an apparent lack of uderstanding of WP:IAR came to know of it, things were fine. Both Marudubshinki and later Betacommand were desysopped because not only their bots were making blatant mistakes but the operators themselves remained deaf to the many concerns raised on their talk page. None of these apply to me - my bots are accurate and I am responsive to reasonable disputants. So these are not exactly valid precedents for this case, sorry. Also, the RfC you added to is dead for over a month. Current development takes place directly on WP:BOT and WT:BOT where I am waiting for input, yet to little avail. Миша13 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some forum-shopping going on here. Over at WT:BOT, there are suggestions that the subject is/was being discussed at the RfC and that the RfC is the discussion that matters. At the RfC, there's a motion to close on the grounds of no activity, even though three editors have made comments in the last week. So where does this get decided? --John Nagle (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Misza has been responsive to any concerns expressed. Orderinchaos 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So would I, but that's really a shame. I think retirement is really unecessary in this case, but Prodego has his own choices of course. Good luck with life. —Sunday | Speak 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Ave Caesar & CadenS on Jesse Dirkhising

I'm having a problem with two editors on Jesse Dirkhising, an article I've fully vetted, re-written and am trying to get to GA status. The article has been largely free of disputes and stable since the rewrite several months ago.

Another editor and I were discussing converting over the citation style to make editing the HTML easier for them when Ave Caesar (talk · contribs) added the {{citation style}} tag, which was odd because the discussion was already in process and the tag is about the uniformity and appearance which was already done. Our discussion was about switching over from one system to another. I explained in my edit summary "rmv tag as unneeded, they are all consistent at present and there is presently a discussion on converting them". They re-inserted the tag so I tried to explained the tag wasn't addressing any relevant issue to Ave Caesar and they deleted the thread citing my concern should only be placed on the article talk page. They didn't join in the discussion but instead re-added the tag. I, tried again to explain how the tag was unhelpful - they deleted this thread as well. As far as I know tagging the article and reverting my edits has been their only involvement on that article. Looking at some of their recent edits I was a little shocked to see edit warring over the WP:LGBT project tag on Lindsay Lohan with Dev920 who has, as part of their signature "who misses Jeffpw". Stunningly Ave Caesar follows up with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Isaäc's Memorial Page.

My introduction to CadenS (talk · contribs) was a bit more blunt as they were a newbie, as far as I can tell, and on the Jesse Dirkhising article they plain out just accused me of a few things and lobbed a few personal attacks my way then left the article about six months ago. We had been dialogging on their talkpage as I tried to help find them some grounding and on-wiki resources so thought that whatever hard feelings were there had dissipated. Then again within the last month or so on E.O. Green School shooting I could feel the level rise a bit and CadenS takes a bit of a dig at me and follows it a day later by accusing me and two others of "hateful attacks". No requests for explanation are answered but they seemed to be dialogging with others on their talk page so I left well enough alone. Now CadenS is back to Jesse Dirkhising and their first edits there were to change instances of gay to homosexual, which is generally considered pejorative outside a research context - for instance, it's not the "Homosexual Pride Parade" except to some conservative religious folks - it's Gay Pride. They also changed some content thus misrepresenting what the sources stated. I reverted back and point out the concerns and they respond by calling me a POV pusher. At this point Ave Caesar reverts "restoring encyclopedic language" which i revert and going back to the sources to see if there is a better way to reflect what they state I return to the article to insert a quote in hopes of resolving misrepresenting a source to find CadenS has again reverted.

I'm unsure if they are working together on purpose but they are effectively causing the article to fail the GA process for being unstable, amongst other concerns, and I see no future in trying to complete the clean-up with two users edit-warring and inserting problematic and POV language. I would appreciate others looking at this and I'm uncomfortable reverting either of them and don't see engaging them any further as a good path for me. Just writing all this up has taken away the rest of my time for editing today. I have to get some sleep but I think the above lays out what I see as the issue. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that these users should be discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Have you contacted kotra (talk · contribs), who is CadenS's mentor? Although that is an option, I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts. CadenS is clearly passionate about gay-themed articles and has been asked to avoid them in the past, to my memory. Though his comments about E.O. Green school shooting correctly indicated the poor writing and layout of the article, the stressful way it was brought about was unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Moni, Benji never once initiated any type of discussion on this matter. He went and filed this report instead. Let me remind you that Mr. Benji was reverting left, right and center. How convenient to see how you leave that part out. Furthermore, Kotra did not talk me out of anything. You insinuating such a thing is insulting to both Kotra and I. And another thing, since when is rape, murder or shooting's suddenly classified as "homosexual-themed" type of articles? That's a narrow way of thinking on your part and I'm shocked that you would post such a thing here. Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I find Benj's choice of words ("they", "their", "them"), to describe me personally, as very offensive. I have a name. My name is Caden. That's C-A-D-E-N. I'm also a male. That's M-A-L-E. Therefore my gender is "he", and not "they" or "them" or "their". Got it? Now, in regards to the word "homosexual", this is the correct word to be used. It's used in the same way as the word "heterosexual" is often used. Homosexual is only considered pejorative by those who support the political correct movement. I did change some of Benji's POV content because he was misrepresenting what those sources stated. He deliberately did that to mislead the readers just like he's been doing with the E. O. article by adding the POV "see also" sections that serve his biased POV. The real issue here is the issue of POV language used by Benji and him misleading the readers by insinuating this in the main article. I also find it highly insulting that he is accusing me of working together with Ave Caesar on purpose. I've never spoken to User:Ave Caesar, and he or she has never had any contact with me. Furthermore, Benji claims I took a dig at him? Please. I was defending myself. I was replying to an attack made by him (on the E.O. page) towards me when he had the nerve to say: "Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else". I found his statement offensive, bizarre, and completely uncalled for. Caden S (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Caden: Chill, no one can tell your gender on teh Internet. A simple "Oh, btw I'm male" would have done. Your "get it?" etc is very hostile. I am sure no rudeness was intended. People on Wikipedia refer to other editors as "he" "she" and "they" almost at random it seems, and it is generally best to ignore or tactfully inform the editor using the incorrect term. As regarding "homosexual" vs. "gay" that is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article - but the parade is certainly the "gay pride" parade and not the "homosexual pride" parade, so at least one of your edits is simply wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it's me. I haven't been contacted, but as you say, all editors are responsible for their own actions (though I would appreciate it if these issues were discussed with me occasionally). I want to clear up a few things, though. Caden has already apologized for some of the issues raised above, and has voluntarily maintained long breaks from LGBT-related articles in the past. As for this recent incident (changing "gay" to "homosexual" on Jesse Dirkhising), that seems like a minor content dispute that you should discuss with each other first before bringing up here. So concerning Caden, I'm not sure what this incident report is for, since it's a minor dispute and has not yet received much discussion. Concerning Ave Caesar, I don't really have an opinion about their edits, except I very much doubt they are conspiring in any way with Caden. -kotra (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer, I'm sorry but you are so wrong. Benji knows full well that I'm a male and he knows my name very well. He and I have had conflicts in the past concerning the Dirkhising and E. O. pages. Furthermore, I know nothing about such parades and have no interest in them. And for the record, I made no edits on any parade so I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, I agree with Kotra. He should of have been contacted regardless of my actions. He is my adopter. Caden S (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, did he? Still not seeing why you should bother to care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? How would you like it if I called you "it", huh? Because that's basically how he's referring to me on this report. And that sir, is why I bother to care. Caden S (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a side-note concerning this: "I expect editors to be responsible for their actions, and not require a mentor talk them out of disproportionately defensive posts.". I actually disapproved of that comment, and I did not "talk him out of it". -kotra (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a content dispute and not really a matter for ANI. This should be on the discussion on the article talk page. The issue is over the inclusion of encyclopedic language. The user wishes to replace "homosexual" with the slang term "gay." --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry I see this as an editing dispute. Ave Caesar's only participation there has been disruptive, IMHO, coupled with their other, apparently anti-LGBT concerns are also alarming. With CadenS, his changing gay to homosexual, reinforced too by Ave Caesar, along with misrepresenting sources is basic vandalism that should be reverted under normal circumstances. Gay is not considered slang and that both these editors fail to see its pejorative connotations is also disquieting. That CadenS couples this with bad faith accusations and hostility aren't encouraging. Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for POV pushing. If any of the gay people involved self-identified as homosexual it's usually good to put that in the article as such. Instead mainstream society and media outlets use gay. I find having to explain this is this decade a bit odd - homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people - its use on Wikipedia is dubious - especially on biographies. I came here because I'm trying to get the article to GA, I see these two as disrupting that process. I want to nip editing warring in the bud here. Considering each of their recent actions and looking at editing histories of these two my concerns are justified. The article had been stable for six months - with gay intact - why now the interest? Why now the changes?

To CadenS specifically, you assert "Please. I was defending myself." here is the comment I made in full

“ CadenS, please stop, taking little digs at me, or anyone, isn't helping improve this article. You could have let it go with Exploding Boy's comment that indeed another person in the source stated it was likely untrue. And just as some gay kids lie about heterosexual boys, heterosexual boys lie about such things as well. Let's not paint all gay people as predators or liars or anything else. People lie, let's stay on to improving the content. ”

If you felt I was attacking you I apologize, that was not my intent at all, I was trying to figure out what actionable items on that article needed to be addressed as there was a POV tag you had re-inserted and the consensus was that POV concerns had largely been addressed. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that it is an editing dispute. Therefore, it should first be discussed at Talk:Jesse Dirkhising. It is not proper to escalate it to WP:ANI until lower levels of dispute resolution have failed, as you must know. Regardless, I believe you are seeing an example of bias where there may not be one. "Homosexual" as a derisive term is very subtle and recent and depends largely on regional dialect and context. It is not unlikely that it has been used in Wikipedia bios without any actual bias intended, particularly since Wikipedia strives to be somewhat academic in tone. So I don't think there are any actionable items for an admin here. To get more eyes, WP:RFC would be the proper place. And I sympathize that this dispute has come at an inconvenient time for your GA review, but these things happen. -kotra (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, upon rereading, I now realize you mean "editing dispute" to mean "a dispute over how a user is editing", as opposed to "a dispute over particular edits". If that is what you meant, I disagree. I don't see any problem with how users are editing, except that there isn't enough discussion (which is the fault of all three parties). -kotra (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experience with CadenS on this article in particular and then again on E.O. Green School shooting was generally being on the receiving end of bad faith accusations and hostility. Ave Caesar deleted talk page threads about the concern on their talkpage and never discussed any concerns except in edit summary comments. Either are welcome to engage in civil discussion on the talk page but edit-warring is unproductive and, really, do we need an RfC to confirm that homosexual is pejorative and gay should be the default? Or that we shouldn't misrepresent sources? Both have indicated they feel their edits are fine - they really aren't. I'm looking for the edit warring to stop and I've been on the talkpage consistently. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had thought the hostility at E.O. Green School shooting was over, so it surprised me that you would bring it up again here. But as for this recent dispute, I still haven't seen any discussion about it on Talk:Jesse Dirkhising, from them or you, so I guess I'm still at a loss as to why you brought this up here, without hardly discussing the issues first. And, you acknowledge that "homosexual" is not always pejorative, so perhaps it is not being used in that tone here? These things should be clarified first before one assumes bad faith; this is why I suggested RfC before ANI, if talk page discussion fails (which has still barely been explored). I think we're going in circles, though. (by the way, since blanking is usually ok on your own talk page, that particular part of Ave Caeser's behavior seems fine) -kotra (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My experiences with Benji have been unpleasant. I feel he's anti-heterosexual, anti-Christian and anti-conservative due to his biased POV. I don't know what his problem is with conservatives, or Christians or even us heterosexuals. But his edits are more than clear he has some serious issues concerning the three. He often assumes bad faith and he's assuming bad faith once again by attacking my good faith edits as "vandalism". My edits are fine and have all been done in good faith. Benji's edits are questionable, in my opinion. "Gay" is a slang liberal word. "Straight" is a slang liberal word. Homosexual and heterosexual are the correct words to be used in a encyclopedia. I am not using the word "homosexual" in a pejorative way (like Benji accuses me of), and I highly doubt that Ave Caesar is using it in a negative way either. But as always, Benji assumes bad faith over any edits made by any editor who does not share his homosexual POV, regardless of the topics. I wonder why? Could it be because of his problems with heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives? He claims: "homosexual is used predominately in conservative religious venues to vilify LGBT people". Please. That's PC nonsense and is not true. You cannot group all people together as one just so you can push your POV on here. Doesn't Benji understand that not all christians are conservative? I assure you that not all conservatives are religious. Furthermore, the slang word "gay" is a liberal mainstream word that liberal society and liberal media outlets use for political correctness. Regardless of all this, Benji's issues are focused on a individual editor's way of editing. That's bad faith on his part. It should be focused on the true issue, which is a content dispute. I don't see any problems with how I edit, nor do I see any issues with how Ave Caesar edits. I do have some serious concerns with an editor who vilifies other editors as, "they" or "their" or "them". That's extremely rude. On a final note, Benji failed to initiate discussion on the talk page. Had he done so, I would of gladly taken part. Instead he filed this report. This alone was bad faith on his part. Caden S (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As soon as you throw "liberal this" and "liberal that" and "political correctness" about, then you are showing your prejudices very clearly, thank you. Never mind what you think should be the correct wording and usage, what does the community think? This is after all a collaborative project. Black Kite 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement above shows me where your prejudices are. But yes, what does the community think should be the correct words to use? Caden S (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" is hardly a "slang liberal word". Conservatives use it as well. So does the mainstream media. I'm more interested in the terms used by reliable sources to describe the subject than in a community referendum, though. MastCell ^Talk 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have zero idea what my politics are. However, it is a standard Wikipedia (and general) fact that editors who rail against what they think is "political correctness" and use "liberal" in a pseudo-pejorative manner are rarely very good at editing articles in a neutral manner. Black Kite 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "gay" to refer to the LGBT community, or it's members, is entirely appropriate and is in accordance with the Wikipedia community guideline WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities that states: For people, the terms "gay" (often, but not always, used for males only) and "lesbian" (which is used for females only) are preferred over "homosexual," which has clinical associations and is often considered pejorative. However, homosexual may be used in describing people in certain instances, in particular in historical contexts. Homosexual is considered pejorative, and gay is very mainstream usage. It has nothing to do with liberal bias and it's not slang. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "gay" could still be considered slang, in the same sense that "Coke" could be considered slang for "Coca-Cola". Both terms "Coke" and "gay" are widespread, though, and much more commonly used than their alternatives. Even so, we use "Coca-Cola" instead of "Coke", though we use "gay" instead of "homosexual". I think the reason we don't use "homosexual" too is because of its pejorative meaning in many contexts. In any case, WP:Naming conventions (identity)#Sex and sexual identities is pretty clear which we should use. But back to the topic at hand, I don't think either user was trying to be disruptive or particularly POV-pushing by using the more clinical term. Many people are unaware that "homosexual" is considered pejorative. -kotra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if an editor informs you clearly that the word you're using is pejorative - perhaps your first action should not be to revert them. That just maybe if someone brings an issue to them your response should not be immediate spite, deletion or sarcasm. This is not a battleground and we can work with people even if we don't agree with them. That CadenS also chooses to add more POV and heap bad faith accusations towards me is also unhelpful. That they were misrepresenting sources also seems like a bad prospect for the article. I too had thought their hostility towards me had ended when they again lobbed a jab and personal attack me on E.O. Green School shooting - that's why I mentioned it. They also accused me and two other editors of attacking them. I didn't really see it myself but I apologized anyway as I certainly didn't mean any offense. Up above they attack me a few more times. What exactly do I do to prove I'm not anti-conservative, anti-Christians and anti-heterosexual? Ave Caesar chose to simply revert me as well, I rather doubt either of these editors really thought much but simply reverting someone they disagreed with. If they honestly think homosexual is the default word for gay and lesbian people I'm concerned what else they are changing and inserting. That neither has accepted that just maybe the choice to simply revert without discussing was a bad one also seems alarming - yes it happens but we have a pattern with each separately - unfortunately - of what certainly seems to be edit warring. That each save their most troubling conduct for LGBT-related subjects and hostility towards an editor and have no ownership of their actions bodes ill for the project. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS' behavior

• Comment. Another hostile attack this time on my talkpage. -- Banjeboi 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I have to bring up my past ANI reports and links against CadenS or is he going to stop editing articles relating to sexuality like he promised last time to avoid a block? — Realist² 15:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to provide a diff or pointer to his promise to avoid these articles?

MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Here. Basically to diffuse the post I made at ANI, that would have likely resulted in Caden being blocked. He instead declared that he quit, thus making a block pointless, came back 5 hours later wanting adoption and promising to avoid sexuality articles. He was back to sexuality articles very quickly. That said, and I must stress this, Caden contributes in a very positive manner to articles unrelated to sexuality. --— Realist² 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it but my wiki stalker Realist2 is back at it sticking his nose where it don't belong. He was warned by several users in the past to stop harassing me. He agreed and promised me that he would stop. And now he's back at it with more threats. I'm fed up with you harassing me. I'm sick of you stalking me and watching my every move on Wikipedia. Get a life. Stop stalking me Realist. You have been stalking me since May 2008. Caden S (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CadenS I'm not stalking you at all! There is a HUGE post about you at ANI. It's quite hard to avoid you know. You also broke your promise not to edit articles on sexuality. Then I see a post where you tell another editor that they disgust you. Christ CadenS, I'm not out to get you, I tried to help you the other week. I'm strongly advising you as a friend (I consider use on friendly terms) to stop editing these kinds of articles before your blocked. You are doing some wonderful work on other articles on wikipedia, but this other stuff is too much for you I think. I don't want to see you blocked, I really don't. Please calm down, before you get yourself into more trouble, please Caden. You love wikipedia (I hope), and we want you here. But you have your hot buttons for understandable reasons. Please make yourself some coffee or tea, take a chill and come back to what you do best. :-) — Realist² 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this thread about the content dispute and the use of "gay" vs. "homosexual" did not have to come to ANI as members of WP:LGBT would argue about this, but Caden's posts must be addressed. Caden is an impulsive editor who allows his past experience to color his responses, which are disproportionately vehement in the scheme of natural discussion and disagreement editors have over article content. He has posted before that he has had a traumatic experience with gay men in the past, but his trauma should not define how editors communicate about problems within an article. In short, he's making his problems everyone else's problems. It sucks time away from what needs to be done to an article, and requires further intervention by his mentor kotra (talk · contribs). I can only imagine how draining this must be for kotra to have to calm Caden down this frequently. This diff provided by Benji regarding Caden's umbrage taken to non-gendered pronouns is a prime example. I can't think getting this stressed out is fun for Caden, and I suggest taking a break and doing something else that is much more enjoyable. The bottom line, however, is that other editors should not be forced to avoid his temper, especially when it's this unpredictable. He needs to take some responsibility for his behavior, tone it down, drop out of LGBT articles, and come back when he behave calmly and dispassionately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Moni's assessment here - it's disappointing to see the same user here again for the same thing, as I remember the original AN/I from a few months ago quite well, and the promise made which essentially got him out of that one (noting I don't edit in the area but do watch AN/I fairly consistently and have done so for almost two years). Orderinchaos 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing all of this, I'm afraid that I agree that Caden's temper flares when working on sexuality-related articles. That said, I just want to note that he has sometimes been a positive help on these sexuality-related articles, but unfortunately I'm not sure if it's worth all the anger and fighting behind the scenes. So I would be ok with a restriction on articles about sexuality. I agree with Realist, though, that he has usually been very helpful and an asset to the community on other articles, and his behavior had improved greatly until this recent flare-up. So I would support a topic restriction, but in the interests of the project, not a complete block. -kotra (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As his mentor, I'm glad you suggested a possible solution that was also at the back of my mind. I think a sexuality topic ban is not necessary at this stage. Caden has every right to feel the way he does, but if he can't keep his feelings from disrupting the project in future, I think implementing such a ban is the next step, if only on a temporary basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SheffieldSteel! Yes, I do have every right to feel the way I do, but many editors have attempted to strip me of my rights. At least that's how it appears to me. In regards to why my temper flared, it had nothing to do with the article content dispute. It was based on Benji's offensive description of me in all posts (as "they", "their" and "them"). I asked him many times as did my adopter, for him to refrain from describing me in gender-neutral languge. He has continued to disrespect my wishes nevertheless. A sexuality topic ban, or even a restriction on articles about sexuality is not necessary. My work on these articles speak for itself. If it weren't for me, both the E. O. Green School article and the Jesse Dirkhising article would not be NPOV. There are few POV issues still remaining on the Dirkhising page. Regardless of that, I fought hard against many POV pushers to save these articles and my good edits reflect that. Although those editors created an extremely stressful environment for me and painted me as the bad guy, I'm proud that I did what was right according to NPOV policy. I'm proud that I have the balls to speak up, the courage to be bold, and the strength to take action by doing what's right. Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a temporary topic restriction should go ahead, Kotra and even Caden himself seem to think it's probably for the best. We had a similar ANI post a few months ago, Caden said he would stay away from sexuality articles then, yet somehow we are back here. Caden has taken multiple cool of breaks (that last for weeks at a time) in the past yet things soon heat up again. Caden's talents as an editor should be kept to what he does best on other articles, without these other articles as a distraction. We really don't want another overblown ANI episode in the future, something I fear will put Caden off any interest in wikipedia. — Realist² 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. Caden S (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider here, it seems obviously better all round if Caden avoids topics that wind him up, however justified the reasoning, and in the long run it's better that he does that of his own accord than have it forced upon him. There are topics I specifically avoid because I know I'd only get het up, and to reduce the risk of threads such as this, er, um, I don't go there. Caden, whatever your past, its a cliche to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy", and neither (to a lesser extent) is it a soapbox for anger. Two and a half million articles should give you plenty to do. Your edits are generally good, from what I've seen, and you just need to point those talents to where they'll make you feel appreciated in the right kind of way. You have good guys on your side here; time is one healer, but doing something else is another, particularly if you've got people batting on your side. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, I can see your point on this but I disagree with you. If I were to avoid these type of topics, they would end up being the horribly biased and POV articles they once were before I fought for them to be NPOV. However justified my feelings are concerning these subjects, the articles do not wind me up. It's some of the editors on those pages that get me going, like for example Benji. But I'm working on keeping my cool even when I'm personally attacked, which has been often. I do agree with you that it's better that I choose on my own accord, whether I shouldn't work on these articles or not, instead of it being forced upon me. I am open to feedback and suggestions though. As for working on other articles, I do work on many unrelated type of articles. I enjoy doing so. But as it stands today, I'm not sure what's going to happen with me or this ANI report. I'm not even sure why Moni went and shifted the spotlight from the original content dispute (of which this report is supposed to be about) to my behavior. I have a lot of questions but no answers. Am I going to be blocked or not? Am I going to be given a topic restriction or not? Why is the content dispute not being discussed anymore? What about the other editor Ave Caesar? This ANI was filed against this editor as well, not just me. Why am I being singled out? Why has the real issue here (the content dispute) been forgotten? Caden S (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, what worries me is that I doubt you are sufficiently disinterested to preserve NPOV, and that is why I think you should avoid those articles, for the very reason that this thread came to be. Up to you, of course. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's several categories of articles I never go anywhere near for that exact reason - I know that no matter how good my intentions, my personal opinions on the area are so strong that I know I could not be neutral and hence it is best left to others who are. Orderinchaos 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

