Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent events as of 8 December

Unfortunately, of the three uninvolved admins who volunteered to close this big RfC (HJ Mitchell, Black Kite and Newyorkbrad), one is known to have been unavailable and one has not made a single edit in almost a week. That leaves only HJ Mitchell. In discussions that spread over WT:V#It doesn't take this long to determine consensus, User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V, User talk:Cla68#WP:V RfC, User talk:HJ Mitchell#WP:V and possibly further locations, it appears that HJ Mitchell got the impression that it is OK for him to co-opt Cla68, resulting in a committee of 4 edits with 2 actually available. Cla68 accordingly created a "deliberation page" in his user space.

In my opinion this is highly inappropriate, even though the initial reactions were agreement by two editors (Nuujinn, Blueboar) and no protest. Cla68 is not an admin (not really necessary, but his failed RfA sheds some light on whether this is the right kind of person for the job), is not completely uninvolved as he voted in an earlier RfC about the same policy sentence (again not completely necessary), and whether he is in good standing depends on whether someone under an active Arbcom sanction qualifies for that. More importantly, the ARBCC topic ban was for, among other things:

• battlefield conduct – disqualifies him from determining consensus in a way that will contribute to a peaceful and lasting resolution
• inappropriate use of sources – disqualifies him from determining consensus on the first sentence of WP:V.

In order to give the immediate negative feedback that people need if they are to learn anything from their mistakes, I nominated the "deliberation page" for deletion. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page. Hans Adler 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Closed now

It's closed now (one has to look at the talk archives to find it), and I think it's time to move on. I want to publicly say "thank you" to Regents Park, Worm that turned, and HJ Mitchell for doing the hard work of evaluating the discussion and explaining their reasoning so carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Except after all this time and arguing, there's no "not truth" in the intro... because of a bunch of childish edit-warring. Bravo. Restore it back to before the edit-warring took place, please, now that the page is fully-protected. Doc talk 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

then no, despite what you say it's not finished. If there's childish edit warring and WP:WRONG VERSION calls, it's no where near "done", unless I can get some verification of it being closed the way it is. Alexandria (chew out) 20:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hj regentspark and I closed it as no consensus. An editor tried an new approach which resulted in the edit war and there wrong version. There need to be a discussion with a proper new proposal, but instead there seems to be a lot of bickering at the momentWorm^TT · (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lovely... Alexandria (chew out) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(@Worm)It was a war over the freaking tag not my boldness. FWIW. Crazynas ^t 08:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest it was both actually, but I should have mentioned the tag. Either way, ho hum. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(@Doc)It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) (productive discussion continues on the talk page, although weather it will ever get past the cabal is up to debate. Crazynas ^t 08:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great song! As for the mystery cabal... it must be like Freemasons or something. Doc talk 07:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's failure to govern itself

Quoting someone from WT:V: 'Obviously the first sentence is still "under discussion", but that discussion is likely to go on indefinitely under current circumstances'. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a failure to govern. It's a disagreement with how Wikipedia governance works. Consensus decisions don't happen on other people's schedules. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MoMK again. (This thread needs more attention by uninvolved admins. Please read, do your research and decide yourself. Thanks.)

This page was and is contentious and only a few editors and admins were willing to watch over it and is by now abandoned again. It would be nice to get an admin overlooking the page in general and especially go over the last few days (including the talkpage) where user:Overagainst made repeatedly edits despite missing consensus and opposition to most of their edits. Like other editors (including admins) I'm getting tired of this and don't want to engage in further reverts as there doesn't seem to be any intention by that OP to discuss points made in editsummaries and on talk and it might just look like I'm just editwarring against this user.

Appreciated for someone to take the time to look into this and possible stay put for a while after having found some insight in the issues involved.

Thank you, TMCk (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Will notify user shortly.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• More: My personal assesment about this editor is that after first vehemently opposing Follian's book on bases of a review he than changes his mind after they're getting access to the book and since then is trying to implement everything written in it into the article based on what they personaly think is of due weight, including random quotes that where not reported by the media. If we would apply his rational for inclusion we would end up with a quotefarm not seen before with their simple rationale that if it's in the book it must be due weight (also they're just cherry-picking).TMCk (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• ...and it sure would be great and of service if someone already familiar with the past of the article could comment.TMCk (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unanswered threads to issues with this article have in in the past (few years) led to even more problems and drastic measures in part regarding drastic sanctions and added to the contentiousness already present. I hope that this time it will be handled before such happens again.TMCk (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Involved editor here. I think Overagainst is bombarding the article with controversial edits and trying to overwhelm the talk process. The result is a slow edit war and the article is worse for it. Having seen this play out over weeks and weeks, I regretfully suggest administrator involvement. Brmull (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection is worth considering. This article has been fully protected for as long as one month in the past. A new period of full protection would still allow necessary changes to be put in through {{editprotect}}. That mechanism requires that admins only make changes which have editor consensus. Note that Overagainst has made 27 edits since December 9. Six of them were obvious reverts. This volume of editing, if it continued, would strain the ability of regular editors to keep up. At Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher I do not notice *anyone* supporting Overagainst's edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there were 7 reversions (not counting those made in a row of course) and 8 by now.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I was considering article protection in the first place but since the problem on that page comes down to one single editor I don't think this is the way to go, the reason I posted here on ANI and not at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think some strong advise to the by now still ignorant editor in question and some edit restrictions for the OP in regards to the article itself (at least for a while) are maybe the only way to prevent further disruption as we already have seen there in the past--- so many times.TMCk (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor is at it again with the same behaviour while ignoring this ANI thread discussing him.TMCk (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh here we go. I haven't been watching this article for a while, but it does seem that, once again, there is an editor attempting to shoehorn a point-of-view in there without discussing in any meaningful or reasonable manner on the relevant talk page. More eyes please. pablo 21:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst (talk · contribs) was notified of this ANI but has continued to edit at MoMK without making any response here. Since the people who gave their opinions above don't favor protection, how about a one-week block. It could be lifted if the editor will agree to wait for consensus before making any further changes. This article has caused a lot of trouble in the past and a hands-off strategy by admins would not be wise. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't think a one week block would be of service in the long run and would rather see a restriction on them to only be able to post on the talk page but prevented from editing the article for a month or a time to be determined by the community. That might force them to read and learn about consensus, BRD and that WP is a work of collaboration in between editors. Problems with their editing were pointed out to them before and as recently here on their talkpage.
TMCk (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just added to the section title in hope we won't end up were we did before as this is still preventable.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe time for a (small) straw poll

The following remedies are a possibility:

1. Take no action at all. (...and watch the quality of the article going down again.)

2. Implement a one week block as proposed by EdJohnston. (See above incl. resp. why that might not work.)

3. Implement a edit restriction on the OP for one month (or determent by the community) for the editor in question to be restricted to edits only to the talk page.

4. Other?

Drafted by TMCk (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Some ce. made.TMCk (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about topic-banning? In the long run, I think that would be best.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think that a topic ban is the only solution in the long run. I made the mistake in the past (concerning other editors who were involved in the article) to give them a slack and time to change their way but to no prevail and by now they're either topic banned or blocked (or just disappeared in light of the consequences I'd say). To keep this article manageable and the distraction out, nothing else but drastic measures worked in the past and I don't see a different approach to be constructive now.TMCk (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a distorted and, frankly, offensive view of the history of this article. You are pretending that you gave editors slack and that you were somehow acting as the voice of reason when in fact virtually every edit you have made to the article and its talk page has the end result of advancing your own POV onto the article. The "nothing else but drastic measures worked in the past" line is a reference to people getting blocked for wholly inappropriate reasons that Jimbo later included as part of the BLP violations and bad behavior on the article when he asked new voices to come to the article to save it from the horrible bias it had up to that point. Thankfully the days when you could claim that the idea that Knox and Sollecito were possibly innocent was an extreme fringe view that the article should not contain are over. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure. The usual expected insults based on nothing but your aggressive style. See below.TMCk (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The "cartwheel" thing is now changed (again) to what Follain writes and disregarding Dempsey's account (both considered by consensus to be reliable sources). latest repeated reversion can be found here where they also revert to a wrong page # re. Dempsey's book. The editsummary is misleading and simply wrong! Having a closer look there now shows content that has no source (as being Dempsey's book and not only the page #'s are wrong but also not backed up by what she writes). Dempsey writes about Ficarra seeing the cartwheels which was replaced by Overagainst (w/o giving a rational despite asked to do so) with Foillan's account of being Napoleoni who saw the splits (not found in Dempsey's account) and the cartwheel. Ergo: They replaced/removed sourced content with in part unsourced and conflicting statements in sources w/o further discussion. They reverted despite lack of discussion that was asked for. A usual behavior of that editor.TMCk (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again.