L::Well, User:Mastcell has suggested a restriction, at this point though what's most important is ensuring that we don't have another ANI thread like this. This is the second and I'm not sure the community will tolerate a third incident like this. We should be looking to help Caden make the most of his abilities without all this other stuff muddying it up. If a restriction is the best way to prevent that, who knows. — Realist² 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rod, you didn't answer any of my questions. Furthermore, this report is not about just me. It was filed against another editor as well. And Realist, this report is not about me. I already told you this before. Caden S (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bangle-butt

I just nuked Bangle-butt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per WP:BLP, having been attracted to Chris Bangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by a request to link a petition to sack the designer at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist#petitiononline.com. The article documents (using the word loosely) a derogatory term used by detractors to describe a specific design feature associated largely, though not exclusively, to this one designer. It's a love/hate thing, and the biography and that nuked article are dominated by the hate group. Feel free to undelete the article and give it a more appropriate title, and strip out the derogatory overtones, if you can find sourcing. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the article has been around since 2005, and a 30 second search reveals more than enough sources that would warrant an article under that specific term. I think the article should be undeleted or started anew from scratch. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how "No one bothered to nuke it before now" somehow makes a subject encyclopedic. Age does not always denote worth - check out any dirty old man or meddlesome old lady for proof of that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that linking to dozens of reliable sources using that term was the better part of my argument, too. :) --Conti|✉ 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If it should be anything (doubtful), it should be a redirect to Chris Bangle with some sourced information (if that's possible) at that article. Black Kite 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea; I've redirected, although I have not added any content to the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the article numerous times in popular car magazines 100+ instances,3 instances,164 instances (mainly forums, some reviews. Here's a quote from a Motor Trend Interview with Bangle: Love or loathe his work, Bangle's impact on auto design has been profound. No other designer, not even legendary GM design chief Harley Earl, has so rapidly become a part of the industry lexicon. To "bangle" a design is now an auto-industry verb for ruining it. Auto writers use "Bangle butt" to describe a tail with an extra layer of metal on the trunk (think new Mercedes S-Class). Bangle, some rivals will remind you, is only one letter away from "bungle." Whether or not the term deserves it's own article is debatable, but at the very least should be addressed in Bangle's bio. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what else to do with it, but redirecting it to the BLP is NOT a good way to leave it. Someone googling that term would think that the term is referring to him and not realize that it is referring to the car. It should either redirect to an article subsection, be an actual article, or redirect to an article on automotive slang (if there is such a thing). But leaving it as a redirect to the BLP really isn't acceptable IMO. --B (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should not redirect to Bangle's bio. It's a bio about his whole person, not just his butt. The term Bangle-butt should stay redlinked, per WP:NEO, WP:BLP, and WP:CSD#R3 (Implausible). I've heard the editorial comment "that car has been bangled" (verb) as well, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Keeper ǀ 76 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term isn't notable by itself. If I read this right, this is all automotive related, right? Don't we have a list of automotive industry related slang or some other similar minutiae?--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it quite fits as part of List of automotive superlatives. Maybe the BMW is the "first car to be criticized as ugly enough to disparage it's designer?", although I can't hardly imagine this is the first designer to be criticized in car mags. Someone stunk up the world with the Ford Pinto and the AMC Gremlin after all....18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised the article is deleted. The subject is well known among car enthusiasts. And imho notable. [5] --Boivie (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of WP:GAR by User:jfdwolff

Resolved

User:jfdwolff keeps reverting an edit I made, closing a WP:GAR, instead of using proper procedure to unlist. He responded negatively to a caution I made on his talk page regarding the matter.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which review this is about, what the dispute is, and why this requires administrative attention? --erachima talk 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See history of Talk:Huntington's disease and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Reverting GAN fails. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also a thread from yesterday about Goodone121 and Huntington's disease. This user is trolling. I've had enough, and would like him blocked. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease. What exactly is going on here? How can one "use proper procedure" to delist an article that is not a GA? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given Goodone121 a final warning! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the "Natural Sciences" part of WP:GA, it's there. BTW, thanks for telling me. I can revert the edit.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I have removed it. The article did not pass GAN, and as the nominator, you should not list it even if it had passed. You clearly do not understand the point here: an article cannot be "delisted" if it was never a GA in the first place.

I feel I am sufficiently uninvolved to act further on this, and I just have: consider yourself blocked for disruption. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to let me know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Guy (Help!) 05:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And immediately after his block expires, the user goes back to his previous behaviour.[6] Longer block probably needed. JFW | T@lk 05:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this user. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully ask to reduce the block length, and give this editor one more chance to prove himself, they continued to make other beneficial edits- anti-vandal etc, between blocks as well as the offending action, so I believe they could develop. I have attempted to explain the situation from my perspective on goodone's talk page and if a lesson hasn't been learnt from this block I don't know what else could. LeeVJ (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problems with an unblock in a week provided (1) that the user stays away from the Huntington's article, (2) that the user commits himself to collaborative editing. Anything less will not do. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Kelly

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

I've blocked Kelly for incivility as seen on WP:AN. I'm putting up block notice now, and I'll be back shortly to put up the diffs, but I want to have a place for people to review my block ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly alleges on Kelly's talk page that Tznkai isn't a neutral admin in this situation. Please someone (an admin) look into it. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Kelly alleges that about any admin that calls her or her disruptive behavior. Tzankai is not the first one; and this is not Kelly's first. If at all the block should be extended in increments if her behavior persist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you'll need to back that up with some evidence. Otherwise, it's a personal attack and poisoning the well, especially since you jumped the queue with your post. Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Kelly. He/she will remember how many admins he/she as accused of being "ID cabalists" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, approve at least the theory of a block, not 100% sure that setting deadlines really was a good idea (tends to inflame rather then settle a situation), and not sure that you should have been the one to do it.. but that's just my first glance. SirFozzie (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I approve the block, but not admin performing block (a more uninvolved admin should have blocked). Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter though? I mean as long as it is a good block... Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions mean a lot here, so to answer your question, "sort of". —kurykh 03:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just perceptions, but this ArbCom decision makes it very clear that administrators are to refer issued upon which they are involved to their fellow admins and not make the block themselves. Bstone (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh: I support the block as well, but I will note that in the future, an uninvolved administrator should have performed the deed. I think you'll find many would have been willing to perform the block. This has been an issue that has been boiling over for quite some time. Hopefully this will try to resolve it. seicer | talk | contribs 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly was active, and the comment was inappropriate, the deadline was a way of saying "Remove the comment now because thats the standard I remember us having about personal attacks. As for whether I should have done it, I'll address that in a moment.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that there is a reason for the block aside from referring to FM as a horrifically bad admin, right? If not, it's a horrifically bad block. --B (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Calling someone a "horribly bad admin" is hyperbole, and a personal opinion, but it is not a personal attack. Calling someone a "horribly bad PERSON" would be a personal attack. So I assume there's more to this than just that one comment, and will be interested in the diff's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "horribly bad admin" is hyperbole unless it is true. See my evidence section in the arbcom case. Of his 40 admin actions in the period in question, 13 of them were either a misuse or an abuse of the admin tools, including, but not limited to, blocking Dragon695 in retaliation for his comments ABOUT THIS CASE. "Horribly bad" seems like a good description to me. --B (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I find the block to be out of line with current standards of behavior, as demonstrated by example by Jossi's post above. (And yes, absolutely, Jossi is one of those that Kelly believes Tznkai should have blocked in the original area of dispute.) If we regularly blocked for those sorts of comments, this page would be a ghost town. I think the real issue is that having come back from a multi-year break, Tznkai is out of tune with current community norms on civility. (See for an example of this not related to Kelly Proposed escalating civility rule on AE.) That is the reason the block should be overturned. Whether or not Tznkai is indeed non-neutral I hold no opinion on; I haven't been tracking his administrative activities in the mess in enough detail to have an opinion. GRBerry 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• This was a poorly placed block, by an admin who should have known better. "Do what I say in ten minutes or I'll block you" is not an appropriate posture for an administrator to assume. The comment in question was hardly even uncivil. To have been defrocked by Arbcom, FM must have been a spectacularly bad admin, and it’s not unreasonable for some people to be pleased by the outcome of the case. Perhaps his comment was tasteless or lacked tact, but it hardly rose to a blockable level. Kelly’s failure to kowtow to Tznkai’s asinine demands was the problem here. HiDrNick! 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agree with HiDrNick above. Threatening someone isn't a proper step to take for an admin. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling admins that address concerns raised by Kelly's behavior to be "ID cabalists", in a derogatory and pervasive manner are a personal attacks, and disruptive. Kelly should take the time of this block and reflect on the way he/she interacts with others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The ID cabalist comment (on Kelly's own talk page) wasn't what precipitated the block, at least according to the block log.--chaser - t 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment you reference was made two seconds before ([7] [8]) the block was placed, but thanks for playing. HiDrNick! 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock Tznkai was not an uninvolved admin by my view, the comment was not more egregious than a lot of other comments I see, and the usual warning and block process that is in practice appears not to have been followed. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, clarifying link to AN issue, q.v. User talk:Kelly#Notice Kylu (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) )

• endorse unblock Kelly's comment was out of line but so was Tznkai's threat and block. I think these two need to be separated but the block seems like it should be undone first, preferably by Tznkai. Ronnotel (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock What Ronnotel said. Way overreacting. There was a guy earlier today who called an editor a "mental case" and no action was taken. Comments on behavior are not personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock This unfortunately isn't a good block. The "ID" people may or may not be ganged up, or gang up in turn, but a comment strongly criticizing the admin actions of a desysopped admin aren't an attack. rootology (C)(T) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would say it was a horribly bad block, but I might get blocked for doing so. Giggy (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

By Tznkai, no less. HiDrNick! 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for one attofortnight for that display of gross incivility. It seems the block was too short to make it to the log, though. --Carnildo (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. An opinion about how well or poorly somebody has performed as an administrator is not a "personal attack". (Though it probably should be avoided in the name of civility when it comes right after the admin has been desysopped, when it's more "kicking him when he's down" than any sort of necessary criticism of somebody in the process of being judged.) *Dan T.* (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. The block should be lifted without further delay; Kelly less than deftly communicated her concerns, but Tznkai should have handled the situation very differently (a topic on which I will comment below, shortly).   user:j    (aka justen)   04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Ronnotel. Setting a time limit and the curt language used by Tznkai on Kelly's talk page seem to indicate a little more emotional distance was needed by the admin here. And Tznkai's approach was the one most likely to get Kelly to dig in his or her heals. I agree, Kelly's comment was not appropriate, and it was appropriate for Tznkai to find that offensive and to point it out (I think it was on the border of a personal attack, but certainly uncivil, and it was kicking someone when he's down -- really bad form.) I hope Kelly will -- please -- consider retracting it and help raise the level of civility around here. An unblock is in order, best done by Tznkai. It would be very impressive to see either editor back down. -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the unblock The comment by Kelly was overtly critical and shouldn't have been made at such a time, but blocking in this way is not the answer. Everyone should be given ample time and opportunity to withdraw a questionable comment. Hobartimus (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock and pursuant to this ArbCom decision the blocking admin should be sanctioned and admonished from using admin tools when not an uninvolved party. Bstone (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved?

Kelly and others have brought up concern that I'm too involved. So, as a matter of full disclosure, this is how involved I am: I intervened on the Political Positions of Sarah Palin edit war that was going on. Two of the belligerents were Jossi and Kelly. Kelly was reported for 3RR once, I declined based on lack of consensus, Kelly was reported again, I made a deal for Kelly to undergo a 24 hour topic ban instead of a 12 hour 3RR block. The third one I declined again, based on a belief that Kelly is a good faith editor, who did not fully understand WP:3RR. I made a notice on Kelly's talk page I will not decline another 3RR report on those grounds. Before the 24 hour topic block Kelly ignored repeated and cordial suggests that (s)he take a break. We were on friendly, neutral, and unaware terms, and I was fine with this. Since the topic ban, Kelly has declared she no longer accepts my administrator status vis a vis her. This is not me being to involved, but Kelly's refusal to play ball. In addition to the edit that I listed in the block log as an offense, Kelly has shown a pattern of dubious civility, specifically vis a vis Jossi, Killer Chihuahua and the so called "IdCabal." (diffs pending). As a matter of further disclosure, I believe use of term IDCabal is an attack, a destructive well poisoning uncivil attack that can only derail what cooperation exists in a dispute. As a matter of further disclosure, KC and I go way back, where we had a friendly relationship when we both edited the Abortion and ID pages, although you will see from her talk page archives, as well as AN's archives, we do not see eye to eye on a number of things.

I am well aware that we do not like "involved" administrators taking action. Thus, I preemptively listed this block for review in the block log. In other words, I rescind any rights, privileges or courtesies due to the acting administrator as to the overturning of the block, and I submit my own conduct to community review.--Tznkai (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I just got a chance to read some of the various comments, and its been mentioned that Kelly and I have been "going at it." This is nominally true, but I would point out, that my involvement with Kelly has been as an administrator only, and Kelly and my conflict, is one over user conduct and administrator conduct, not content disputes or anything else. As an administrator I am expected to handle user conduct. If there is a community consensus that the block was bad, so be it, and similarly if people believe my judgment is tainted by my absence or by the history of this administrative conduct.

Addendum2: On the subject of "threats" I issued a stern, plain text warning, and gave Kelly time to undo it, or rather time to declare his or her intent to comply or not. By that definition, we threaten vandals all the time, we threaten troublesome editors, we threaten people who disrupt the Wiki. The ten minute window was enough since Kelly was active, and is ten more minutes than a personal attack should exist: remember, these things should never be.--Tznkai (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Being involved means you do NOT take action to begin with, but that you refer it here for others who are uninvolved to take action. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts)I do not think I am involved, but I am aware that others may disagree, thus my actions. There is nothing I did that cannot be undone.--Tznkai (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people (including Kelly) might see Tznkai as being too biased to judge her actions, and I'm not sure about that. But I do think that, in regards to any 3rr violations, someone else could have taken a look at that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure if there was any recent disruption. Also, that link in her block log was essentially pointing to one wisecrack (un-wise; so be it), so if that was it, then that wouldn't look very good on the part of the blocking admin, in any case. ~ Troy (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

• The block is unfortunate, because I think this could have been resolved more amicably. I was at the point of leaving Kelly a polite request (not order) to reconsider his comment, on grounds that while FeloniousMonk was justifiably desysopped, it is still unseemly to dance on someone's metaphorical grave. In my (brief) experience interacting with Kelly, he responds reasonably to requests and antagonistically to demands, which is not all that unusual.
• Tznkai is not an "involved" admin, and that particular line of reasoning should probably be dropped forthwith. The idea that Tznkai is in cahoots with the "ID Cabal" against Kelly is ridiculous. If Tznkai was looking for excuses to block Kelly, he could have done it when I reported Kelly to WP:AN3 for 7RR a couple of weeks ago. There was ample technical justification for a block at that time. Instead, Tznkai worked it out without resorting to a block, and in retrospect I think he handled it well. That's not the action of an admin who's looking for an excuse to block someone.

So to sum up, I don't think an ultimatum and block was the best way to handle this. An unblock on those grounds would be reasonable. The "involved admin" stuff is a red herring. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If Tznkai's only "involvement" is handling a 3RR report, calling him/her involved is utterly silly. I looked at Tznkai's history briefly to confirm or deny the claim that he/she is an involved admin and there is this from three years ago, but that's a wiki-lifetime ago for most of us. I don't think "involved" is really an issue here. If the only justification for the block was calling FM a bad admin, then it's a bad block, but I don't see involvement as being a factor here. --B (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I said it above, that the "involved" concern is a red herring. I do think, however, that Tznkai would do well to change his behavior somewhat. In particular, we've learned through painful experience over the years that if user X reports allegedly improper behavior by user Y at page Z, it is necessary to investigate both user X in particular and the history of Z in general, because very often X has also been a problem and/or there are other problems at Z. Had Tznkai been doing this, it would have been the best evidence of neutrality... I recall some but not much of it on Tznkai's part with regards to the original underlying dispute. I've not seen any evidence that he actually looked at the screens of evidence related to the IDCabal mess, so I hold his opinion on that point in no respect - there is too much positive evidence of problematic behavior to brush the issue under the rug or consider the label an attack. The proper conclusion I'm less certain of, but it is a legitimate concern that in some cases is backed by excessive quantities of evidence. GRBerry 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every time I've seen an involved admin block someone, he was overruled quickly and the block was lifted. The blocking admin here admits to being somewhat involved, so he should save face and issue an unblock before someone else does, and then present his case and let another admin reblock, if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Poorly handled block, probably. But Kelly's behavior simply based on the claim that Tznkai was "involved" was poor. Claims for unblock need to be made from another angle. Grsz^talk 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:B. It's not a matter of "involvement"—admins here are only to abide by their responsibilities. It is a matter of handling all of the work, not being too involved. Also, Grsz11 is right in saying that the unblock reasons should be from a better perspective. ~ Troy (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC X 4) I don't see how Tznkai would be called an "involved" admin based on the information presented here. "Involved" is where there is a conflict of interest due to a non-administrative issue, typically a content dispute. Simply dealing with an editor's editing issues once does not preclude an administrator from doing it again. Difficult editors often sling accusations at those who oppose them, and perceive anything against their interest as evidence of partisanship. Not that Kelly is one, but that's the principle. If an administrator's impartiality were called into dispute every time they dealt with an editor it would open the door to boundless gaming of the system, and there wouldn't be any room for administrators to act against those who learn that trick. Kelly's block ought to be evaluated on its own merits in this case, not on Tznkai's motives, and Kelly's unblock should be based on whether Kelly is likely to cause any disruption during the 24 hour block period. Having said that, I think enough people have called Tznkai's impartiality into question, rightly or wrongly, that to keep the highest confidence in the system Tznkai should step back in the future from dealing with Kelly. That's all just my opinion for the most calm and reassuring resolution, not any basis in policy that I'm aware of. Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

I've gotten a request on my talk page... two actually to immediately unblock, but I'm unwilling to do that if I have to fight edit conflicts just to put up this section. Hopefully its reasonable if I wait for discussion to die down to a post per ten minutes?--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Better wording; The conversation is still taking form, and it won't hurt to wait a bit for everyone to say something.--Tznkai (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you block her for that one statement, or is there something that I'm missing? If your block was just for that statement, I strongly oppose the block, to the point where I would be willing to undo the block. However, I don't want to make a bad situation worse if there is something else here, especially since I have to get some sleep soon. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is consensus on your time schedule here? It's a bad block per consensus. It can be overturned by anyone per this consensus and your statements above... not to be rude, but one user can't tell everyone what to do. rootology (C)(T) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See my better wording above. I don't feel comfortable taking another action while the conversation is going on. Whether someone else does, is as I said, up to them and the community.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to J.delanoy: Basically, the root cause of the block was Kelly's statement. There was an aggravating factor when Tznkai had gone to Kelly's page and given them a deadline to remove the statement or be blocked. That led to personal attacks on Tnzkai by Kelly. Not well done really by either, but it's over and done with. Now we have to discuss and get consensus. I'd ask that NOONE unilaterally unblock.. we've been down that road enough times that it just won't help. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

An unblock now wouldn't be unilateral. There is overwhelming consensus to unblock. And Tznkai waved his usual rights etc. above. rootology (C)(T) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that is was a bad block regardless of who left it. Looking through the history of this for the past 5 minutes, I see a single questionable statement. We don't block someone for being rude once, and we especially don't deliver ultimatums over it. I think this was a bad block from the beginning, and I think consensus here clearly shows that the block needs to be overturned. I will boldly be overturning it now, if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Another admin, declining the unblock request, said there was "wide consensus" supporting the block. Where? [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I meant. Lets make sure we know where we're going before we attempt to get there... *facepalm* SirFozzie (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Let's remember that Wikipedia's WP:BLOCKING POLICY is not to be confused with WP:BANNING POLICY. Blocks are only to discontinue disruption—NOT for punishing users. That's what bans are for, and this certainly didn't call for one. ~ Troy (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put my comment in this multi-level comment extravaganza (my fault, I know), my issue with Kelly's comment on AN was as much the "and thank God he's finally been desysopped" comment as anything else. "Thank god you're finally gone/dead/fired/reduced in pay/fill in negative event here" sounds like an attack to me.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I said "Sorry I asked"?

I really, really, really had no idea this would be the result. All I did was notice that one of the findings of fact (a very minor one) made in the arbcom case seems not to have been true. I wasn't sure if I was misreading the logs or looking at the wrong ones or what. So, I asked. Since I seem to have started all this, I might as well weigh in. Kelly's posts [10] [11] looked a lot more like an attempt to start some kind of trouble than to help find an answer to what I thought was a reasonable, if minor, question. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly useful to give ultimatums. It looks like Tznkai was double-dog-daring Kelly not to retract her statement, which seems unlikely to produce a desirable result. By the way, if anyone actually knows the answer to my question at WP:AN I'd still be interested. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I don't recall ever seeing an admin issue a "do it in XX minutes or else" kind of statement. Until today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

By Chaser. rootology (C)(T) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

She's been unblocked. Can we mark this as resolved and put a close box on it before MORE feelings get unneccessarily hurt??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold off. There was something of an irregularity in the unblocking. See User_talk:Od_Mishehu#AN.2FI_thread.--chaser - t 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is what we get after. Ya, good unblock. Grsz^talk 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And now she's got more reason to be blocked after the unblock. Grsz^talk 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Why were they unblocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have proposed a topic ban from community discussions for a specified period of time, but apparently that behavior is being endorsed by certain admins (when they signalled their want for an unblock, above). I don't know if it's because those particular admins don't understand the problematic nature of those comments, or because they don't see that it's been a big problem on previous noticeboard discussions. Allowing it to continue without any change is just a drama invitation for the future. My 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock per continued incivility and attacks, such as [12], [13], and [14]. Grsz^talk 04:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, it's not considered a problem when established editors bait and or insult an admin who "does them wrong" directly after said incident; it's referred to as "blowing off steam." Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, isn't "blowing off steam" an example of entropy? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, running around in circles is not going to help anything or 'anyone'. Lets use some common sense here and give it a little while before we take any more administrative actions. I think everyone needs to step away from the keyboard for a bit and really have a think as to what to do now, but please no more heat of the moment actions. Tiptoety ^talk 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Halt. Noone blocks or unblocks until I blow this whistle, ok?

Sorry to have to resort to the Python reference, but this is getting even more massively and utterly ridiculous. Let's not ride the block/unblock rollercoaster. Kelly has stated that they're taking a bit of time off, and when they come back, will avoid the area. If they keep to that, I think we're done here. Let's unplug the drama sign for the night, we've had enough of that tonight, right? SirFozzie (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say what you just said, only less eloquently. :) Everyone is pushing Kelly's buttons now. It's getting late, and maybe everyone's tired and irritated. Everyone should just cool it for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we seriously put a close block around this whole thread?!? There is nothing more positive to gain by it at all, and this all goes away as soon as everyone stops. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be called closing the discussion. I am also happy to start a new one on a different subject, if that would take anyone's mind off things. Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey

We've got User:Jossi, an admin, going to Kelly's page and taunting, baiting. [15] This is not appropriate behavior by an admin. They should confine their adversarial relationship to the Sarah Palin pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides need to stop the sniping. Let's let the embers die out, not blow on them and see if we can build a new fire out of the ashes out of the old one SirFozzie (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus, as the French might say, let's write Phoenix to this whole thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A general comment

OK, I have nothing more to say about this specific situation, but I do think there is an important general point here. I'm disappointed at how quickly people swallow and regurgitate the assertion that an admin is "involved". Look at the above thread again. How many diffs are provided to support the idea that Tznkai was an "involved admin"? I'm counting zero. I wouldn't make a fuss, but it's hardly the first time this has happened. It's a recurring theme that someone says "involved admin!" and the assertion is accepted at face value. Please, folks, do the legwork before accepting this kind of assertion. FWIW, I endorse the unblock, the closure of the discussion, and cups of tea all around. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As a matter of routine the community should demand diffs to accompany all accusations of misconduct, admin or otherwise. Less heat, more light please. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is highly unlikely that MastCell has reviewed every interaction between Kelly and Tznkai before deciding that "people swallow and regurgitate the assertion" that Tznkai was involved. Kelly has been openly critical of Tznkai since Tznkai's return and acting on Palin-related issues. That in itself creates the perception of overinvolvement in this block, in my opinion.

From Kelly's talk:

Go away, Tznkai. Kelly hi! 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, enough. Kelly hi! 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is already above, and on the 3RR page. Do you really want a dramafest? Now go away, please. Kelly hi! 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC) [16]

...I understand you have a problem with me for some reason, but if you want to pursue it, then seek dispute resolution. In the meantime, please depart from my talk page. Kelly hi! 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Tznkai's actions on that article have been somewhat incompetent overall, I think. Kelly hi! 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [17]

I know admins like to defend admins, but surely no one can think there is no perception of involvement possible here. 86.44.18.125 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a simple matter of fairness. We can run a website based on rumor and innuendo or we can base our decisions upon evidence. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Err yes, so best not use language like MastCell's to suggest that no such perception reasonably existed. Ask for diffs, by all means. 86.44.18.125 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless we've gone through the looking glass, it's incumbent upon people alleging "involvement" to supply evidence. Accusations require proof, not disproof. If you read my above post again, that's all I'm asking. I'm familiar with the quotes you cite; however, targets of administrative action often disagree with those actions, and that alone does not constitute "involvement". MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize you've been in dispute with Kelly yourself, and I would say your perception is skewed. I read your post correctly, and surely you know it. It suggests that people were duped (by Kelly) and parroting something based on nothing. I think that is a questionable conclusion. One could just as easily say people were stating what they saw as the obvious.

If one uses one's admin status to unnecessarily return again and again in quick succession to a talk page on which one has been told one is not welcome, that is unhealthy, if one returns less than a week later with more "counsel", that is more questionable still, and if the week after that one makes everyone's favorite eye-of-the-beholder judgment-call block, that starts to look a bit like the sort of selective petty thuggery that has contributed to our civility policy being in such disrepute. Were I Kelly, I too would be wondering why I was such a hobby for one admin. If you don't consider it unusual to return seven times to an established user's talk page after one has been asked to stay off (with the user even pointing you to dispute resolution), then block the user in question soon after, then I must be a naif.

Tznkai has said on your talkpage that civility to admins and IDCabal "nonsense" were factors in his/her block. What admins, jossi, KC and himself? And if Tznkai was not around for the ID wikiproject in its fullest flower, is his perception of the "cabal" stuff not formed with regard to himself/herself and his/her wikifriend alone? Was there not a recent thread about Kelly launched by KC?

I think Tznkai should consider the possibility that there is indeed something to the idea that in the past the most active members of the ID wikiproject next to never chided each other for excesses, preferring, if they acted at all, to act in concert, aggressively, to support, reinforce, defend and sustain behaviour that some found problematic (alleged concerns about civility, rejecting input, tendentiousness, edit-warring, sourcing, BLP, undue weight, canvassing, blocking, and so on). KC and souza, two decent editors, in my view, and affable members of the project, seem entirely blind to any validity such concerns may have had. I certainly do not wish to stoke the embers of the so-called "cabal" issue, but nor do I think that judgment-call civility blocks by old ID wikifriends are the way to go. And nor do I think there is anything wacky about the perception of involvement. It's Tznkai's job to go out of his/her way to avoid such a perception, is it not?

Tznkai seems an intelligent, good faith sort, but is experiencing some disconnect. There are 1,500 or so active admins now, and some of them are complete muppets. You don't get respect merely by having the power to block anymore, if you ever did. If an editor is unimpressed with you, only the compassionate or sycophantic will not let you know. If a reasonable editor does not want you around, there are more than enough to take over. 86.44.30.186 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To the IP: two separate hurdles remain:

1. Suppose an unsupported assertion is true. A lack of evidence makes it harder to determine that it is true. Our default position is assuming good faith. So if someone asserts that Wikipedian X did something wrong--whether editor or administrator--the person who's making the claim is obligated to back it up.
2. Diffs of protests from an editor whose behavior is under scrutiny does not constitute evidence that an admin acted improperly. Many editors raise false complaints. Instead, show diffs of behavior that merits complaint.

Note that neither of these points addresses the claim that admins habitually defend each other regardless of merit. IMO that assertion is a prime example of WP:ABF and needs no rebuttal, since it is asserted without evidence. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I never intended to make that claim, but instead to suggest that admins are uniquely positioned to understand and sympathize with admin positions, and that a defensive, or even wikipolitic, bias is often detectable. I wouldn't get hung up on it; at least, I don't consider it a controversial or damning statement. Let's not talk about bad faith.

I accept your first point, and the request in your second has been met to my satisfaction, if not to yours. The diffs are to discussions, I trust you have read them carefully, and I have commented on what is problematic about that in the context of the block. But that's just my view. We're probably done here. 86.44.21.125 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves me at all (it has been over two years), Tznkai and FM disagreed more than they agreed on the ID pages. Not hostile fights, no serious bad blood, and it was over two years ago. But suggesting that they were in some way allies? Weird. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More noise on this from Ta bu shi da yu

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

---

All editors have voiced their opinions. No admin action required. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. Eight hours later, he's shown up to bait Kelly on the talk page. Can someone please remind him of things like AGF and to not poke people with sticks? rootology (C)(T) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The most effective response to baiting is to ignore it. I think that's what Kelly is doing. Let's break the cycle. Tbsdy is a grown-up, and can express his legitimate concerns less sarcastically and more effectively. Kelly is a grownup, and can ignore comments he perceives as baiting. The most constructive role we (the peanut gallery) can play at this point is probably to help everyone relax and move on. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please say something to him? Multiple editors have asked him to leave Kelly's talk page alone, but he's now "dueling" multiple users there over his right to criticize Kelly. It's moving into the realm of trolling now. rootology (C)(T) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy tried to post this comment here [18] which got rubbed out somehow, apparently by another editor trying to fix a server problem. In any case, it looks as if he wanted to pick a fight with Kelly, and is annoyed that others were watching that page for the very purpose of trying to avoid another fight breaking out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy, being an experienced editor, certainly knows that editors monitor each others' pages and contributions routinely, usually for friendly reasons and/or to try to keep them out of trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll get an edit submitted some time soon now.

Wow, way to go Bugs, assume good faith and all. As I stated before, I made one comment expressing my disgust at Kelly, then a lot of editors came on board. Way to go! One person said, look, not a good idea to keep this going, I just said I stood by my comment and it escalated from there. In the meantime, I notice that Kelly gets away with incivility yet again. Awesome. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It started with you making the sarcastic, baiting comment on Kelly's talk page, so don't try to blame others who told you you were out of line doing so. We can only go by what you wrote, which I and several others saw as baiting or attempting to (re-)start a fight. Your proper course of action would have been to come here and protest the unblock, rather than going to her talk page and trying to start something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel I'm out of line. And my comment had nothing to do with blocks or unblocks. I merely said that I found her edit to be rather unpleasant. Where are you getting blocking from in my initial statement? I personally wouldn't have blocked her, but as I've said to a few people I fully understand why the admin did so. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be telling me what to feel. And if you don't want Kelly re-blocked, why even bring all this up? Your initial sarcastic comment on the talk page could be interpreted in two ways: (1) a friendly caution from a friend; or (2) a sarcastic, baiting comment, hoping to evoke a sarcastic or angry response. Since you complained about Kelly getting away with incivility again, that rules out item (1). So if you're not seeking administrative action, the only conclusion to draw from all this is that you're trying to start something, over a case that was closed 8 hours before you jumped into it. And others are telling you to stop trying to start something. Do yourself a favor, and take their advice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in my last comment did I ask you what to feel. I'm somewhat confused why you say this. I said that I don't feel I'm out of line. You really are reading into my comments to Kelly a little. Sure, it was sarcastic. I could have phrased it better, I'll concede the point. But to say that was making a baiting comment is actually not assuming good faith. Kelly is a sarcastic, immoderate, rude, divisive and plain nasty editor - and we have the diffs to prove it. Over the course of a number of years, I've watched her do the same thing over and over again. So you'll have to excuse me for adding a comment that was a little sarcastic. The admin was fully justified in blocking her. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you two are done stoking the embers. Can we close this now? —kurykh 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violations by LamyQ

LamyQ (talk) has uploaded several copyrighted images and these have been speedily deleted, but now he is re-uploading them. He has been warned after each violation on his talk page. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of those who aren't spending a ridiculous number of hours on this (and thank you, btw, Uncia): LamyQ (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is almost definitely a sock of PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If he's blocked, he'll just show up again next week with a new account.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, there's more past history at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Repeated_copyright_violations_by_Dowhatyoudo and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Image_copyvio_uploads_and_socks. This guy just keeps on coming back. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since our last posting here, LamyQ (talk · contribs) has reuploaded a previously-deleted copyvio image (5th time for this image), another of his uploads has been determined to be copyvio, and he deleted the speedy deletion tag on that image. He has been warned on each violation. Any chance for speedy action? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that blue box above is distracting people from this thread. If there's still no reply after a while, you might want to put this entire thread at the bottom of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Impolite communication

A notification.
User:Texcarson wrote in summary "deleting idiot's vandalism"[19] as a comment of my tagging as "suspicious sockpuppet".
He later gave some explanations [20] and [21].
However, calling someone as "idiot" and his contribution as "vandalism" just like that is not the appropriate way of communication. He's long enough on Wikipedia, he's supposed to know the rule WP:CIVIL. Kubura (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any need for admin intervention here. He explained his reasoning (even though he did not apologize) and has not done further personal attacks, has he? WP:NPA tells us to seek dispute resolution in such cases first, maybe reporting the user to the Wikiquette Alerts but posting here is quite unnecessary imho. There is nothing an admin can do that you or any other editor cannot do, i.e. tell the user that such attacks should be avoided. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, tagging an active user as a sockpuppet of a banned user is not exactly an uncontroversial act in itself. I see nothing here needing action absent further escalation of the issue by either side. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And those of us who patrol WQA could have looked :) However, you accuse me of being a sock without any good proof, I might just call you an idiot as well, but I'll do it in French instead BMW(drive) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe the french word for idiot is... idiot. Pronounced differently, though. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the beginning, "a notification". Insulting others shouldn't remain unnoticed. I've wanted to draw admin's attention to this.
Although he hasn't continued with this, he hasn't apologised. Still, one cannot spit in the face and then lick that, thinking that he'll get away with that. Act of perpetrated spitting remains.
I've been tagged as suspicious sockpuppet few times, few times RFCU was filed with me as suspected user, but I've never used rude words against those who tagged me or started RFCU.
I've been present on en.wiki since June 2005, and I've always been choosing my words carefully.
That rule (WP:CIVIL) applies for the others also. I haven't came on en.wiki to suffer insults.
I don't want to tolerate such behaviour. Have in mind that verbal molesting usually starts with "small" steps, and the insulter always slowly pushes the borders even further (as the insulter is encouraged with non-acting of those who are supposed to sanction that). Kubura (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as stated, the Dispute Resolution process has Step 1: deal with it directly with the editor 1-on-1. If that doesn't work, go to Step 2: file a civility report on WP:WQA. Step 3 (if necessary) is either RfC or AN/I. Please don't skip steps when the "level" is where it is right now. BMW(drive) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm again

I'd like addition eyes on a situation that seems to be growing out of hand. Bogorm (talk · contribs) seems to think the best defence is a good offence. He or she has lashed out at both me and Tiptoety (talk · contribs) more than once. This sockpuppet report seems to capture most of it, rather than posting dozens of diffs which I don't quite have time to pull together right now. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say continue the SSP and grab an uninvolved admin when ready. I'll note the RFCU does not rule out the possibility of socks, just that proxies may have been used, so continued investigation is appropriate. If he keeps up the attacks, try and ignore them, he clearly is warned by this point and will be blocked if they continue. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Toddst1) The diff is a reliable manner of demonstration - the beginning of Toddst1's biased attitude towards me was here, where I presented evidence disproving the soundness of my blocking, whose proponent just handpicked 8 accidential edits of mine from one article and presented them as "reverts". User:Toddst1 decided to blank it in lieu of investigating it and even to block me for daring to refute 5 "reverts" as counterfeit. Probably some more zealous admin would investigate it, it does not take time at all, the 5 refuting diffs are in the last link above.
Following this, he accuses me of having a sockpuppet, although I made an edit from the Balcan peninsula at 21:27 UTC, 9 Sep, and at 21:34 UTC some editor from San Jose, an impostor of mine, deliberately edited his talk page. Evidence for the whereabouts is to be found here in the "contra-evidence" section. The CheckUser decided that it is inconclusive, id est, no connection to be proven, and he still maintains the Template:Sockpuppeteer on my user page, and he even provides it with the parameter "evidence", which is allowed in the template's documentation only for conclusive, affirmative outcome. Yes, sequence of actions violently disregarding WP:AGF presents en effet and undeniably an incident. Bogorm (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an editor from Bulgaria, the IP-impostor is an editor from California. My IP-address is static. Sapienti pauca. Bogorm (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an example of this 'lashing out' and I can't. Edit summaries?Yeago (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC) UTC)

I am grateful to you for you cherishing WP:AGF, you are the first admin whom I encountered and who showed such an attitude. Since I am trying to combat deletionism I would like to recollect my report on deliberate obliterations of certain sources (Toddst1 disparaged it as "frivolous" when it is providing any nevessary evidence of single-purpose deletionist actions) - at first this user was reported to have blanked ( 10 times !) large sections of information regarding Chechnya and South Ossetia simply because the sources are Russian (he deletes even scientifical books and numbers quoted from them !) His edits are only in this topic and are far from impartiality. This edit of his is in direct relationship to your term "Article hen" - he obliterates sources from Ukraine, USA, Russia and Israel and even admits that he has no knowledge of the Russian language (demonstration in the first diff) and has not asked any knowledgeable person - this is an instringent and disruptive deletionism, please take the case in consideration. I hope I am not the sole editor who is indignant about people with no knowledge of the source language but are zealous and intransigent in light-mindedly erasing whole sections (reckless deletionism). Bogorm (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia and as such I don't think your complaints about his not knowing the language apply. As for me, I am not an admin. I think you are confused--you gave a link to 'his edit' but the link went to one of your own edits.Yeago (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, the diff has been redressed. The previous one showed the refutation of his 3RR claim, while copying I must have duplicated it inadvertently. Bogorm (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Big problem