Part of the problem is that the disputes on this article are so involved and complex to someone who hasn't been knee-deep in the case that it's very difficult for a non-involved editor to feel like he or she can sort it out. As someone who knows a fair amount about the case and who has participated off and on with this article, by reading the above and skimming the talk page I honestly can't tell what you guys are complaining about. The edit linked to immediately above doesn't seem particularly controversial one way or another.

This article in the past had editors threaten and eventually block editors based largely upon pushing a pro-guilt POV onto the article. I say this based upon my personal evaluation of the edit history there as well as noting the comments made by several editors there over the years, including the one who started this thread. Jimbo himself either agreed that a pro-guilt bias had taken over the article and influenced blocks, or thought it was quite possible based upon the evidence, depending upon how you interpret his various edit comments. Considering this, another block or topic ban should be approached very cautiously.

Has there been mediation? RFC? Anything? A topic ban is premature here. Before you go that route you really need to better articulate what the alleged problems are with the behavior and then exhaust all normal dispute resolution processes. Frankly, based upon some rather outrageous comments and actions taken in the history of that article, the editor complaining here is a better candidate for a topic ban, in my not so humble opinion. His actions were what I would consider to be civil POV pushing, gaming the system to try to promote his views by getting others blocked and locking the article and so forth. I'm not going to try to RFC/ArbCom/whatever that knowing how long and involved that would be (and especially since it's moot at this point because enough other editors came along to improve the article), but some of his comments made there have been outrageously biased, in a "so opinionated on a topic that they can't make objective decisions" way instead of an "actively working in bad faith to distort the facts" way.

And, hey, the big news on the case recently with the appeals court giving their exact reasons for releasing Knox and Sollecito and declaring them innocent. The most important thing needed on that article right now is some updated facts, and so far it looks like the only person who has added any updates about this as far as I can tell is Overagainst, and those seem pretty accurate and objectively-worded to me. DreamGuy (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about "nonsense": What we for sure don't need is some BS from an editor who came to the article after it was being made "famous" (or infamous, it's a matter of opinion) when popping up on Jimbo's page due to some well known Knox-supporting SPA's. We're beyond that extreme biased and influence seeking approach of those accounts that are by now either blocked for good reasons and the remaining stopped pushing to shoehorn their extreem views onto the article (and ceased editing in general as they're only interrest in WP was this single case. Hell, even Dempsey who always was and wrote as a proponend of Knox's innocents wrote a book that we are using as a RS engaged in socking and was blocked. We had plenty of problem editors on the article which were repeatedly told that WP is "not" the place to determent guilt or innocence and at the end the only option open was to block them and we did. Now we have one single editor trying to push his POV into the article even against consensus and user:DreamGuy has no problem with it and obviously didn't look at the article's and article's talk page's edit history. As far as I can see he is just ranting as he did before regarding the same page w/o real reason but just b/c he can. His post doesn't make sense at all but this doesn't come to a surprise to me at all.
Also your editsummary: "had to respond to rather offensive claim made by person who caused problems on article giving slanted version of events)". Could you get more specific instead of throwing arround a extremely wild and unfounded accusation? If you can get specific please do so, if not you might want to retract.TMCk (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, you, DreamGuy didn't provide much useful content at the talk page at the time and where edit warring in a way at the article. Collaboration wasn't at that time is doesn't seem to be your intend and goal. As far as I'm concerned you just come again to steer things up further as they already are with no sight of helpful intention to calm things down to be solved in a decent matter with as little collaborate damage as possible. TMCk (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• And as a final thought, "Dream"Guy: Stop bullshitting me about what I think. You're the last one who would know and even showed it.TMCk (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some serious fact based comments from uninvolved editors (unlike the one by DreamGuy who just contradicted himself at the article's talkpage unknowingly or maybe just neglected to inform himself before commenting, condemning one thing happening to the article, mainly that it is being "bogged down with details, and those details are being cited to sources that contradict each other or introduce claims not present in other books." while supporting the editor responsible for doing so) would still be appreciated and very welcome.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