Hi! I do not know how to deal with this but i think we should message the person... What do you think? abf /talk to me/ 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know how to deal with normal vandalism, but I belive we should not ignore an IP telling he wants to kill someone. What do you think? abf /talk to me/ 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo Tiptoety - revert them the first (and maybe second) time, then block them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to over-react to what is obviously childish vandalism. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP looks to be a home broadband one, so it's likely a student. Even though it's childish vandalism, I'd suggest someone across the pond call the school or the ISP and let them know. If nobody wants to call, I'll e-mail them myself. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone deems it necessary, there is a procedure for dealing with these sorts of incidents: Report it to ARBCOM or OTRS. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those procedures are for instances where you are being harrassed. Not where you've come across a threat against someone named in an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In this instance it seems very much to be childish vandalism and not worth making a fuss over. The key word here is "want" - that is not a specific intent to cause harm or violence. RBI as above. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being controversial, people, how many of you have children? I mean "I hate X, I want to kill him!" is absolutely and completely meaningless in the speech of any school-age child. It is simply an expression of rage and frustration, and can and should be ignored completely. Over-reacting to such things might give an illusion of being good citizens, but you will do the individual a much greater service by simply reverting and ignoring such foolishness. Imagine what happens if they ask in assembly who wrote on Wikipedia that they wanted to kill the teacher. You want to be in assembly as everyone looks at the floor and shuffles their feet? We should reserve action for credible threats, lest we cry wolf once too often. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK but I think things like this are taken quite seriously in the US where they've had more school shootings etc. A pupil saying that on internets would probably be interviewed by a teacher to assess what level of risk he is at least. In reality, we can't see possible visual cues in text on the internet that would show whether an individual seems capable of something like that. Sticky Parkin 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, as he just says 'want to', not 'going to', maybe RBI unless there's a next time. Sticky Parkin 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not specific enough for me to be overly worried. I think a note send to the school with a link for the diff is good. If it was specific then I would be more worried. Bstone (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always hard to tell. I had to deal with something like this once, because I own a domain in ".com" which is the same as that of a British boarding school in ".co.uk". So I'd get misaddressed e-mail now and then. I once got one sent to a student that said "I am going to kill you tonight". I called up the school, got through to some official who knew the kid, and they told me it was an 11-year old mouthing off. Some kid was chewed out. In the US, a SWAT team would have been dispatched. File an ORTS ticket, as is policy for suicide notes; someone from Wikipedia's staff will make the call. --John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Any updates here? Has anyone contacted anyone? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightmouse

Please note that although there is a long discussion above concerning Lightbot, and several people have asked for input from Lightmouse about the behavior of his bot, that Lightmouse (talk · contribs) continues to edit, but is apparently refusing to discuss his bot. He has not restarted the bot, however, though he continues to test it in his sandbox, but isn't addressing people's concerns. Corvus cornix_talk 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest a WP:RFC/BOT would be the best way to address a persistent behavior issue with the operation of a bot? MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't restart the bot without discussing it, I don't think there's a problem. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RFC would be a very good idea. I have grave concerns about Lightbot, not just in its behaviour with respect to linked dates, but also its past behaviour with {{convert}} and various other unit-related things, and more seriously the fact that Lightmouse seems unwilling to discuss the actions of the bot, and often removes good-faith 'stop' notices on Lightbot's talk page without comment. Edits by a bot should be restricted to things that do not require human intelligence to determine whether the edit is appropriate: just because there is consensus that, say, many linked years are inappropriate does not mean that all are, and so it does not make an appropriate thing for a bot to edit. Also, on a more technical note, I think Lightbot's seeming approach to editing is flawed. Basically, straightforward regex-based edits with little context are error-prone. This came to a head on 1 Aug when Lightbot was blocked for this reason. I didn't think User:Hesperia's explanation was particularly accessible, but I fully agree with it nevertheless. His point, effectively, is that if 90-something % of a bots edits are good, that isn't good enough. Because of the huge number of edits a bot can make in a small length of time, it is necessary to be sure that virtually all of the edits will be good, and we should be very strict about enforcing that. I fundamentally don't agree that a bot with as broad terms as Lightbot's should ever be permitted: we need to retain closer scrutiny. — ras52 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an RFC. I just think that we should wait to hear his response (or non-response as the case may be) before starting one. I have to say, though, that I find these responses somewhat troubling [22] [23], where users point out a specific class of errors that this bot is making, and the respose is basically a shrug. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you got your diffs mixed up? Neither shows a "troubling" response from Lightmouse. Steve ^{T • C} 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Both diffs indicate an anknowledgement of a systematic error with the bot and no intent to fix it before running the bot again. That's troubling to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The second diff is a response to a question about adding functionality to LM's monobook script. Not a complaint, and not an error as such. Oh, and not the bot :) Lightmouse's response in the first diff is a declaration of intent to look for a fix for an error. In the meantime, the specific functionality that caused it appears to have been disabled. Steve ^{T • C} 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like we must be reading different talk pages, or something. While I certainly could be wrong, the first diff indicates that he stopped the bot from doing one specific change, but it will continue to make other edits to text in quotes, categories, etc. where such changes are not appropriate. So, it won't affect this one specific category anymore, but anything else is open to errors. The second diff, the user is asking for additional fuctionality to correct errors made by the bot. You're right about the second diff. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a beatup. Orderinchaos 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what that means, but I assure you that my concerns are genuine. A response by this editor would go a long way, I think, towards putting those concerns aside, but it really does seem like he's refusing to discuss the issue. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment; Good to see this Bot finally brought to task; I was beginning to wonder if it was just me could see what it was doing. If the Bot was a regular editor it would have got a permanent ban by now for massive repeated indiscriminate vandalism. Surely every Bot should have a "STOP" button? This one didn't unless you were an Admin and the reaction time of the Admin Community to this was pathetic. Can we make the owner of this Bot do some "community service" and undo all the damage on hundreds of pages, or must they be done manually by those of us who watched powerlessly as the Admins fiddled and the Bot burned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what damage it did. Its edits appeared *frequently* on my watchlist, and I did check them, but they all seemed reasonable. Orderinchaos 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems to have been created with incomplete consideration of the possible inputs, and a bias towards the day month year format. Until the last 24 hours or so, when converting a date such as [[January 1]] [[2008]] to the month day year format, the result would be "January 1 2008" without a comma after the "1". A number of articles were converted to the day month year format when the month day year format should have been used (that is, articles cleary connected to the U.S.) A number of problems have occurred with dates containing BC or BCE. So if all of the articles on your watchlist are about modern subjects that either have no location, or are located in the British Isles, you probably would not have noticed any problem. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Australia actually, so yeah. I'll see if I can have a talk to the user concerned. Orderinchaos 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63

Mtngoat63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), fresh off a block for 3RR (actually 6RR - see discussion above), returns to the article to begin revert warring[24][25] and uncivil rants.[26] Has been warned plenty of times, and calmly offered advice on learning Wikipedia's content and behavior policies (see his talk page, for instance). Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The incivility of this editor got under my skin enough that, for the very first time, I committed a 3RR violation myself and was briefly blocked for it. Mtngoat63 has not, as of yet, engaged in a single discussion over the contentious material s/he has been edit-warring over, despite repeated -- nay, continuous -- efforts to engage with the editor. I am beginning to wonder whether Wikipedia has been subjected to one of the long-term abusers, such as Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. --GoodDamon 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor has reverted a third time.[27] GoodDamon reports that the citation links are copyvios. I'm proposing to restore stable neutral article content (this would be my 2RR today). Anyone, please feel free to tell me no or jump in. All attempts to communicate or reach consensus failed at this point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't catch them earlier. One of them is a pure C&P of text written by Barack Obama, stored on someone's non-reliable (and presumably non-permitted) website. The others I removed are literally scanned pages of books, stored at a free image hosting website. I cannot comprehend what would lead someone to believe those would be suitable and permissible uses of copyrighted works. --GoodDamon 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the short Obama paragraph being taken out when the Hillary Clinton paragraph just above it is left in? Saul Alinsky influenced Barack Obama, didn't he? That's what all the sources that mention both of them indicate. Seems like important information for the Alinsky article and, in fact, it's the kind of information on influences that would typically be in a Wikipedia article. How is your edit warring on this any different from POV pushing? I've read the discussion at Talk:Saul Alinsky#Contentious paragraph re-added without discussion and the discussion doesn't address why you wouldn't want an adequate mention of Alinsky's influence on the Democratic candidate for president. Because neither of you adequately address this point, it's pretty damn obvious why an editor would be increasingly upset. You POV push for obviously bogus reasons (trying to protect Barack Obama from criticism that might come from being more closely associated with the radical Alinsky) until someone gets so upset that a behavioral violation results, and Wikidemon immediately files a report at AN/I. I call it the "Wikidemon Method". See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible WP:CANVASSING at Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Weatherman WP:RfC for a similar application of the Wikidemon Method. A non-POV-pushing way of doing this would be to find acceptable language, acceptably sourced, that mentions Alinsky's influence on Obama. This is part of a POV-pushing campaign that goes from article to article, battling to scrub each one of anything that might be inconvenient for the Obama campaign. It's on Obama-related articles, it's going on at Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Weatherman (organization). It's often got the same editors involved. Vague allusions to Wikipedia policy are made, evidently for the sake of apearances, because no specifics are mentioned. "Reasoning" that is utterly bogus on its face is proffered: GoodDamon saying that it is forbidden for Wikipedia to link to some web page on which GoodDamon alleges that there's a copyright violation. Where is that prohibition in Wikipedia policy? The POV-pushing pattern is clear. -- Noroton (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please strike the above comment? It's really unwarranted - Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong about linking to a copyvio web page, as GoodDamon pointed out to me at Talk:Saul Alinsky, so I've crossed out that part. See how it's done, guys? You actually pay attention to the facts and when you're wrong, you admit it. Because the facts are more important than your personal preferences. Too bad you didn't follow that practice at Saul Alinsky, where you first claimed that you were removing a paragraph about Obama because it was poorly sourced and improbable. It turns out, the Wikipedia old hands didn't have a clue and the newbie they roughed up knew just what he was talking about. Pathetic. See Talk:Saul Alinsky#Contentious paragraph re-added without discussion. But for the shameful treatment, go through the short, sad history of Mtngoat63's talk page and his discussions at Talk:Saul Alinsky. Ugh. -- Noroton (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Good job on recognizing clear violations of policy, but... what? Looking back on those earlier edits, Mtngoat63 was first trying to get the paragraph in with laughably awful sources including copyright violations and a creationist blog (the "dancingfromgenesis" one), and refused to even acknowledge that other editors might have a problem with that. I literally "begged" the editor to take the content dispute to the talk page, and simply got insults for it. Let me be blunt: Ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is mever a valid excuse for personal attacks, especially on editors who are trying to help. --GoodDamon 06:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in question... oh, wait, you're bringing up Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn here? Why? Well, anyway, as near as I can tell, Barack Obama never met Alinsky, so any information about the influence of Alinsky's writings on Obama actually belongs somewhere in the Obama family of articles, not in Alinsky's biography. But as Alinsky and Hillary Clinton did meet, that may merit a mention. So, as for the rest of what you wrote... Can you remind me what it has to do with this incident? --GoodDamon 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment - Mtngoat63 has continued to edit the article Saul Alinsky, with the apparent intention of turning the article into a list of supposed Alinsky followers, with a particular emphasis on Barack Obama. See here for a diff comparing the article prior to this editor's changes and after those changes. The editor is no longer sourcing those edits to copyright-violating links, but is now almost solely reliant on one opinion piece appearing in the Washington Post. Saul Alinsky is a notable political figure, and there is a lot more biographical information available from many reliable sources. But at this point, I am firmly convinced Mtngoat63 is only interested in turning the article into a coatrack for guilt-by-association listings of other political figures, several of which, like Obama, never seem to have met the man (at least, not from what I can tell with five minutes on the Google). The editor has made no effort to expand the article's biographical content. --GoodDamon 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Will an administrator please take some notice of this? There is now an anonymous editor defending the continued coatrack editing of Mtngoat63, and I strongly suspect the anonymous editor is a sock of another editor based on edit summaries. --GoodDamon 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an issue for dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The editor in question has been abusive and antagonistic to the point where I don't think this can accurately be described as a content dispute. Nevertheless, if that is your determination, I'll open a new report there. --GoodDamon 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have some assistance with this editor? Continuing to revert war over poor content.[28] That's the 9th revert of this material in 3 days by the same editor, [[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]][[ [[33]][[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]] and about 13 in a week, fresh out of a block for 6RR on the same content in another article, accompanied by ongoing vituperation and suspected IP sock behavior ([[38]]). There is utterly no sign of acknowledging policy, working with other editors, etc.[39][40] I would rate the chance of this working out without administrative intervention at about zero. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...okay, the editor just violated 3RR again so I filed another report there. Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• As an alternative to kicking a new editor in the teeth, repeatedly, as a way of welcoming that editor to Wikipedia, and filing complaints at 3RR/N, the Sockpuppet noticeboard and here, I've left a friendly, courteous note on the editors page, at User talk:Mtngoat63#Some unsolicited advice (diff here [41]). Please watch, give it a chance and maybe it will have some positive results. Obviously, if disruption continues, it didn't work. I've posted a similar note at 3RR/N and the Sockpuppet noticeboard. I should have done this earlier. -- Noroton (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If it works I'm all for it! This report is stale now anyway. Don't forget to be nice to established editors, too :) Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Deviljin60 self-identifies as a militant and refuses to clarify

I am more than a little concerned by Deviljin60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who recently described themselves as 'a pakistani militant' in an edit summary [42] and then deleted a talk page request to explain or clarify [43] .

He's been editing in a somewhat but not seriously disruptive manner, however the "I'm a militant" claim raises a whole bunch of other potential problems. It's generally rude to put a deleted question or comment back on someone's talk page. However, if this is a (violent terrorist type) militant, then I think that we probably would want to politely show him the door.

SO...

1. Ask again, and if he deletes again or fails to clarify block?
2. Ask again, but don't block even if he turns out to be a (violent terrorist type) militant?
3. Ask again, but don't block even if he just deletes the question again?
4. Someone else do the asking?
5. Don't worry about it?

Other options and input welcome as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. ThuranX (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1, but only to coerce him into answering the question. --erachima talk 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

5, I find the claim to be highly dubious. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly not 1, as users are usually allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages, and simply not answering a question is not grounds for blocking (how would it be preventative?). Even if this user comes out and says s/he's a terrorist, I'm not sure how justified a block would be unless their edits are disruptive. I would say 3, 4, or 5. -kotra (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say do nothing about the "militant" statement. I could say I'm Osama Bin Laden, but if I don't provide third party verifiable sources for any information I include in an article, I should be reverted. And if I continue to ignore any warning to provide such WP:V, then block away. Militants may have something to add just like anyone else, as long as they are not disruptive and don't ignore WP policies and guidelines.--«JavierMC»|Talk 00:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that if you say you're Osama Bin Laden, someone would at least run a checkuser. :-) Hesperian 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That $20 million reward is tempting huh? :)~ --«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, JavierMC's course of action would be the sensible one. Alternatively, we could block him along with other militants on the project, such as anybody with this on their userpage. I thought we (used to?) at least pretend around here that U.S. foreign policy doesn't determine Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "militant" ≠ "terrorist", folks. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter is whether he is a constructive editor or not. What difference his "militancy" if he does not carry on here with it, in either his editing or in using Wikipedia to promote an off-Wiki agenda. Dlohcierekim 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

3, 4, or 5. If its not showing in his editing, no big deal. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. If you take a look at the history of his user page, you'll see that his command of English isn't very good. He's probably in the Pakistani Army. I once had a conversation with a fellow from Spain who repeatedly told me that he used to be a "militar", while he did a little pantomime of marching. It didn't take me long to figure out that what he had been was a soldier. The answer is obviously 5--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still a polemic in violation of WP:USER. How does his identifying as a militant help the encyclopedia, with such obvious examples of how it hurts it? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're in violation of WP:AGF. Bear in mind firstly, militant does not mean terrorist. Secondly, remember he's editing in good faith, and not causing any trouble. Thirdly, be aware he isn't a native English speaker, and "militant" to him may mean "soldier", "military man", or even "military fan". fish&karate 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the user's edits. He's been updating articles with technical details of Pakistani military equipment. He's added things like Its armor can withstand more than 10 RPG's(Rocket propelled grenades). to Al Khalid II Main Battle Tank[44]. This editor is either a soldier or a military buff. Quit worrying. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF would suggest that one give the user the benefit of the doubt on that question, but that doesn't mean we have to wilfully ignore what they wrote in particular. Which is why I first asked on his talk page, and then when that was deleted by him without answering I came here. What I asked them included that exact question - whether they were what is known in US english as a military buff, explaining how "militant" is used in normal english. Rather than actually answering the question, they just deleted it.

I can continue to AGF, but it's a worrysome enough possibility that I think it's worth following up, hence the post here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please, please, do not take any action that would make the city of Boston look sage and cautious by comparison. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: Every minute he's on wikipedia is a minute he's not out trying to kill somebody. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So we want to block a constructive editor because . . . ?[ If he were a terrorist, he'd hardly announce here, would he? This is a bit preposterous. And certainly, if anyone linked to terrorism were editing here, wouldn't the CIA be unto them? This is one of the busiest websites on the Internet. Anyone who doesn't think CIA monitors activity here is probably pretty naive. And I'm sure they would figure out who and where someone was faster than you could say "WhoIs"? Dlohcierekim 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See intro - user is somewhat disruptive, but AGF'ing indicates it's just new user unfamiliar with Wikipedia ways. They have been resistant to repeated polite requests to change, so far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dancersrock9211 blocked for legal threats

• [here.]

Dancersrock9211 (talk · contribs) has been making poorly considered edits to talk pages, and seems to feel she has a Constitutional right to do so. She continued to edit unconstructively after being warned/asked not to. If anyone feels I have been overly zealous, please feel free to unblock or lessen the block. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support block. Would support unblocking if threat retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd only point out that the "legal threat" was made 23 days ago, if that makes any difference. Given the contribs, though, it doesn't look like we're losing anyone constructive anyway. Black Kite 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I did not see that. Dlohcierekim 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor who thinks he has a constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. Say bye-bye. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rofl. Perhaps he should read the text of the First Amendment.... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FREE addresses this point.--chaser - t 05:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism template by User:AcroX

AcroX (talk · contribs) responded to my reverting one his edits by posting Template:Uw-vandalism4im on my talk page. Threatening to block a user from editing for reverting your edit is obviously not what the vandalism templates are meant for. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The warning given was a 4im, which to be honest wasn't applicable in this case, as your vandalism, if it was that, wasn't blatant. I must say that I agree with your analysis, albeit only after a cursory view. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have may have gone a bit overboard selecting that template, but I was a tad upset with the edit in question. The article you tried to edit was merged into another article already. You undid that and then added one short sentence to one character profile. You could have easily done that on List of Zatch Bell! characters instead. I merged the Ancient Mamodo page to Zatch Bell character list months ago, you should have taken part in the discussion regarding that merge if you didn't like the idea. I also was not threatening to block you. I was threatening to report your behavior on this page if you had continued with disruptive edits. The template words it poorly, I didn't personally type it up just for you. AcroX  20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That template has nothing to do with this page, and his edits were not vandalism. Don't blame the template - blame yourself for using it. Next time take a minute to discuss your issue with the user in your own words. You'll find that personal notes are always much more productive than any template. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I only used the template because I considered his edit vandalism. I realize that I used a template that shouldn't have really been used in that situation, I am sorry. I interpreted the edit as straight out vandalism. Also, anon, I didn't simply redirect the page, I did add content from the merged article into the receiving article.  AcroX  20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston

Mcumpston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making PAs as a result of my notification of a copyvio and the removal of some images of questionable merit; see all his edits between 23:48, 25 September 2008 and 06:29, 25 September 2008; mostly made after my advice that he read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. I suggest you try dispute resolution or Wikiquette Alerts first, as there is no real need for admin intervention as far as I see it. Regards SoWhy 09:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

←This is more than a mere content dispute:

• "Article ... destroyed because of whatever idiocy motivates the complainant"
• "Apparently something I added to one or another articles set this individual off"
• "I apparently blunderd into an area that offended your sensibilities"
• "I didn't realize that the person promulgating the attack on the article was also monitoring LWF's talk page. Had I realized this I would not have characterized him in such an inflamatory and comtemptious manner"
• "I believe the inclusion of a picture of a hunter with a feral hog brough me to his attention and inflamed him in some manner causing him to research my articles and begin deleting material" (he believes wrongly).

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless this should be handled as dispute resolution. There is no apparent need for admin intervention as far as I can see it. Or to rephrase that: What do you think an admin should do about it? They are not mediators that's why WP:DR exists after all (to quote from WP:DR: The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.). Regards SoWhy 11:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this is a matter for WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though he's since reverted to the Copyvio version? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• From the talk page: Let me say this about the alleged copywright violation. The apparently violated passage linked to this page is a UK based-commercial blurb of a book WHICH I WROTE AND TO WHICH I HOLD THE COPYWRIGHT. This is obviously and transparently sourced in the reference section of this article--Mcumpston (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC). So, Andy, once again you appear to be acting ni a disruptive and WP:POINTy way. Now would be a great time to stop. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From the copyvio boilerplate: "If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Walker Colt.". Now, please stop making baseless allegations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Andy, you are being a dick. Would you liek to explain why you didn't simply point Mcumpston to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which would have speedily resolved the issue, as he is obviously the rights owner? Guy (Help!) 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly keep your penile insults to yourself. I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. I note that you have now reverted to the version of the page containing the apparent copyvio. I've seen no verification of his claim to be the author; have you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on completely missing the point of that long-standing meta essay. If this happens again, all you need to do is point the user to the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page. When they read it, content authors either send a release or run screaming (usually they do not release under GFDL, in my experience). The point is, the dispute is usually resolved swiftly and with minimal disruption. Simply revert-warring does not fix the problem, it prolongs and escalates it; instead, you need to engage the user and get him to realise what he must do to release the text and exactly what that would mean. And usually just reading the release page is sufficient. As to reverting, I simply reverted to the last version with content, on the grounds that the massive copyvio tag with zero actual content was not actually helping anyone. Had you left it at a version with content I'd not have rolled back. And what's happened is that we appear to have conspired, once again, to drive off a potential contributor with some subject knowledge - I was sort of hoping that might be avoidable in this case. Why the bluntness? Because we have been here before. So, if this happens again, please just link the release page, most authors will speedily withdraw rather than surrender all rights, as this one did in about 45 minutes, including the time it took him to read the page. That would be a great way to avoid drama if any similar dispute arises in future. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed: I didn't do so because, at the time I flagged the page as a copyvio, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, he hadn't made the claim to be the author (in fact the book has two listed authors; is he both?). As soon as he did make that claim, on his talk page, I did point him to the relevant part of the boilerplate, as quoted above. If you wish to revise the Copyvio procedure, which I followed, this is not the forum to do so. You owe me an apology,; though it's clear from your talk page you don't intend to make one. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's almost as if you have a reputation for disutatiousness and edit warring, isn't it? Oh, wait, you do have a reputation for just that. And trolling, quite a lot. So, sorry, it's a case of "give a dog a bad name". I posted the lnik to the page on releasing material, and Mcumpston immediately ceased the dispute - 45 minutes post to post. If I can do it, so can you. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From my lofty perch safely outside the conflict, it seems to me that you two have gotten on each others nerves, and are now sniping at each other more from annoyance than anything else. IMHO, this issue is more or less resolved, and things would work out better if you both walked away, even if not 100% satisfied with the results.

To facilitate this, I will offer my trademarked World Famous Bigger Person Award not yet designed; I'll get right to work on it though to the person that lets the other one make the final post in this thread. Guy, unfortunately Andy has a head start in this regard, since you were the last one to post, but life is unfair sometimes.

Surely no one would be able to resist such an award? --barneca (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

update: Mcumpston has now made explicitly clear that he does not wish to relinquish his copyright. Your revert to the Copyvio version now seems increasingly unwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The current state of the page seems to be in order. Mcumpston has ceased editing. Anything else? Stifle (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. The images. Mcumpston uploaded two with the {{PD-self}} tag, and has since removed the tag and replaced it with "withdrawn". PD releases cannot, however, be withdrawn, and I've reverted one removal while Andy has reverted the other. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would query whether the two images Mcumpston uploaded added much value, and suggest if he wishes to delete the two images he uploaded, it would be a gesture of good will to do so. fish&karate 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they qualify for G7 — it's fairly clear that he is attempting to withdraw the license illegitimately. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A user can change their mind on submitting their own text to Wikipedia, but not the images? This doesn't seem right. A gesture of good will would not require images to qualify for any speedy criterion. fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the GFDL is irrevocable. John Reaves 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, so? That means we can use the images, not that we should. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more that the images are quite useful whereas the article can survive fine without the text. Stifle (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As Mcumpston has - as Andy says - stated he does not wish to permit re-use under GFDL (he was intially unaware this was a requirement of donating material), use of the material is again a copyright violation, so I have reverted Walker Colt to the last good version. This can probably be marked as resolved. fish&karate 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've selectively deleted all versions of the page since Mcumpston showed up. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on their edits (mostly the same gun articles), are User:Cumpston and User:Mcumpston the same person? fish&karate 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record (no impropriety suggested), note that he seems to have previously posted as Cumpston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no improprietry - just trying to track all his edits to see if he'd submitted anything else from his own books to other pages. I can't find anything. fish&karate 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see your post when I made mine; I meant that I was not implying impropriety. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Cump (talk · contribs) (again, no evidence of improprietry, just logging it here for contribution tracking). fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston is now edit-warring over rights on images. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing if I can explain it to him, hoping that I'm not completely wrong. Let's try not to edit war, though, eh? lifebaka++ 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's being said here is that images are being deleted left and right at a furious pace, all over Wikipedia, due to rampant copyright paranoia, but this guy can't delete his own damn photograph? That's cute.

What's wrong with his putting a {{db-author}} template on it, and letting it be deleted? Just because a free image exists, doesn't mean that we're required to use it.Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Based on User talk:Mcumpston, it seems that he is the copyright holder of the images. He submitted them under a PD licence, and subsequently changed his mind. This means Wikipedia retain the image. It does not mean we are obliged to, however. There are plenty of Walker Colt / Colt Walker images on Flickr, surely a couple of them must be under CC licensing. If anyone good with images could spend a few minutes finding a suitable one (Flickr images are blocked for me - I can see search results but not the images), the images Mcumpston wants deleted could safely be deleted. fish&karate 10:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is BY-NC-ND 2.0 licensed. I'm not entirely au fait with Wikipedia's licensing polices though, so I don't know if that's OK, but I'm just trying to help out here. Codeine (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of maps

There are mass deletions of properly-licensed commons map images on over 600 WP pages by Commons Delinker: Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker. Apparently the map images erroneously listed for deletion at commons but have been (or are being) restored:[45] but the bot has been deleting them. Message has been posted to operator’s talk page. Can someone stop the bot and roll the changes back? Kablammo (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot; Haukurth seems to be engaging himself in cleaning up the mess. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock the bot. It's not the bot's fault. The images were tagged {{subst:nsd}} at the Commons and then deleted, without either tagger or deleter pausing to think about what they were doing. The images have been restored in the meantime, but I don't know if CommonsDelinker has an option somewhere to automatically undo its edits for a particular image. Lupo 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, there is no "issue" to "resolve" with the bot.[46] The bot worked exactly as it should. The problem was caused by a human error. Lupo 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock done. Lupo 11:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the Block and the Unblock. Even if it was human error that caused the problem, blocking the bot is the quickest and surest way to stop the problem from getting worse - and is not a reflection on the bot itself, as evidenced by the quick unblock. Just wanted to toss that in. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It appears the bot had finished with its unlinking at 11:14 UTC. So there was no need any longer to keep it blocked. Lupo 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. As Lupo mentioned here, the bot apparently was deleting images that had been restored a short time before; as was unclear that the bot was finished, a block was appropriate to limit the damage. Kablammo (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It started up again so I reblocked it and rolled back the additional edits. Haukur (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Haukurth. The problem extends to other projects, per these fairly direct comments. Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is continuing, you could probably request a temporary global block of the bot over at Meta until the problem is resolved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of blocking CommonsDelinker on all wikimedia projects; this bot doesn't delete any images, it only unlinks red links. Anyone who would like to block the bot should rather contact the Commons admin who's making the mistake. guillom 13:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Suicide announcement?

I don't know if this is serious or just a hoax: [47]. But you never know. The IP is registered to St. John's Memorial University, St. John's, NFL, Canada. De728631 (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have some framework in place to deal with these things but I can't remember what it is. Perhaps someone in the area should phone the uni, just in case. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases WP:RBI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the possibly less harmful and lifesaving Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that too, sent an email to the NFL Constabulary, maybe that helps. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That likely wraps it up. Nothing more we can do here except move on. Cheers, guys, and good work. lifebaka++ 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably want the edit deleted from non admin viewable history, but we'll probably need an oversighter to do it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sent an email to stewards AT wikimedia.org, so it'll either get taken care of or not. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely to NOT WP:RBI this. There has been a specific threat of violence made and pursuant to WP:TOV this should be taken seriously and reported to the authorities. I am currently on a bus from Boston to New York so cannot do this. Can someone please take point on this? Bstone (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to set up a subpage, with two active threads this is getting to damned confusing.

FYI, action has already been taken - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide_threat_-_cross_posted_from_WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not suggest to use RBI, instead contacting local users so effective measures can be taken. Caulde 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be helfpul: Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals --Flewis^(talk) 03:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat - cross posted from WP:AIV

Resolved

 – authorities notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

134.153.184.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has threatened to commit suicide. The Whois look up indicates the address is registered to a university in Newfoundland. I've emailed the university and the Wikimedia foundation, however I'm not based in North America, and would be grateful if someone could phone the Canadian emergency services. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:TOV, if anyone finds these threats of suicide credible, please feel free to contact the relevant authorities. I have blocked the IP for the vandalism, but have not taken any additional action myself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reported this one level above on this noticeboard. An email was sent to the Newfoundland Constabulary and to the Wikimedia foundation (who just replied that they're going to monitor this). De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread resulted in the local government being emailed, so there's nothing else we can do here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I also followed up via email with the IT department at that university. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See dup thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suicide_announcement.3F. Cirt (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unified

This is now a transcluded so both pages are up to date simulatiniously--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

I have been asked to oversight the revision concerned here. I have declined to do so, with the advice of some other Oversighters, on the grounds that it may be helpful for ISP/authorities to see the revision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we have it deleted/oversighted sometime in the future? --Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No point, I think. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see why this should ever be oversighted. If blatant vandalism is not oversighted or deleted than things which the authorities may need access to should certainly not be oversighted. Bstone (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the Threats of harm essay above suggests deleting, not oversighting the offending edit. Usually to avoid people doing something really stupid misguided with a potentially suicidal person.--Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of confusing jargon

Why do we call it oversight? Oversight usually means some sort of independent review or process, often to try to keep people honest. Wikipedia usage of oversight really means "Removal", "Content deletion" or "Censor" (censorship doesn't need to be bad; some countries have a censorship board). Propose making Wikipedia more user friendly and less jargon by renaming the term "oversight" to "content removal" or "remove". So the first sentence of this section would read "I have been asked to do content removal of the revision concerned here" or "I have been asked to remove the revision concerned here". 903M (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to seem like I'm muting discussion here or anything, but you probably should head over to WP:VPP for things like this. You'll get a much wider group of editors there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I forget where I read this, but IIRC, the name came from the fact that all members can hide revisions and also see those hidden revisions, thereby providing oversight of each other to ensure that no one is hiding revisions that don't need to be hidden or hiding them for ulterior motives. Or it may have been that a narrow group had that oversight role and more could hide revisions, but now the groups are congruent and inseparable.--chaser - t 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always looked at it is since the GFDL requires attribution of all edits, exercising this tool is sort of "overlooking" that license, as we're deleting part of the history. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with it (admins can do that with deletion and selective diff restoraton).--chaser - t 06:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL also only requires us to have the major contributors. Almost universally when we oversight whatever is left has little to no contribution from the edits in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Password problems

Recently someone has triggered Wikipedia to provide me with a temporary password twice - once from 68.192.198.101 and once from 209.102.203.210. If there is a way to block these IPs from requesting a temporary password or to keep Wikipedia from issuing a temporary password for a while? I don't really feel comfortable with Wikipedia generating additional passwords for my account w/o consulting me first. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That happens to me all the time, it just means you are doing a good job and someone wants to be able to control your account so they can be the ones doing a good job! Anyways, I just usually ignore them and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They can't get the new password without access to your email account, and I'm pretty sure it's set to cancel as soon as you log in with your old password. Just make sure your password is something really secure for both your email and admin account and you should be fine... albeit irritated by spam. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze, this reminds me that I need to make my email password stronger... But anyway, as long as people aren't actually getting into your account and you don't have to actually use the auto-generated passwords (I get that sense from the above) I'd say just ignore the things and delete them. Alternatively, you could disable your email so WP can't send you anything, but then you'd be in the hole if you ever actually forget your password. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, having email disabled for an admin is bad practice. — Coren ^(talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Three simple rules to handle password reset spam

1. Have a strong password for wikipedia.
2. Have a different strong password for the email account associated with your user account.
3. Ignore the reset messages.

Mmmkay? Thatcher 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Mr Garrison Mr Mackey (is it really possible that our alltimers could have set in so soon?) (said in unison and with a bit of a whine in the voice) :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my pointing this out, but Mr. Garrison is not the fellow who says "mmkay". That's Mr. Mackey. (Mnemonic: mmkay-Mackey. Get it?) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User Paul Barlow

Resolved

 – Complainant indef blocked

This user:Paul Barlow is vandalising many Wikipedia articles by removing important information see [[48]] , [[49]] , [[50]] . Note this user may have many Sock Puppets as well. Could some admin deal with this User Paul Barlow --CMJTHY (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism. It's a content dispute (and a not-very-aggressive one, at that). There's nothing to "deal with". Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure is, removing important content from wiki articles is against wiki policy and considerd vandalism. Perhaps you dont know the wiki policies properly and perhaps you want to go through them and find out what is conisderd vandalism. This user Paul Barlow removes information that was posted long time ago and revised/contibuted by many people. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. Why not try not only discussing your disagreement on the articles' Talk pages, and/or on Paul Barlow's Talk page, and providing a reliable source for your claim? You might also do some investigation before throwing attacks around. Kafziel is an admin on Wikipedia, so you can't really claim that he doesn't know policies and what vandalism is. Corvus cornix_talk 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• None of those diffs are vandalism under any definition of the word. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing information and content that was contributed by users is not prohibited. This user could simply add cites. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor did this user leave any notice on the talk pages or discuss the situation User Paul Barlow is in. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"This user" who? But then, you could add cites, as well. I'm not saying that what Paul Barlow did was correct, but it isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute. Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be vandalism. I don't know if the edits are correct, but removing content if a good reason is given is not vandalism. If it is, then I'm completely screwed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no vandalism here. If you are going to accuse people of having sock puppets you should provide evidence, as that's a serious charge. I don't think you'll find any. Meanwhile, perhaps you should read WP:VANDALISM Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find it rather ironic that CMJTHY has accused Paul of being a sockmaster, when he is himself part of the "Muhammad and Hinduism" sock circus. See AN thread and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ. Accordingly indef blocked. Moreschi (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message I have put on the Administrator's board, and indeed the one that was on this board only two days ago, you will see what this is about. [51] This individual, a multiple sockpuppeteer and forum shopper, is adopting the same tactics of initimidation and relentless edit warring he has adopted repeatedly in the past. This is not a content dispute. This has been discussed over and over and over again. This user has been repeatedly banned. His edits are to be reverted on sight for that reason alone. I am sick of reading this kind of thing over and over and having to defend my actions over and over in the same way. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries - you don't have to defend your actions over and over. I think everyone here immediately saw you weren't doing anything wrong. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I only left Paul the message so that he could be aware of the thread. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is probably a case for a Wikipedia:Long term abuse subpage. Moreschi (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sock drawer cleaned out too. Thatcher 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Charming :) Any chance of a rangeblock to take this guy out of play? Moreschi (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, when you revert this guy you should take a bit of time to put on the edit summary "sockpuppet of indef blocked user xxxx", if possible with a link to the sockpuppet case. It will save you a lot of time on the long term. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles that others should watchlist to keep an eye out for this guy? I'd be glad to help out with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I should be less sloppy with edit summaries. The main article targeted by this editor is Bhavishya Purana. But he has also targeted Kalki, Muhammad, Mahound and others. He is essentially an Islamic fundamentalist who believes that all other religions are corruptions of the Truth of Islam. In particular he is obsessed by the idea that Muhammad was predicted in Hindu scriptures, thus, presumably, making Hindus morally culpable for rejecting the Truth that their own scriptures assert. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand

Two individuals have deleted a large portion of Krugerrand due to a lack of sourcing. I have reverted both, with the explanation that we don't just delete items for lack of citations, that we discuss them first. I don't have a problem with removing the material if, after discussion, there can be no sources found, but just deleting unsourced material seems wrong. I got quoted WP:V as a reason why the material should be removed. Are we now just deleting all non-BLP unsourced material? Corvus cornix_talk 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

depends on how prickly the first person there is, but apparently the burden is on you according to WP:V--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my edit, I just noticed the blanking and reverted it an explained why to the anon which did the initial removal, then I got reverted by a logged-in user. So now it's okay to remove everything that isn't sourced, without prior discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability just means able to be verified, so I'd say if non-BLP info can theoretically be verified but simply isn't sourced, it shouldn't be deleted right away. At this point, the use of inline citations is just a guideline, so it's not universally required. If it's not extremely volatile stuff (which this certainly isn't) then it should be challenged, discussed, and given a little time before it's removed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tznkai is correct in that you as the restoring editor have the primary burden to prove your point, so to speak. That said, it's not a BLP issue and it's not as if having the information around is doing any undue harm to the encyclopedia, so you ought to be given sufficient amount of time to determine whether the information is, indeed, verifiable. In the end, there's no reason for us to go about willy-nilly stripping every last factoid that is not accompanied by a citation, but if the information does get challenged (as it has here), some sources do need to be found. Shereth 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A google news archive search provides a couple of links (subscription however) which may be able to verify the content - here. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. So now, instead of putting fact tags on anything I find questionable, I'll just remove it, and nobody can put it back without providing a source. Thanks for letting me know. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Shereth and I are both saying the info doesn't need to be removed immediately, and you (or whoever else cares about the subject) should be given time to come up with some sources. At least, that's what I'm saying. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But now I'm being told that if somebody comes in and blanks something, it's the responsibility of the person who encounters the blanking to go look for sources before they can restore the content. That makes vandal fighting virtually impossible. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof has always been on the person who wants to add (or re-add) content. Good-faith content removal (such as when the editor uses an edit summary to ask for sources) isn't vandalism anyway, so this doesn't really factor into that. But you are free to restore non-BLP content (without edit warring, obviously) while you look for some sources or ask for help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ here. Just because a vandal leaves an edit summary that says "no reference" and removes whole blocks of common sense information from an article, does not mean that the information should not be restored and if removed again by the vandal, should not be restored again with appropraite warnings to the user talk, and if done so, thereby places 3RR or edit warring provisions into play against the vandalism patroller. If that is the case, I sincerely hope that the vandals who haunt Wikipedia never make it to the ANI and reads this, because chaos will ensue. Or have I misconstrued?--«JavierMC»|Talk 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my big concern here. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a common sense thing. Obviously bad faith attempts to disrupt the encyclopedia are generally easy to tell from good faith attempts to remove unsourced information. After all, having unsourced information lying around damages credibility anyway, might as well get it sourced or get it gone. Just my two pence... L'Aquatique[talk] 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time understanding what the problem is here. As L'Aquatique says, it's generally easy to tell whether a change was made in good faith or not. I'm not going to argue hypotheticals; if you have actual examples of edit summaries like "unsourced content removed" that were determined to be vandalism, let's have a look at them.

We're not just making this stuff up as we go along. From WP:VANDAL: "Significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." If it's vandalism, you can restore it. If it's a good faith edit, you can put the content back but you should consider looking for sources or asking someone else to. If you're honestly afraid you can't tell the difference between good faith and bad faith editing, then maybe those particular reverts are better left to someone who can. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

<Undent. It seems to me, that if some anon comes along and says they're deleting a large section of text with an edit summary saying it's because it's unsourced, but they've never discussed the sourcing, nor even what's wrong with it, then it's incumbent on them to put up, not the person who, in good faith reverted them. Corvus cornix_talk 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How would anything be incumbent on the people who removed the content? What would they post? How does one prove a negative? Sure, it's polite to start a discussion but it's not strictly necessary. There's no policy that requires people to start conversations before removing content. What's to discuss, anyway? If a person wants sources, you can't say no, or argue about it until they give up, because there is a policy that says those who want to add (or re-add) content have to provide sources when asked to. No matter how a user asks for sources, whether politely or impolitely, sources have to be provided. So if the removal was done in good faith, consider that a request. If it helps, pretend they asked nicely on the talk page. Because either way, the result is the same: Somebody needs to go find some sources.