With this editor the main problem is not even POV-pushing. He's an equal opportunity offender. I don't know how DreamGuy can see that the article is getting bogged down in details and contradictions, and not want it to stop. I haven't seen any inappropriate editing from TMCk or anyone else recently--in no small part because we spend all our time trying to keep up with Overagainst. I vote yes to whatever is the most long-term solution we can agree on. Brmull (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: When this topic was last brought to ANI (in late October), there was some discussion about a proposal to implement article probation or some form of discretionary sanctions (with support for such measures to be "broadly construed" and to apply to sub-articles). Perhaps this would be another option to consider besides issuing a topic ban? SuperMarioMan 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. --John (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This latest series of edits by Overagainst show him to be careful and neutral, changing non-neutral wording to neutral, using very good sources. I think his efforts on the page have been very beneficial. The Knox-is-guilty-anyway crowd is of course horrified, but that is to be expected. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban; welcome any amount of scrutiny of this page and the relevant talk. Overagainst is an enthusiastic editor - and nothing wrong with enthusiasm but seems to have a problem engaging on talk. pablo 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas

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

---

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

Over the past few days GalingPinas has been increasingly disruptive. An article that he created, Circball (XfD), was deleted. This editor has subsequently created three copies of the article in their userspace, including their userpage. All of these copies are in various states of changes from the original. The third copy, their userpage, was nominated for deletion. They have been raining down harassment allegations against the nominator, Tarc (talk · contribs). (See Tarc's userpage) They are continuing to forum shop over the original article. I am asking my fellow admins to consider blocking this user under CIR. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if we can have an article on 43-Man Squamish, we can have an article on most any sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourced to a passing mention in an obituary and a Floyd bootleg? To AfD we go... As for Mr. Pinas, I have little to add that hasn't been said above. This is about as severe a case of WP:OWN as I have ever seen. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is unfair. This look like a retaliation on an online harrasment/vandalism i reported on tarc's page that noone seems to want to respond. Instead, a ban suggestion. Please reconsider as this new user is unaware that putting notices on people talkpages would result in a ban. If someone can point to the right direction to raise a harrassment/vandalism charge against tarc that I felt was going on yesterday, i would appreciate it. Otherwise, this is inapproriate retaliation of a seeming minor complaint. Doesn't users have the right to appeal deleted pages through DRV? doesn't users have the opportunity to seek comments on article being created on appropriate sections of WP? There's no forum shop. The issue of having several copies of a content in userpage has been explained thoroughly at the Mfd and I would direct users to that discussion to find out the reason. But this proposed ban is not more than to silence an active user seeking feedback for its VERY first article ever in WP. Ouch. I've been bitten again here.GalingPinas (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• There has been no harassment and no vandalism on my part at any time. I blanked your user page as it was a copy of a deleted article. Doing that has been generally understood to be a bad idea and to run afoul of the spirit of what user pages are for. You reverted that, and we engaged in discussion on your talk page, where you were adamant in keeping the user page, so I nominated it for deletion. You then began adding other stuff to the user page, which pushed the Deletion Notice down. As that is not allowed, I moved it back to the top. During discussion in the MfD, you came up with this bizarre idea where you deleted half the user-page version of the article and made an offer that if I apologized to you (in two separate venues, no less) that you would then removed the second half. The power to end all of those nonsense has been in your hands this entire time, and you have steadfastly refused to take it. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) How have I bitten you? DGG, Tarc, Anna Frodesiak, et al. have all tried to handle you with kid gloves. At every turn, you have either refused to take the advice or tried to wikilawyer your way out of it. At this point you are just closing your ears and playing the "I didn't hear it game." Your refusal to see a lost cause and inability to understand policy show me that you many not have the competency required to be a member of the community. Bite only tells me that I should assume an extra measure of good faith. At this point you have burned through the normal measure and the extra. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've looked through the various discussions and I just don't think there's any reasoning with Galing. Yesterday a perfectly reasonable suggestion was made for him to move the article from use userpage to his sandbox whilst he was working on it (Tarc even created his sandbox for him) and he agreed, on the absurd condition that Tarc apologise for "threatening and harassing" him with deletion templates he placed at the top of his userpage. I don't think he's ever going to want to collaborate; I think a block could be appropriate. I think it might also be worth amending WP:User pages to explicitly state that a userpage is no place to resurrect previously deleted articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is clearly an editor who is not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. He is only here to push through his fairly hopeless article, to get it published and so gain notability. That's not how we work, and GalingPinas does not appear to be able to work with us. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