Again, this is only referring to good faith edits. Vandalism should be obvious. If you're unsure, give them the benefit of the doubt. And then you can post a thread at ANI and someone can take a look at it for you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, miscommunication... I think we all might be talking about different things. Corvus, you are referring to a hypothetical situation wherein a user removed large chunks of cited (or at least semi-cited) text, saying "bad citations" but never offering more information about what is wrong with it, yes? And Kafziel, you and I were referring to a situation where the material was uncited. These are not the same thing. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Corvus' stated "big concern" is that someone might remove "common sense information" (i.e., unsourced) and then the person who wants to put it back has to come up with sources. Well... they do, if the reason for removal was either a) apparent, b) explicitly stated in the edit summary, or c) explained on a talk page somewhere. One man's common sense is another man's mysterious government conspiracy. He stated the "unsourced" bit a little more specifically on my talk page: "Under your contention, any vandal can blank anything that doesn't have a source, and vandal hunters can't restore it without having to track down sources." (That's actually not what I'm saying, but it does make it clear he is in fact talking about completely unsourced content.)

Again, I'm not going to discuss hypothetical edits because we're not here to try to cover every single possible situation that might ever arise in the future of Wikipedia. If it's obvious vandalism, revert it. If it's good faith but you want to keep it, put the content back and go find sources. If it's not obvious, ask. If you make a mistake one way or the other, the encyclopedia will survive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) In my opinion, WP:V leads to some particularly dumb things. Sourcing is good, the proper application of good faith and common sense is better. Use your brain, discuss with patience, avoid excessive quoting of policy. So says me.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper application of good faith is what this is all about. If it's vandalism, treat it as such. If it isn't, don't. If it isn't sourced, try to improve it. Or ask someone else to. IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopedia, not ignoring rules for the sake of convenience. Fortunately, there's no need to "ignore all rules" in this situation because the rules regarding vandalism and verifiability have been very thoroughly tested and they work just fine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? (part two)

Kafziel closed my previous thread [[52]] about another user attacking me on an article page. the consensus was that this was a blatant personal attack and inappropriate for a talk page of an article. kafziel marked the thread as "Resolved" because "Reported user apologized and rephrased his remarks." this is not true. The editor simply removed the diatribe about what a bad human i am, and what a creepy stalker i am, and simply provided a link to the diffs in the article's discussion page. The new, 'apologetic' text says "the respective diffs can be seen here:" and links right to the attacks. [[53]] Why should this be an acceptable compromise? this is posted on a talk page of an article, and it has nothing to do with the article itself. it's only an attack on me. this situation makes me very uncomfortable. why should a link to a blatant attack be any better than the attack itself? i don't want to see it, and it has nothing to do with the article and should not be linked or mentioned on the main page. Please someone review this and tell me if such a blatant personal attack should be directly linked on an article's talk page. I asked svernon19 to remove the links and he said no. [[54]] Theserialcomma (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

if a user wants to search through the archives and find it, that's fine. but i don't think a direct link to the attack should be allowed to stay on the main page. that's just not fair Theserialcomma (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to see it stop bringing it up and/or stop talking to him. Grsz^talk 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, please do not get involved in this any further. you are the person who said "i'm not sure why you are calling them attacks" [[55]] and "they were not attacks" [[56]] and then "get over it, you lost" [[57]], so i would really prefer not to hear anything further from you on this matter. i would rather hear from an uninvolved person. since kafziel was the 3RR admin who closed the discussion over there, i really don't think he should be the admin closing this discussion over here too or should he be involved. please do not contact me anymore, thank you. i just want the links to the personal attacks removed from the article talk page, because they are irrelevant and help no one, but make me uncomfortable. wikipedia is not tolerant for incivility, and this should be no exception Theserialcomma (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Then all you have to do is remove them. Cheers. Grsz^talk 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

okay, i'll remove them. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I wasn't notified of this one either, removing the whole section seems like a fair conclusion. It's unfortunate that this took a fake 3RR claim and two ANI filings to resolve, but I guess that's what happens sometimes. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm always willing to listen to reason and am not looking to cause any trouble. I apologize if this came off differently. Svernon19 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It did come off different. I see no reason why the diffs of the attack were place on the talk page in the first placed, except in an attempt to further inflame the concerned editor. Furthermore, the flippant remarks concerning this report is a fair indication of why we lose contributors to Wikipedia. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to bring anything to the attention of admins, if in-turn they are treated in such a throw away manner? Perhaps a little more thought should be given before a reply is made, and thereby preserve the integrity of this noticeboard.--«JavierMC»|Talk 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you, javierMC. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on abuse reporting

Hi, chaps. I'd like some advice on what do with banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Jakey's a pro-Soviet POV-pusher who got banned way back in the day for monomaniacal nuttery and has since been socking merrily ever since (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). He just made a reappearance on Vladimir Lenin - up to his old tricks.

For a while now, Jakey seems to have become very reliant on the IPs of the California State University network: specifically, those belonging to Glendale Community College (California), where he is apparently an undergraduate (heaven help us). This has caused me to apply some very serious blocks, effectively shutting out the whole college. The IPs in question are 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), coming to the end of a year-long account-creation-blocked logged-in editing-prohibited block, 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) approaching the end of an identical block, and 204.102.210.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), currently out of play for a month. A shame, because even from the IPs we were getting some good non-Jacob contributions (along with the inevitable vandalism). Is it worth someone phoning up the college and seeing if they're willing to deal with this persistent abuse of their network? Or would they view it as none of their business? I don't have a real name to give them, but they could easily figure it out from the editing times, I'm sure. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I went to Cal State, and those librarians ain't exactly super-sleuths. Plus, you don't even need to use your student ID to use most of the computers, so I really doubt they would do anything about it. I can't really picture them poring over security tapes. I don't have much of an opinion about the blocks—if I had my way, no IPs would edit—but that's my two cents about the phone call, at least. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"if I had my way, no IPs would edit" - Hear, hear! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot if IP edits on my watch list every day, and I'm always pleasantly surprised when one of them turns out not to be either blatant vandalism or English-as-a-third-language content. The attitude of the average IP address is "IP on U". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

bootlegged image?

Resolved

 – I've looked into it now, the current image carries a source and a licence

Please see the questions on my talk page, User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User_talk:Olivia_Bush. So far, I've learned that a Britney Spears single has been sneak-leaked onto the Internet and now we have the artwork. Or is it? Where is the copyright and source information? I don't have time tonight to check into this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic is also at Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:_Olivia_Bush SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That topic on Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:_Olivia_Bush is really about User: Olivia Bush basically womanizer is getting a ridiculously huge amount of traffic and i'm having to tag images evry 5 minutes. Obviously i can't stay up 24/7 until the official artwork is released. The page has already been semi-protected but still the images are going up like fireworks. Help is needed simply put! Ogioh (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See the edit history of Womanizer (song). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Goingoveredge again

How many times does Goingoveredge (talk · contribs) need to be blocked before finally being banned? It doesn't seem to stop him, he just waits till his block expires, then he comes back to edit war and to repeatedly attack other edits with edit summaries like this. Corvus cornix_talk 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of trying to encourage Goingoveredge of any form of discussion. Tried to file an RFC on him HERE and now I am even tired of keeping all his violations in this RFC list as they are very long. Please provide your feedback on the RFC: user-Goingoveredge as well. Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody??? Corvus cornix_talk 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I support an indef block on this one. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on that for now, but consider a block for edit waring with dubious edit summaries. That having been said, this fight over... apparently all things India is a bit more complex than just Goingoveredge's behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

His recent destruction of content in Religious violence in Orissa (see my additional comments at article talk page) has resulted in protecting the page. The destroyed content is still missing. Additionally, the sock and his puppeteer are really troublemaking others and have to be seriously treated. --Googlean (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block His edit summaries

• "khalistani troll" [58]
• "incitement to genocide" [59]
• "Khalistani racist" [60]
• "genocide inciter" [61]
• "khalistani hatemonger" [62]

are violation of WP:NPA. After a quick review of the edits of this user, I support an indef block on this one. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Support indef block as Goingoveredge does not seem like an honest editor making honest mistakes, but somebody who is religiously adamant on fearlessly violating Wikipedia policies and pursuing POV propaganda. He seems like somebody who knows the policies and seems to believe he can hide his tactics behind wikipedia tags by creating confusion and wasting other editors time. --⇒RoadAhead ^Discuss 16:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass canvassing by Benlisquare

Benlisquare has created the article South Korean cultural claims. This article has been nominated for deletion. During the first deletion discussion Benlisquare was accused by Caspian blue of canvassing on the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia (see ja:ノート:韓国起源説 and zh:Talk:韓國起源論). Apparently he also canvassed on the Anti-cnn webpage, see [63], not only asking to manipulate the deletion discussion on South Korean cultural claims, but also to manipulate several other China-related articles, claiming that there is an Anti-Chinese bias on Wikipedia (due to Japanese nationalists etc.) Novidmarana (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from the posting on Anti-Cnn: "Now, in the deletion discussion, the more votes we have for "keep", the more likely our articles won't be deleted by China-haters. The more people the better, HOWEVER change your text; don't make each person's entry just like the other; this gets BORING and people might realize that they are up against an army of "yes men". ONLY USE ONE ACCOUNT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BANNED. We need more PEOPLE voting for us, not more ACCOUNTS, or we would have done that earlier. WRITE ONLY IN ENGLISH, otherwise you may be banned." Novidmarana (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. Anything else? Stifle (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just anything else. He has been canvassing more than twice, so he should be warned for his wrongdoings. Besides, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) also canvassed the AFD to 2channel forum. If you can, could you watch canvassed articles? There are too many SPA and socks keeping coming out.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Benlisquare deleted his posting, but Google Cache has a copy at [64]. Note that he does not only asks for manipulating the deletion discussion of South Korean cultural claims, but also to manipulate multiple other articles related to China, claiming that they are vandalized by Japanese nationalist, Koreans trolls and Anti-Chinese editors and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novidmarana (talk • contribs)

Benlisquare has been warned about canvassing on the Japanese and the Chinese Wikipedia on 12 September 2008. On 14 September 2008 he canvassed again, this time on the aforementioned Anti-cnn forum, even going so far to give a detailed description of how to game Wikipedia. Novidmarana (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novidmarana (talk • contribs)

Lightmouse again

Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is no longer using his Lightbot to remove links to dates, but is now doing it using AWB. He still refuses to discuss this. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop using AWB in this manner until he has discussed the issue with the community. Since his bot was halted for this kind of behavior, using AWB or other scripts to perform the same kinds of edits is unhelpful and inappropriate and might even be construed as disruptive. If he continues to edit in this fashion without addressing the concerns of the community, additional warnings regarding the behavior may be appropriate. Shereth 22:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit shows the reckless use of a bot without regard for the proper date format for the article being edited. This user must be blocked. Lightbot should be blocked indefinitely --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, here. I dont' actually have a big problem with a semi-automated script as long as discretion is being applied. Most dates should probably be unlinked. It's only the automated unlinking of all dates (and reformatting of dates/units/etc. in quotes, etc.) that I think is the issue. Still, it would be nice if this editor would respond in some way to the concerns that have been expressed. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down! Lightmouse hasn't used his bot since it was stopped, and he appears to have stopped using AWB as requested when I left the comment on his talk page. It's unfortunate that he appears uninterested in discussing the situation here (or anywhere) but so far he's complied with requests to stop making these edits and this talk about blocking is, at this point, quite unecessary. Shereth 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If not blocking then at least his permission to use AWB should be revoked. This is looks fully automated to me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. Even if I agreed that there was something wrong with the edits, he hasn't used it since Shereth asked him to stop. There's no reason to block or revoke privileges or anything like that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, he stopped doing it as requested. We don't use blocks and the like to punish, we use them to prevent - and at the moment, it appears that Lightmouse is not out to cause trouble and thus there is no bad behavior to "prevent". It'd be one thing if he ignored us and just went along with these edits, but he stopped. What's the rush to punish? Shereth 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My thankfully limited experience with Lightmouse has been that, as with Betacommand, it's his way or the highway. Where do these characters come from? And what's more important, who turns them loose here to do whatever they feel like, including not bothering to answer questions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider this closed if Lightmouse has stopped editing dates, however I will point out that the link posted above shows that he was not just delinking dates; he was changing from one style to another, from "August 24, 1814" to "24 August 1814". This is the equivalent of switching era styles (CE to AD) or from British to American spelling (colour to color) or vice versa without a substantive reason. This is strongly discouraged by the relevant guidelines. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a clear example of where the bot operated by Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is not behaving in accordance with the manual of style [65]. This diff [66] to British Rail shows a clear change of a date that was in the correct format. Lightmouse must explain why a date that is compliant with the manual of style was changed, else the bot must be permanently stopped and Lightmouse given a temporary block as punishment. Olana North (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that is a "clear example", considering all that was done was removing the autoformatting. It was left in British style of date formatting, as per MoS. Am I missing something? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North's complaint has no merit whatsoever. Thie date in question was in UK (dmy) format, and linked for autoformatting. All Lightmouse did was to remove the autoformatting, entirely in conformance with the manual of style, which deprecates autoformatting. The date is still in UK format. There is no case to answer. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks to me like a debate about the Manual of Style. I am not sure if ANI is a place where the MoS can be redebated but this is what it says:

• Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a particular reason to do so
• The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

Discussion of the meaning of those words is best undertaken at wt:mosnum. That way, you won't just get my opinion.

With respect to the example of 'Burning of Washington' given by Steven J. Anderson, I agree that it should have been in US format. There are several editors on Wikipedia that are working to clean up the mess left by date links (they conceal inconsistent and wrong-side formats from registered editors but leave them visible to ordinary readers). One part of that work is auditing date links in articles and making the dates consistent. This involves choosing one format or the other depending on the MoS guidelines for mdy or dmy format. In that case, it came up in a search for articles containing 'British' in the title (and hence likely to require auditing to dmy format) as a redirect. It was incorrectly set to dmy and you are quite right to say it should be mdy.

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Olana, Lightbot delinked '2001'. Lightmouse delinked '1 January 1948'. If those are not in accordance with the Manual of Style, then perhaps Olana and I have different views on the Manual of Style. I am under the impression that debates about MoS wording are best dealt with at the MoS talk page rather than at ANI.

Having done 300,000 edits relating to the MOS, it is inevitable that some people want to debate the MoS with me. I have probably spoken about date links and MoS wording on more occasions and with more people than anyone here. I am reluctant to stop editing just because some people regard the MoS as unfinished business - the MoS is always unfinished business - so is Wikipedia. I really strongly encourage people to debate MoS implementation at the MoS talk page. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, thank you for the response. I know several people, myself included, have been concerned by what seemed to be a lack of communication on your part. I agree that discussions of the manual of style are best handled there, but what is appropriate to discuss here are your actions related to the MOS and linked dates. What is troubling is that in neither case do the guidelines above completely support your actions.

For your first point, the key phrase is "unless there is a particular reason to do so". Without engaging the editors involved with articles with linked years, there is no way for you (or your script, or your bot, Lightbot) of knowing whether or not the linking has a particular reason.

For your second item: deprecation of auto-formatted dates does not equal their prohibition. There are compelling reasons to not auto-format dates, which is why they are now deprecated by the MOS. But I have not seen any consensus for immediate, mass-removal of auto-formatted dates. Further, to tie your two reasons together, there is no way for a bot or a script to tell if a date is "merely" auto-formatted or if there is "a particular reason" for its linking.

There's an somewhat disturbing old bumper sticker/t-shirt slogan (of which I am not very fond) that usually says something along the lines of "kill them all and let God sort them out". Regrettably, that seems to summarize your approach to your MOS date-related edits, an approach that some people find disruptive. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think this is more about being perceived as over-keen to enforce the MoS, than the MoS itself. I recently had to head off an impending edit-war caused by Lightbot delinking not only formatted dates (no problem there), but wikilinked 'year-on-TV' dates too. This was, in my view, an unnecessary aggravation. If some linked dates remain in an article for now, so what? It's really not a big deal; I seriously doubt if a single WP reader would care or even notice. However, causing needless conflict amongst those who write the encyclopedia is a big deal, when it can be avoided with a little tact and forethought ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates so I am bit puzzled by your suggestion that it did. Please can you give me a link and I will investigate. With regard to 'year-in-X' links, they are often concealed to look like solitary years, or concealed within full dates so that they break autoformatting. Some editors had, reasonably, considered that solitary years are not as useful as targetted years but in many cases had simply replaced solitary years with a concealed link. Many projects recommend that 'year-in-X' dates are not hidden so that the reader only sees yet another blue solitary year. One recommendation is to make it visible by showing at least one non-date term to the reader, and the MoS is considering the same. If a link looks like a solitary year, it readers will treat it just like one. Consequently Lightbot did delink concealed links on the basis that they were just as likely to be ignored as solitary years. However, that feature has been switched off. Some year-in-X links actually break autoformatting and that is an extremely common error and that error-correction feature remains switched on. I wish some of the energy that was directed into keeping date links was directed into fixing the errors and inconsistencies it causes. I know that people like to ask me lots of questions, particularly if they disagree with the MoS or its implementation. I have probably expended more effort communicating about this issue, and to more people, than anyone here. Whether this is about the history of MoS text, the text itself, or the legitimacy of acting on MoS text, I am not the spokesperson for the MoS and sometimes it feels like people treat me as if I am. I still feel like this is all MoS talk. Is this an ANI issue? Lightmouse (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: What I'm speaking of above is directed at Lightmouse, the person, who controls both the account User:Lightmouse and the bot User:Lightbot. I know that he/she is very precise about which one has performed specific actions, but I'm speaking of the combined effects of both accounts. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an FYI, he is again actively removing date links through User:Lightmouse account and AWB. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an ANI issue because the primary concern is the method of enforcement of the MOS. If nothing else, the MOS is a style guideline and its application is thus open to debate and consideration. Furthermore, MOSNUM itself explicitly creates room for exceptions to the rule - linked dates are not always subject to unlinking per the guideline. Currently you are using AWB to make semi-automated edits to this effect at the rate of about 4 per minute, or once every 15 seconds. Do you mean to tell me that in a 15 second timespan, you have adequate time to load the page, read it over to contextually determine whether unlinking is necessary, and perform the edit? I think not. Your strict and unconsidered enforcement of MOSNUM is what is causing issues with editors. Again I will ask you to refrain from this behavior - while there is an open debate regarding the method of enforcement, it is not appropriate to continue to do so. Shereth 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC is the best way to handle this? — ras52 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions have brought up the possibility of an RFC on the bot. I think it would be an excellent way to clear up the confusion on how Lightmouse is choosing to enforce MOSNUM and get a better idea of how the community feels regarding the issue. Shereth 16:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Olana North provides this example of an edit that does nothing about except remove autoformatting. This could be brushed off as a MOSNUM issue, or issue about how quickly statements in the MOSNUM should be carried out, except that Lightmouse state above "Lightbot is not programmed to delink autoformatted dates". Now, the edit was made by Lightmouse (using AWB), not Lightbot, but this action suggest that Lightmouse is not fully in control of, or does not fully understand the operation of the bots he is using, which is an ANI issue. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the example of 'British Rail' given by Ashton, I delinked '1 January 1948' deliberately. What is wrong with that? Have a cup of tea guys. Lightmouse (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse managed to make 8 edits during the minute 22:25, 25 September 2008. He sure deliberates a lot faster than I do. Perhaps what he realy decided was that the AWB bot should process a list of articles he had compiled, on the basis that that the word "British" was in the title, remove all date links in those articles, and put all dates in those articles in the order day month year. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue with the MOS. This is an issue with Lightbot. There is no consensus at MOS or anywhere else that all dates, whatever the format, should be unlinked. There is a consensus that dates should not be linked unless there is a reason to do so. "reason to do so" is something that can only be determined by a human being, not a bot. Also, please clarify: does your bot make format edits to direct quotes, categories, and other non-prose sections? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Note related discussion at MoS talk started by the user in question here. Shereth 16:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note this appear to also have some relation to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 dm (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lightmouse's diff request: I was incorrect about Lightbot removing fully-formatted date links; please accept my apologies. I appreciate your explanation of the other issue (this was the edit I had in mind), and that this function has now been deactivated. My concern about over-zealous enforcement of the MoS remains, though - not specifically directed at you, but at any editor (or bot) who takes it upon themselves to globally apply one interpretation of an often deliberately vague document. I've followed the various discussions at WT:MOSNUM, and agree with delinking dates that are only linked for formatting reasons, but so far it's only at FA that I've encountered this as a de facto requirement. It may become more widely adopted, or it may not... but where there's leeway in the guidelines and an article is not up for formal assessment (and therefore not subject to strict application of a set of criteria), I think we end up doing more harm than good by being too prescriptive. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edits, plus

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as vandalism-only account

Editor Mew Xacata [67] Making many unsourced edits [68], creating unsourced article [69], lots of POV, ignores warnings. Seems to be a history. JNW (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he got {{uw-unsourced3}} already, I'd say warn him again if he continues and report him to WP:AIV afterwards. If he/she ignores the warnings, there is not much hope that he/she will reform by anything else we tell him/her. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history, I've indef blocked this user as a vandalism-only account. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Andrew Kelly

Resolved

 – Nothing here seems to require administrator action. Back to editing, everyone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew has recently been taking part in the RfA of another user and in doing so has expressed some extremely offensive opinions. Andrew, who is "too conservative for conservapedia" (his words not mine), has claimed amongst other things that; atheists support murder, those who do not believe in god will burn in hell, and atheists should not be given a role of authority (even on a website). Infact, I don't even need to provide links for this, feel free to review Andrews "contributions" in recent days, it's all there. Personally, I don't think I support murder and I don't want to burn in hell either. God only wonders what poor Andrew thinks of my gay friends. Would appreciate if this is dealt with, it would be a little hard to hand out 3 million incivility warring for all the "non-christian" editors insulted. — Realist² 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If a legitimate Christian user is blocked (I've seen it happen several times), it would take an admin to unblock them. And, like I said, there are very few, if any, Christian admins. Most admins are atheists and they would not want to risk loosing their admin status to unblock a user they don't agree with / I do not believe that a Christian should willingly vote a non-Christian into a position of power, whether it be the power to rule a country or the power to delete a page on a website. - This is just a taster of what you will witness upon reviewing Andrews edits. — Realist² 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear not - hell doesn't exist, so you won't go there.

To be honest, he looks like a straw man to me. Don't feed the trolls. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To those reviewing my edits, please review all of them, not just the edits that my opponents bring to your attention. Please read them in context, please do not only read the misquotes. Thank you! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, we have given you ample space to express your opinion accurately, it's crystal clear that you have offended many, and don't seem to understand why. — Realist² 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand why people are offended. I am just asking that people read my comments in context. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Context of what? Your version of the good old book? You have expressed the opinion that non christians should not be given a position of authority. — Realist² 03:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure they read what I actually said, not what you say I said. There is no need to yell at me using all bold comments. You are just as biased as I am, just in the opposite direction. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment was not meant to appear in bold, check my edit summary, I quickly corrected it. — Realist² 03:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I won’t hold it against you then. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidently I was just talking to myself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is therea violation of policy or I dunno, something for us to do here instead of complaining about the views of an editor, I'd like to hear it. There was no lasting harm done on the RfA so thats out. Has the user (diffs here needed) injected his biases into an article? If not, ignore what you find offensive until it becomes egregious to the point where it would be disruptive without you engaging. (Like Kafziel said, don't feed.)--Tznkai (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough. The only place where Andrew Kelly's personal life philosphy is relevant is article space. If people do not want to be offended by his beliefs, they should stop talking to him about them. The abuse to which he has been subjected, for an oppose at RFA that any bureaucrat would likely have discounted, is probably the most graphic violation of WP:CIVIL that I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. I have refactored the title of this section instead of blocking for making a personal attack. Everybody, cut it out. Risker (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you two have separate corners you can stand in or something? Jtrainor (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose trouts all around and some sort of article editing penance. John Reaves 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• This has been closed too early. A remark like the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder requires a bit more than dismissing this as a case for simple troutslapping. Such religiously fueled hateful generalisations have no place in talk and Wikipedia space, either. Everyme 12:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, but only if Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs) gets the same treatment; Jimmiy's preceding comments caused Andrew's response, and included inflammatory gems such as "laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky" and "masses of drone religious idiots". fish&karate 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. Both indulged in uncalled-for antagonisation against large groups of people. But I still don't see how that makes any of it better, to the extent that it requires no more than a troutslap? Everyme 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given strongly worded warnings to the pair of them, for making inflammatory and unhelpful comments. Further rubbish from either of them will result in a block. Wikipedia is not the place for inflamed religious soapboxing and poisonous generalisations. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so offended, Everyme? What have you to do with this? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyme is, I presume, rightly reluctant to see Wikipedia serve as a venue for this unhelpful, endless fighting. fish&karate 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And right he is. I am feeling very bad that it started with a userbox on my page and I agree that everyone descending into personal attacks because of that, even those defending me, are not doing the encyclopedia a favor. I hope we can just get back to editing now and admins who are not involved like fish&karate can sort out through it and give out warnings / deal with it where necessary.

@fish&karate: On a side note, if I may request it from you, would you mind checking my RfA and moving the discussions to its talk page where necessary (i.e. where they only clutter the RfA). I don't want to do it myself and I think it should be done by someone who has no involvement. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Feh. Andrew is free to state what his religious beliefs are, and others are free to ignore or discount them. What he may not do is assert opinion as fact, especially not in article space. I don't think that is happening here, and I think everyone would be a good deal happier if they disengaged at this point. We're not going to ban him for being a fundie, and we're not going to ban the thers for being Godless heathens. Try to respect sincerely helf religious beliefs even while disagreeing with them, and focus on content please. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are good and bad ways to express oneself. I think Andrew is smart enough to know when his comments crossed the (fuzzy) reasonable line from debate to polemic, but I think a warning will suffice at this point. You're right that everyone should disengage, and that content should be focussed on. fish&karate 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's leave it. Andrew Kelly and others have their beliefs, and others have theirs. Perhaps his statements are inflammatory, but it's not surprising to hear them, given that many people have literally asked for his opinion. Now, perhaps throwing the bible around isn't the best way to respond to challenges by non-Christians, but it's not helpful to throw fuel on the fire by harassing him about it. This drama may be avoided by not talking to Andrew Kelly about religious matters, aptly described above as "sitting in different corners". I don't see that this thread has a further purpose other than to inflame things. Werdna 12:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this can accurately be filed under "freedom to state what one's religious beliefs are". What's worse, Andrew replied to my suggestion of striking the remark in question (like Jimmi Hugh struck his initial oppose) like this. Everyme 13:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to comment on the issue itself but from what I can see Jimmi Hugh struck this comment because he decided to withdraw his support. I don't know if he wanted to withdraw the comment itself or not, but I find it best not to speculate about it. SoWhy 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop throwing that comment down my throat if you are not going to quote it in context. As I have already told you, I was responding to a ridiculously stupid comment about religious people who worship an imaginary man in the sky who supports the senseless killing of innocent people. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You responded in an exactly as unacceptable way. And your comment remains unstruck. Everyme 13:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, please, Everyme. Andrew has been warned for his comment already - further prodding is unhelpful. fish&karate 13:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Everyme 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Give it a rest everyone. Andrew Kelly is entitled to his views just as SoWhy is entitled to his. I think it is a mistake to dump on SoWhy for the userbox (and a mistake in principle, though not necessarily in strategy, to change the userbox) and it is a mistake to provide AK a forum where he can vent his views. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the WMF have any non-discrimination policy?

If so, provide a link? If there is, how would that relate to RFA and volunteer community actions? I have a very queasy feeling about the allowance of supports or opposes in any kind of official community actions, or "standing" in response for any kind of religious belief, political belief, or private standing. Opposing someone for RFA for not being Christian? Whats next, opposing for being a Muslim? A Jew? Black? Gay? For not being a Jew? For not being from a given country? This is a slippery slope to allow any of that kind of thing in, and should be encoded out before we get nasty situations that could have repercussions beyond our silly little RFA practices. rootology (C)(T) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Users are already opposed regularly for being "too young". It wouldn't surprise me if people went further and started discriminating against certain religious beliefs. -- how do you turn this on 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Or lack of religious beliefs. Everyme 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see here To quote: "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:DICK for something that applies on-wiki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin. This is hardly new. I think prohibiting grounds for opposing is very dangerous. If someone is opposing for spurious reasons, ignore them. If they are being offensive, tell them so. (I don't see "Oppose. Is atheist." as offensive, just as ridiculous.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Closing bureaucrats are entirely capable of assessing the validity or invalidity of a oppose's (or a support's) reasoning. fish&karate 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sam, some people do find it offensive. We can't help that. What would you say if someone said "Oppose - is black"? -- how do you turn this on 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are not going to drag this around to yet another discussion on "age discrimination" on RFAs. fish&karate 13:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was more hoping that Sam would answer my question. He says above the solution is to ignore. That doesn't solve anything. People are still going to be offended. Unnecessary hurting of other editors should be avoided at all costs. -- how do you turn this on 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

HDYTTO, I really do think you're taking this way too far. In the hopefully very unlikely event someone is enough of an idiot to oppose on such spurious and discriminatory grounds, they're probably going to get torn up by the community, smeared across five different noticeboards, blocked, unblocked, and reblocked until they get some sense knocked into them, just like all the rest of the drama we put up with here. Comments like that aren't tolerated and you know they aren't, so this is a non-issue. The reason people occasionally oppose for being too young is not because they believe teenagers or pre-teens shouldn't be admins, it's because the nominee hasn't demonstrated that they are trustworthy or responsible enough to use the tools. Maturity level has a lot to do with how much we trust someone not to abuse the buttons, and so is taken seriously provided the person commenting that is being sensible and not dickish. Spurious comments like the one you're hypothesizing above are completely irrelevant and will be treated with the appropriate weight (that is, none) by the 'crats. Anyone who says that is very likely to get a very stern warning and/or blocked. This is the end of the story called common sense. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my read on the situation. Don't be a dick. If someone is being a dick, and it has to do with prejudices, you can try, calmly and patiently talking with them, explaining why its inappropriate to express their opinions in that way, or you can ignore them. If it rises to the point of a disruptive personal attack there is a case by case balancing test to be made, and contact a third party, a mediator, or an adminstrator at your discretion. Now, is there anything that an admin actually needs to do here?--Tznkai (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The non-discrimination policy has little relevance. Admins are not hired by the foundation and the foundation is not saying "we don't want this person or that person as an admin" so this has little bearing on things. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I fail to see how the Wikimedia Foundation and its policies have any relevance to the factors the Wikipedia community chooses to apply when supporting or opposing candidates for its internal roles. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man

I spotted an RFC filed against three parties. RFC's aren't for multiple parties, so I don't think that really works, and I suspect somebody will delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man. However, there is evidence that suggests disruptive editing. I am hopeful we can resolve this matter here and now, rather than going to Arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

[ snipped copy-paste replication of entire page]

---

It should be noted that this is not the first time user:Jehochman has come in to carry the ball for user:ChrisO, who wrote the original RfC. When a previous RfC by ChrisO failed, it was Jehochman who decided to take the same issues and attempt an administrator recall instead. I have been reading the "evidence" and links and it seems to me that virtually all of the good faith effort to reach consensus actually came from the side under attack in this RfC. The fingers should be pointing in the other direction. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is evidence of wrongdoing by "the other side", please post diffs. That is why we are here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such evidence, of course. This is a straightforward case of editors, principally CreazySuit, disregarding NPOV and OR to promote a personal point of view. DougWeller, dab and I have tried repeatedly to explain to CreazySuit and the other two what WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V require; unfortunately they've chosen to ignore the three of us. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to just copy-paste the entire page here. But I agree that the RFC is likely a waste of effort, and that since these users are clearly unamenable to feedback or criticism, they will need to be given the warn-block treatment now. If we can get a few good admins to track this issue, there won't need to be an arbitration case. If this turns into another show of admins obstructing other admins, to the arbcom this will go. --dab (𒁳) 07:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WHOOPS! The RfC just got deleted. Could you possibly dig up the section of my post that you removed and restore at least the diffs and evidence so that people have something to look at? Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've temporarily undeleted the RfC so that I can recover the diffs myself (and you can have a look at it in the meantime). I'll copy the principal diffs with explanations here (in a new section below this one) before re-deleting the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me. I would think an article RfC or some form of mediation would help. I cannot see how WP:AN/I can help here. We are not solving content disputes on this page Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit's restoration of Tundrabuggy's comment here (which was, as I understood it, a comment on the RfC and the RfC has been removed from here) just adds fuel to the fire and hardly shows GF. It isn't helpful. If he or Tundrabuggy want to raise their own RfCs, let them do it. Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that one of the main contentions is the citing of an article written by someone else, which article content in-turn cites references, and being used as a Wikipedia:CITE#Convenience_links here for our article. Perhaps if editors would take the time to find verifiable sources other than a convenience link, and use them as a basis for inclusion of material, part of the dispute may be alleviated. However, caution should be used to not violate copyright that may exist for the convenience article by solely citing it's references. This is just a suggestion and may or may not have been thought of before the escalation of the dispute currently taking place on our article.--«JavierMC»|Talk 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's more about some editors saying that the newest translation must be the only correct one because it's the newest, it's by the teacher of the 'wrong' one, etc, linguistics is a science (although as one academic in the field tells me it can only be decided by the historians as there is more than one way to translate the contentious words) and others (including me, I confess) saying that as editors we have no business deciding which is correct. And, it appears, a belief that peer review (although the issue involves a brief note that wasn't peer reviewed) means something is 'right'. Doug Weller (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Th diffs are not what they appear to be in this case, this is a complicated content dispute involving a translation that has been academically challenged by the most recent academic research in the field. Another administrator (User:Khoikhoi) who is familiar with the details of this dispute, has commented on this issue in details here. I am following WP dispute resolution process, and have agreed to User:DragonflySixtyseven's suggestion of a compromise in order to resolve this dispute.[70] It should also be noted that User:Dbachmann and User:Dougweller are involved parties in this content dispute. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm involved, I haven't suggested I'm not involved. I've been trying to get you and others to see that this isn't a mathematical exercise where we are going to have proof that one is right and the other is wrong. There is a version that makes the dispute clear here [71] but I suspect you will cavil at the use of 'widely accepted' (which I think is correct at the moment, and the only academic I've found who has comment on Lambert is the one who told me the historians will have to battle it out). This article has been protected now since the 19th and due to the illness of the protecting admin is protected until the 9th. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what is happening here is that conduct issues involving NPOV and original research are stopping the resolution of a content dispute. CreazySuit and the other two editors (and apparently Khoikhoi too) subscribe to a pseudohistorical belief, promoted by the late Shah of Iran for propaganda reasons, that Cyrus the Great was a uniquely enlightened and humane ruler. They oppose anything which contradicts that POV, which mainstream historians do not support. An ancient chronicle describing the Battle of Opis is generally translated as referring to Cyrus carrying out a massacre after the battle. CreazySuit believes this is false. Because of this belief, he has repeatedly wiped out a sourced article, replacing it with an illiterate unsourced stub (see [72], [73], [74]).) He is seeking to declare that one particular translation of the chronicle is "the truth", that all others are "false" and "discredited" (his words) and that any research based on those translations is "outdated" and cannot be included. That is pure original research and about as clear a violation of NPOV as you can get. If he continues, it's inevitably going to end up before the Arbitration Committee. Content disputes can be resolved if everyone takes a good-faith approach to basic policies such as NPOV and NOR, but not if those policies are systematically disregarded, as CreazySuit is doing with the assistance of Ariobarza and Larno Man. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me -- you bet it is a content dispute. What is being disputed is, should Wikipedia follow WP:ENC, or should it adhere to a basic "Iran is great" policy. Not for ANI? I don't know, maybe not these days. If it isn't, it certainly should be. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Behavioral problems almost always have an underlying content dispute. The policies in question are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CANVASS, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing. If those policies are not adhered to, there is no way to solve the content dispute via normal dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I would also add that resolving content disputes requires some acceptance of the basic principle of NPOV - "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The fundamental problem here is that CreazySuit has been insisting that one, and only one, viewpoint is "the truth" and that all other viewpoints are "outdated", "false" and "discredited" (his words), and on that basis deleting any material which refers to those viewpoints. If you take that sort of position, it doesn't give much room for solving a dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's indeed the problem as I see it. If he (and Larno) would agree that (1) editors should not be making such judgements, (2) that latest, or made by someone's teacher, doesn't mean correct, and (3)acknowledge the possiblity that no one might be able to 'prove' this translation, we could get somewhere. But until then (well, (1) and (2) would be a start, (3) would be icing, we are not having a content dispute, we are having a dispute over whether policy should be followed (and common sense, I'd say also). I do not include Ariobarza in this at the moment. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And re (2) it's not even the latest translation - that title would belong to Amélie Kuhrt's (published August 2007), which corroborates Glassner's translation of 2004. CreazySuit appears to be wholly unaware of either translation; that's indicative of the lack of serious research going into this. All he's really doing is parroting the claims of page 12 of this tract by an Iranian-Canadian psychologist, which nationalists in the Iranian diaspora appear to have been circulating on the web (and which Ariobarza has been copying-and-pasting into talk pages). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Battle of Opis

As discussed above, CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been engaging in POV-based disruptive editing. Ariobarza (talk · contribs) and Larno Man (talk · contribs) have also engaged in problematic editing. The main primary source for information on the battle is an ancient Babylonian chronicle. A line in the chronicle has generally been translated as indicating that Cyrus the Great carried out a massacre after the battle. The best-known modern translation is by a historian named Grayson (1975); similar translations are by Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). However, another historian named Lambert has published a dissenting translation in an obscure French journal in 2007, which so far appears to be uncited by any other academic source. Nationalists in the Iranian diaspora have latched onto this (see page 12 of this tract). CreazySuit, Ariobarza and Larno Man are seeking to declare this one translation to be authoritative. They argue that all other translations and research based on those are "outdated" and unusable. CreazySuit and Larno Man have tag-teamed to delete any material referring to those translations and research - even external links. In Ariobarza's case, he has also sought to falsify direct quotations from sources and add his personal commentary to the article. However, I would say that CreazySuit has been responsible for the most serious and sustained disruption.

This is a categorical violation of NPOV's basic principle: "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It also violates WP:NOR. This conduct has seriously disrupted Battle of Opis and has resulted in it being protected for two weeks by DragonflySixtyseven. Diffs follow:

• 19:20, 14 August 2008 - Larno Man deletes an external link to a translation with edit summary: "livius translation is based on the flawed tranlation of Grayson"
• 08:36, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza deletes sourced content without comment
• 08:58, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza adds personal commentary to the article
• 09:13, 18 September 2008 - Ariobarza falsifies a direct quotation
• 18:13, 18 September 2008 - Larno Man deletes all of the sourced content and replaces it with an incoherent unsourced stub
• 23:52, 18 September 2008 - CreazySuit deletes all of the sourced content and reverts to Larno Man's stub, with the edit summary "rv - ChirsO's version relies on an oudated theory and false translation, discredited by academia"
• 00:12, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub
• 01:38, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit again reverts to the stub and refers to the talk page, where he posts this. See also this comment to DragonflySixtyseven.
• 11:17, 19 September 2008 - CreazySuit accuses me of anti-semitic motives. (How he jumps from the Battle of Opis to anti-semitism, I don't know - it's right out of left field but clearly a violation of civility.)

The article was then locked by DragonflySixtyseven and remains as an unsourced, badly written stub (compare before and after). I should add that I've since produced a longer version of the article, with more sources and translations, at User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis, but haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On the last of those diffs, he's accusing you of pro-semitism, not anti. Cyrus is quite highly regarded in Jewish history, because of his benevolence to the Jewish people. It seems he assumes you're Jewish and is accusing you of pro-Cyrus POV for that reason. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I never thought of it that way. If CreazySuit has anti-semitic views and assumes I'm Jewish (which I'm not), that puts a rather different light on why he's been so vehement on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I'd go so far as to say that edit shows anti-semitism. It's odd to have made the assumption, but not demonstrably anti semitic. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to ChrisO`s tendentious editing as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher (for which he has been sanctioned by the ArbCom). I am myself supporter of the state of Israel, Cyrus`s decrees are of immense importance to the Jewish right of return to Israel. Given ChrisO`s history as a pro-Palestinian POV-pusher, several users [75] have argued that ChrisO`s tendentious editing on Cyrus-related pages is motivated by the I-P conflict, and his political views on Jewish right of return. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense as an explanation: you're accusing ChrisO of POV based on anti-Zionism. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't make much sense to me. How do we get from "translations say Cyrus committed a massacre" to "anti-Zionism"? It's one hell of a leap - that's why I called it an out of left field accusation. Does that mean that all the historians who I've quoted are "anti-Zionists" too? Frankly, I find this sort of guilt-by-association on both sides of the I-P conflict to be very tiresome and sleazy. It's just a way of tarring an opponent with a label that's thought to be damaging. I recall a fellow named McCarthy used similar tactics, once upon a time. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm not suggesting it's an accurate accusation, and I apologise if that seemed to be the case. I have no knowledge of the dispute there. Just hamfistedly trying to help make sense of the accusation. I'll butt out now and stick to the Thermopylae issue at most, which I am informed about. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take your comments as endorsing CreazySuit's accusation. It's simply that I've clashed with I-P POV-pushers on a few occasions and CreazySuit has latched onto this to try to paint my contributions elsewhere in a bad light. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other disruption

I post below an edited version of a message I left at the deleted RfC. Do with it as you will. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Dweller

I have encountered User:Ariobarza in action at Battle of Thermopylae, its talk page and our talk pages. He's been pushing an OR take on the numbers of combatants, presumably because of POV. I gave up discussing with him because I couldn't cope with the walls of text he would post in response to simple questions, that totally ignored the points raised while frequently SHOUTING. The user seems to have WP:OWN issues to-boot and skates on thin ice of civility.