• Comment I complied to everyone's suggestion to make the article as Personal Commentary to satisfy these concerns. Yet even that is not enough for you Tarc? I have no other recourse but to think that even after complying to a compromise that that's still unacceptable to you. It just tell me that your unrelenting vendetta against me then. The conserted effort by Tarc and everyone else to ban me from WP just another icing on the cake. The bottom line? He didn't like the article I created. I consider harrassment/vandalism on what you did yesterday tarc for blanking my page without notice. That's why the request for an apology. If you would apologize now we can call this quits and everything goes back to normal and you will not see my userpage anymore with the article you so detest. Just a question, If I blank your page and delete your userpage without notifying you first, you don't consider that harrassment/vandalism? GalingPinas (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • His userpage is within policy; yours, however, was not. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have meatballs in the oven, so this will be the last and brief comment for the night. The "compromise" you made was to add;

“ Hi, I'm GalingPinas. I have followed the Circball game since I first saw the game last year. Hopefully someday someone would write an article about it in WP. Here's what I learned so far about this game: ”

• • to the top of the article. That isn't compromise. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas, if you continue to demand an apology, you will not get one that is sincere, I guarantee you that. –MuZemike 00:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Do we need a fourth copy of the page in question on the MfD's Talk page? --Guerillero | My Talk 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, and I have deleted it. If he pulls that again, then he will be blocked for blatant disruption. –MuZemike 00:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc how would you reword the compromise then? Coz I really wanna consider that a viable option that everyone can agree on.

MuZemike.. why did you delete Tarc's moving of this draft compromise? The deletion will be archive and you don't want people to see the result? just wondering?. Tarc, please reword the compromise draft if you so chose and let's end this feud ok? i have nothing against you. I over-reacted to your actions and it's just plain old misunderstanding ok? what else do you want? I'm dropping the request for apology because I'm seeing that you're being helpful to make this situation better.. so... how bout it.. [hands extended... waiting to shake tarc's hands] GalingPinas (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Galing you're just not getting it. You may think it's a viable option which everyone can agree on, but the problem is that absolutely no one actually does agree on it/with you. No disclaimer at the top of the reproduced article is going to change the fact that it doesn't belong on your userpage. You can end this nonsense yourself simply by moving it to a subpage (which would fulfil all your needs regarding this article), but you seem determined to turn this into a WP:BATTLE. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas, you only need one copy of a draft when you're working on it (just save as you go). Though I see no reason for you not to host it on your user page (there is certainly nothing in policy that precludes it), others do, and, since it troubles them, please consider hosting it on a user subpage. As for your subpage, User:GalingPinas/Talcharrassmentrecord, this type of thing is described here as an attack page, and we have a long history of not allowing such pages to be hosted on Wikipedia. Save it onto your desktop. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I've been involved in this since seeing it on DGG's talk page...but can I personally suggest that we delete all copies of this deleted article? User sub-pages are not actually allowed to exist indefinitely to "work on" the article to improve it. I concur with DGG on this matter: at this point, unless there are some hidden sources out there that nobody has yet found, no amount of work can make this article ready for main space, as the game itself is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. GalingPinas should take whichever version or versions of the page that xe likes, move it off line, and then once real world circumstances change, bring it back as a draft (I'd recommend using WP:Articles for creation. I feel that allowing GalingPinas the leeway of keeping these around in one form or another is part of the problem, because it engenders the illusion that this is part of a process back to the encyclopedia which simply cannot occur. Maybe once the temptation is removed, GalingPinas can either move on to other constructive activities on WP, or, if xe has no interest in WP beyond Circball, move on with the rest of xyr life. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Update. Considering the personal attacks and the serious WP:BATTLE/WP:IDHT issues, I've just blocked GalingPinas (talk · contribs) for a year under WP:CIR. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you --Guerillero | My Talk 05:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the userpage as well as both userfied versions that he had. His campaign of disruption and spamming ends here. –MuZemike 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Sad outcome. I think GalingPinas meant well, felt bitten, and overreacted - some people do default to being over-defensive when they feel they're being ganged up on. And there was evidence of calming down - comments like "I over-reacted to your actions and it's just plain old misunderstanding ok?", and "hands extended... waiting to shake tarc's hands". After all, how bad a deal was it that a user was using their user space to keep multiple copies of something they wanted to work on? It wasn't good, no, but was there really any great urgency to get rid of it all? I can't help feeling that more hands of friendship and fewer slaps might have worked better - I note that Anna tried that approach and it didn't work at the time, but she was very much in a minority and GalingPinas hadn't started to calm down yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Also worth noting, I think, is that GalingPinas is Filipino, and so does not have English as a first language -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Any idea why MuZemike deleted comments from the talk page and the page history?[1] Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  I don't, no, perhaps he will explain - but I generally disapprove of deleting Talk page comments unless there is a very good reason -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  I had already bailed for the night by the time of the "shake hands" comment, seems like the 11th-hour seeing of the light just didn't come in time. The "compromise" was never really a good idea; as I noted above all he was doing was adding a personal greeting to the top of the "article", leaving the rest intact. Also, the "multiple copies" wasn't the direct issue, the main thing was he was trying to keep a copy of it as his main User:GalingPinas page. As far as I'm concerned, I treated this person with kid gloves. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, the "compromise" was not really a valid option, and I do appreciate that your original blanking and tagging was fine. I just think that once we had seen a newbie reacting badly to that, the community "pile on" was really not the best way to try to handle things - had we backed off a little from pushing the issue, we might have had a better result. Anyway, I'm not blaming anyone personally, I'm just observing that the overall result does perhaps look a little aggressive and punitive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What I deleted mainly consisted of his continued recreation of the article on his user talk page (and the edit warring that ensued); all other talk page comments, aside from the last unblock request decline remain intact.