I posted at a WikiProject asking for outside views from Classicists, but no-one else seemed bothered by the dispute: the issue so tenaciously defended by the user is a number in an infobox and I have no plans on appearing in WP:LAME, so left him to it, rather saddened by the experience. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I dare say I can have a look at it; I'm a classicist myself, so this is right within my area of academic expertise. I would guess your trouble at Battle of Thermopylae is part of the ongoing problems that article's been having with Iranian nationalism ever since 300 (film) came out, which really, really pissed off those people. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My turn

Dweller I thought we settled this. First, I was never that passionate about Thermoplyae, but the reliability of Ctesias numbers. Second, I accused you (at first), of WP:OWN, because since I fairly know a good bit about the battle itself, and its topagraphy, I thought I could just add new information to it. I was suprised to see that after the Persians went on the offensive, the Greeks became nationalistic about Thermoplyae, and I dare say it is a VERY protected article. Furthermore I even came up with a solution, to include all the numbers, but I guess after all the supposed yelling, I did not recieve a yes or no from you, so its up to you to end this by giving me a message on my talk page. And do not forget, even Ctesias numbers are sourced, I know how it feels, I wished the Persian army was bigger too. Just go to the talk page of Thermoplyae for a better response, that for the most part agrees with, so I think that you might have seen it before, but if not, go there. Anyways, I just want to say for the record, ChrisO and others are currently at advantage, becuase they rampage everywhere on Wikipedia spreading this issue like a virus, until me and others are blocked. But I say... As a response to ChrisO, If I was such filled with Persian Pride, should'nt I be the one ranting all over Wikipedia to gain supporters for my agenda? ChrisO is on a one man crusade to expell Wikipedia of "barbarians" and their thinking, period. But, I'm still open to the thought that he might just be abusing his powers, and that he does want neutrality, but I am not sure, and I at least hope its the latter. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

See Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae#More_Info.21 for the significant bulk of it. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you, Ariobarza, I do want neutrality. I can't speak for the other editors involved in this dispute, but all I'm looking for from you is that (1) you respect the neutral point of view, by not constantly deleting every POV other than the one you favour; and (2) you respect the prohibition on original research by not constantly insisting on your personal interpretations, not making claims without citing any sources and not putting your personal commentary into articles. These aren't hard things to do. Thousands of contributors every day manage to do them without difficulty. Can't you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO`s conduct

I am writing a a detailed response which includes numerous diff links documenting ChrisO`s tendentious editing, suppression of opposing views, lack of civility, and total disregard for several policies ranging from WP:AGF to WP:Admin. It will be posted here within the next few hours. --CreazySuit (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

so, what is this? Are we just conducting rfcs on this page instead of dedicated rfc pages? Or what? Dear admins, take a step back and consider DNFTT, all this section is good for is providing a platform for yet more filibustering and empty complaints in obvious attempts at dodging core policy, like the one immediately above. If you can be bothered, just go to the articles concerned, grok the issue, and clamp down on the pov-pushers. What we have here is the classic "experts are scum" phenomenon. ChrisO is a classicist, for crying out loud: exactly the kind of person we want to edit our articles on Classical Antiquity. He is being bugged by patriotic kids. You are here to help him, not to give him more grief. Also see Wikipedia:Expert retention. It's why we have admins: to use their brains. If it was just about clamping down on revert wars, we could replace our admins with very short shell scripts. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:TylerPuetz

This user (who has rollback and untill recently ACC, it was just revoked) has been caught red handed by CU, logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it then proceding to brag about reverting vandalism on IRC. He has also run a bot on his account (and may still be running)

All this was discovered when we did some looking up on the IP's he was using to connect to IRC, some interesting contributions to say the least, then finding out he was also reverting them.

For these reasons Im proposing removal of rollback due to the vandalism and a block untill he declares that the bot is currently not running, nor will run untill its approved.

For evidence see here and here   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Alison has got it under control, she's given him a final warning. His rollback might be an issue though, I'd support its removal. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to remove it, it just feels to punitive. After all, he's unlikely to fuck around now and would likely just get it back soon enough when he decides to "reform". John Reaves 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the bot, he's running a copy of Addbot which can be seen by comparing the source pages --Chris 09:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I revoked the account creator right however. John Reaves 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My goal here is to have him stop the vandalism; that's my primary concern. He's had his warning, so that's the end of that game. I don't see too much of a need to punish the guy, to be honest - Alison ^❤ 09:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When do we remove rollback it not in this situation?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When people edit war with the tool or, say, start reverting non-vandalistic edits. John Reaves 09:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So disrupting the project, leeching others time by reverting his own vandalism and then reporting to AIV, then logging back in to effectivly evade his own ip block doesnt count? Rollback is a privledge, this user has made it quite clear that he needs a break from it.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

and lets not even mention the un-approved bot.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Rollback is a meaning less tool we give to revert vandalism, not some sort of reward for good behavior. He hasn't abused rollback, therefore he still has it. John Reaves 09:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By policy he may not have abused it, but by principal he has. Making vandalism just to revert so he can make drama and bragging rights is abuse and is counter productive to the project. But since some people are more concerned about what the rules say in black and white rather than using initative, i'll let this slide.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Let it slide"? It's not like any one is answering to you. John Reaves 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No one in thier right mind answers to another wikipedian. In other words im withdrawing despite what i think.  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Promethean that this constitutes an appaling breach of the underlying basic principles, the spirit of our policies and I also echo his wondering why people here seem reluctant to identify TylerPuetz's actions as a reason to revoke his Rollback access. He has proven that he cannot handle it responsibly, what more is needed? Everyme 12:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (Reopened as discussion had clearly not ended). I've removed TylerPuetz (talk · contribs)'s rollback rights; using them to tool around by reverting your own vandalism is not for what the tool is intended. I think Alison has been admirably restrained in only giving him a final warning. fish&karate 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Your actions and Promethean's point are supported by me. Good work in my book.--VS ^talk 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, Whilst I wanted it's removal I think that it should be made clear to TylerPuetz (who is fairly young as a contributor and person) that this is not the end of the world, we are not ganging up on him and that given good contributions / behaviour (logged in and out) for a period of time (not too long) will re-establish trust and that he can have rollback back. (if he still wants it)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, if you ask Troy_07, he confirmed my other IP was a shared IP, and my current IP, 24.251.76.165, has few contributions. About the bot thing, I've only made one edit via that sandbot to test it out, Only 1 at all. And it was to my userpage. The old IP was shared by about 8 different people, so please keep this topic open so I can discuss it. TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • That may be the case, IT seems there are two possibilitys, you have either edited from an IP at the same time a massive IP changing vandal has innocently, or you are that vandal. Im looking into this further.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
            • In further review im getting Alison just to confirm some things as i tiny detail has popped up which may change the way the storyline goes. This so called shared ip you used, do you know what it was for (eg school etc)?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

←For info of those who aren't aware, although he's blanked the conversations regarding them from his talkpage (which he's certainly entitled to do) this isn't TP's first issue. – iridescent 15:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • You were asking what school, Millennium High School, in the agua fria union high school district. --TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 17:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there a big lack of evidence for anyone to review here. There's Alison's word, which I trust, that he was logging out to vandalize, but she wasn't the one who started this section, and Promethean's comments have included things that don't appear to have been confirmed on-wiki:

"logging out and vandalising,logging back in an using rollback to revert it" - Alison confirmed he was apparently logging out and vandalizing, but has she confirmed that he was logging back in and reverting it? The former could possibly be explained by a shared IP (though without knowing the IP, its hard to tell if its shared), the latter would not be.

"For evidence see here" - Umm, more specific please? He has a lot of edits, and I don't even know what I'm supposed to be looking for there.

"He has also run a bot on his account" - Where's the evidence of this?

Does Promethean know the IPs in question? If so, why not provide them as evidence? If not, why is he acting as the "official spokesman" for this, when he's almost completely in the dark? Mr.Z-man 17:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; yes, he's using a shared IP right now, as he states above. However, the logging out occurred on an IP address that he also uses which is a domestic one - Alison ^❤ 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I was doing what I was accused of, but even if I was logging out to vandalize, and logging back in to revert, if you look at my contributions, and do extensive searching, I've only reverted probably 15 of my edits, and they were to my user page/sandbox, or undoing my own edits when I had made a mistake. --TylerPuetz (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There was not a huge quantity of them, by any means, no. Hence my dealing with the situation; you got warned to not do that. And there it basically should end, right? Problem solved? - Alison ^❤ 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Minute, notable objects

I didn't know exactly where to take this, so I'm asking here. This isn't a proposal, just a question that I think could turn into a guideline/policy, or something, based on the views of everyone here.

Onto the topic at hand, since it was not listed, I was wondering about the notability of objects, such as all the parts of a film-set, the specific lens-filters used, the way the filming camera is created/modified to suit the purpose at hand. I honestly don't think each of these tiny objects needs a separate article, yet at the moment, there is no guideline or policy under which they would fall(at least to my knowledge).— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the object is the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliabel independent sources, then it meets the general notability guideline. Whether consensus would support a given object will depend on just how far you need to stretch the values of "substantial", "multiple" and "independent", I guess. Some people think WP:ITEXISTS is enough, others don't. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The individual projects covering entertainment mediums, for instance, would probably have guidelines or consensus on how to cover these things within articles. As far as split-out articles are concern, they are already covered under WP:N, which is deliberately vague but stipulates that there should be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What 'significant' means is not something that can be nailed down very well so it's a case-by-case deal. If a part of a larger topic is covered in this way, then an article is theoretically possible, but the most important thing when splitting it out is to present a good case for doing so, building it in userspace and discussing it with other contributors would make things go more smoothly. If the sub-topic is genuinely of note, then having a separate article is beneficial because it means readers can be linked to it directly and have it explained as a separate item, rather than merely an aspect of a whole. An example is Gravity Gun (Half-Life), whereas the vast majority of weapons in games are scarcely worth noting outside of a few examples, this one proved so influential and is referenced so frequently that having a separate article makes sense. It just needs more citations to reflect that *adds to things to do list*. Someoneanother 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, the more minor the spin-out seems, the more emphasis has to be placed on presenting a rounded picture, supplying sources and actually building an article. It's no good throwing up an article on an aspect of something else and typing out a few sentences, if the only conclusion which can be drawn is "yeah, so?" then it shouldn't have been created. Stubs are good, but you can't expect someone to step in and write an article for you if it's just expansion of a theme, there aren't enough weeks in the hour. Someoneanother 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean objects like Fatsuits? The AFD could probably be informally speedy keep'ed at this point, I think. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple copyright concerns, possible pattern

There is a copyright matter that needs further investigation. I have out of town guests this weekend and very little time, and I would appreciate assistance, if possible.

After substantiating copyright concerns at the article Magyar Cserkészszövetség (listed at WP:CP), I began to look at some of the other contributions of the article's creator, Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), a prolific contributor since October of 2005, and I have so far identified four more problematic articles. One of these, I've already cleaned: Hayastani Azgayin Scautakan Sharjum Kazmakerputiun (the site it was copied from permitted reuse, but not modification, though it also required credit which was not supplied). I'm about to take a look at the three others to see if the duplicated text has been entirely revised through Wikipedia's natural evolution or what further handling may be required. They are:

• Savez izviđača Hrvatske. (First edit, duplicated from here & here.)
• Beslidhja Skaut Albania. (First edit), duplicated from [http://web.archive.org/web/20050828011327/http://n2zgu.50megs.com/ALB.htm here) ("Scouting was founded in Albania...at the World Scout Conference in South Africa.")
• Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini (First edit, duplicated from here

Given that five of the articles I've looked at created by this user contain text from preexisting sources with no verification that the material is free for use, I'm concerned there may be more, but I don't have time to continue looking through his contributions. As he blanked without comment my invitation to discuss the matter, here, but persisted in denying a problem elsewhere, I am unsure that he will choose to participate in this conversation, but I will notify him of this thread in case he does.

If anyone has an opportunity to look further through these contributions, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll pick up again on Monday, though meanwhile the listings at WP:CP march on. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating in the midst of cleanup to note that I did notify, but he has again removed notification of concerns without comment, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As to unsure that he will choose to participate in this conversation, why should I? Moonriddengirl has already decided all of my edits are suspect, has begun poorly editing my early stuff, and has started this admin thing about me. I do not care anymore. I'm not going to unwrite things I posted here three years ago, much of which was synthesis of my research originally started in September 1989, when there were only four people in the world studying this, and I was one of them, and which I lent to people for their use. The Pine Tree Web (Lewis Orans, and you will find my name-Chris Fitch-all over that site), and N2ZGU (Gregg Sablic, who has piles of my research) stuff was used by correspondents directly borrowing what I wrote my thesis on, and for which the Scouting Project has explicit permission to reuse. I'm a little more savvy than I was then, but once I have been tarred with "plagiarist", true or false (false, but how to prove, and why bother?)... ah well. I'm 6000 miles away from my archives, in another country, with stuff that was written nearly two decades ago and is buried in my storage. I explained at Talk:Magyar Cserkészszövetség, Moonriddengirl insists on labelling my reasoning as denial, and so is determined to go ahead and crucify me. Again, why should I participate in this witch-hunt? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. You indicated at Talk:Magyar_Cserkészszövetség#Copyright_problem_removed that "I wrote the original from source material I've had since 1990, the sites may have been copied from here, I never saw them before today. The tone, tense, languange and writing of those articles seems to me totally different than my own, and where there are similarities, it's a small topic, there must by default be overlap." You also indicated there that you were "the original author of this article three years ago" and that "they were actually written here first."

As I noted at that talk page, the archived version of the identified site, here, predates us. They cannot have copied from here. The earliest version of your article, here, substantially duplicates that site. Among other duplicated text, I draw particular attention to the section in your text then beginning "In the early 1950s, the Displaced Persons (DPs), refugees from World War II and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe" down through "The World Organization of the Scout Movement maintains ties and provides support to the reemerging Scouting movements in the countries of their birth." This, compared with the archived site ("In the early fifties, the DPs (Displaced Persons, refugees from the Second World War and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe" through "The World Organization of the Scout Movement, maintain ties and provide support to the re-emerging Scouting movements in the countries of their birth"), is clearly so similar that the text could not have been spontaneously, separately composed. If you did not duplicate from that source, then the only other possible explanation is that both you and the official website, which previously published the material, copied from an earlier, unidentified source. If you were the author of that earlier, unidentified source--or of any of the material at other sites--you can demonstrate that as the talk page of each article I've addressed here now notes, through Donating copyrighted materials.

Your participation here is valuable as it is considerably easier for you to demonstrate that you are not placing copyrighted text on Wikipedia if you reply and supply verification than if you simply blank notices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent page redirecting

I'm not quite sure whether or not this can be considered vandalism, or even wrong per se, however i've decided to bring this incident to AN/I because it may require admin intervention. User 59.183.26.93 (talk · contribs) continues to blank and redirect the article "Jazz Jackrabbit (series)" to Jazz Jackrabbit (character) ([76][77][78] without explanation (Which was incidentally, originally a redirect of the former.). After reverting his edits twice, I left him a note on his talk page and explaining that he must use the article's talk page to discuss the redirect. Instead he simply ignored that and reverted my edits. The article originally contained good quality content, which acted as the the main page of that topic (Jazz Jackrabbit).

I'm unable to continue to revert his egregious edits, because I'm already in violation of 3RR [79]. However what I find more worrying, is that a similar ip address (from the same vicinity or area) belonging to blocked user Fangusu did the exact same thing 5 days earlier [80]!
I think these bad faith edits are more sinister than they appear. --Flewis^(talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not in violation of 3RR - it doesn't apply to vandalism, and once you tried to communicate with the IP and they continued the unexplained redirecting, it became implicit vandalism. So no worries there. I've semi-protected the article in question for 5 days, so you've now got time to convince the IP to talk to you, otherwise there's now time for him/her to get bored and go away. I have no opinions on the other IP or on Fangusu because I've not looked into the matter. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 12:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the apparent lack of Notability of the Character/Series separately, and the fact that they probably belong in the same article anyway is a discussion for elsewhere :-) BMW(drive) 13:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. The content element is nothing to do with me or any other administrator (in an admin capacity) and I never even looked at it; the repeatedly redirecting an article after being asked to stop bit is 100% admin territory. The IP can easily slap an AfD template on the article in question and a rationale on the talk page and I'll list it when DumbBOT next updates. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a sock of blocked user Fangusu. He has been editing from IPs in the same range for the past few weeks since his main account was blocked. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty clearly, yes. I've blocked the IP for a week. Feel free to let me know if you find more, so they can be blocked and this one can be unblocked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat at Sanford Bishop

Resolved

 – Georgia Board of Regents and FBI notified Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ran across this lovely thought this morning at Sanford Bishop, added by 168.10.63.72 (talk · contribs) yesterday, and I figured that if anything further needed to be done besides removal, there'd be someone here who's better equipped to deal with it than me. 71.215.236.12 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Email sent to Georgia Board of Regents (abuse contact) reporting incident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about contacting the FBI? I think they frown upon people threatening to kill members of Congress. KnightLago (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that resolves to a high school, actually (universities wouldn't use anything at doe.k12.ga.edu for emails), so I'll bet it's a prank. Happened around 9 AM local time, too, so during school hours. Still, no harm being cautious. The Board of Regents should be able to handle it from here, forwarding to other agencies as necessary. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 15:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You could be right, but I just got a call back from the FBI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats against User:Orangemike by User:Wangtopgun over editing dispute

Resolved

 – Triple indef block conflict. KnightLago (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy is a combat veteran, says he's worked as a mercenary; now he's escalating an edit dispute to what he describes as "war"; when I posted a moderate notice on the Wikiquette board, he said on my talk page, "As I stated clearly, let the war begin . . . and if you think this is just cyberspace, think again." Am I unreasonable to think this is inappropriate? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not being unreasonable. I was on my way to indef block him, but someone got there before I did. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked until they retract and promise to stay completely away from you in the future. --barneca (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Make that a triple Block-conflict - I was going to do the same. Good block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well shucks, the indef block might just negate my sparkling new Civility Warning Welcome Template that I left on his page BMW(drive) 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. I'm going to remember that template. Definitely could have used that in the past. Yoink. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

Resolved

 – RBI - KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there is a deeper issue here. Thatcher 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see "The Wikipedia Community would like to wish Avril Lavigne a happy birthday!" at the top of the article on South Africa and related articles. It appears above the article title! I have no idea how this is done, because I can't find the text in the article. Over to someone more aufait than me ... AWhiteC (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here, vandal blocked, but I'm a little unclear if we protect templates that have previously been targeted or not. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lonely lost soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Birthdaygirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wubwubus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vancouver cornetto1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These vandal accounts and the template vandalism they caused were enabled because Blueboy96 unblocked 82.198.250.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and replaced it with a soft block. As I explained at Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix, even though these are shared IPs, almost all the edits are vandalism from the Avril vandal. These accounts were created recently on Tor, then used to vandalize from school. Therefore a softblock is worthless. The template further gives several helpful instructions to good editors who might be affected. I was hoping that a hard block would annoy enough of Synetrix' clients that they would take some sort of action.

I am disappointed that Blueboy96 lifted this block without informing or consulting me. Expect the Avril template vandal to come back on a daily basis. Thatcher 18:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put this block back in place; checkuser blocks are obviously not to be undone. east718 // talk // email // 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had thought there was a provision in the blocking policy reflecting that "checkuser blocks," designated as such, should not be undone by another (non-checkuser) administrator without checking with the checkuser. However, I'm not finding that provision in a skim of WP:BLOCK, so perhaps I am misremembering (although it seems a sensible enough suggestion in any event). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those things that's accepted practice but the recording of which as such has been neglected. I suppose this is as close as you'll get to instructions of this sort. east718 // talk // email // 19:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the type of block, it would have been courteous for Blueboy to ask Thatcher first, or at least inform him of unblocking, whether it was a checkuser block, or a plain admin one. -- how do you turn this on 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)