As far as being too aggressive, are we seriously expected to let users like this go in a state of perpetual temper tantrum while we collectively bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on? –MuZemike 16:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody, certainly not I, has suggest that - so please don't imply that I/we have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the unfortunate times where anything said irritates a person further. (btw, I do not think language played a role in this--he was quite fluent, indeed excessively so, and said what he thought in unmistakable terms.) But if he would write sensibly on other topics, he might have become a helpful editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted a number of talk page comments that were never restored, including my attempt to work with him to get unblocked. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG, people tried to help him, he refused to take it. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

I'll try to comment here as someone who is impartial to the case (I saw the case on the Philippines noticeboard), so apologies if I misinterpret anything here. However, I would believe that the continued insistence of GalingPinas on the validity of his article, and the actions which have come from it, come from diametrically opposing interpretations of existing policy, which I would believe is fine and dandy until someone begins imposing his/her views on everyone else. From the looks of the discussion, the accusation goes both ways: GalingPinas was accusing editors who voted against keeping the Circball article that his interpretation of policy was being disregarded, while on the other side, those who voted for deleting the article (and endorsing its deletion in the DRV) claimed that his interpretation of policy is one which is not in line with current practice. I am assuming good faith on the part of everyone who was involved in the case, but I think the outcome could have been more positive if the case was handled more carefully.

What I wonder know from this case is how we can accommodate these differing views of policy into future decisions such as this, and so we have fewer casualties in the future. In fairness, accusations of OWN-ing and wikilawyering aside, I'm inclined to believe that GalingPinas could have become a valuable member of the community given the right motivation, and this is especially given that we can use more editors from the Philippines. What I do not like seeing from this is that in a desperate move to return to the community's good graces, he digs a bigger hole for him/herself. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "how we can accommodate these differing views of policy"...well, we accommodate them by holding deletion discussions rather than deletions by edict/fiat. Differing sides get to present their point of view, then an admin comes along to close the discussion and renders a decision based on the merits of the arguments. It is a difficult thing for some to accept in our increasingly "everyone gets an award just for trying" culture, but y'know, some people do lose here. GalingPinas had as much right as anyone to work on his userfied version in an attempt to address the deletion reasons. But the combination of DGG not telling him what he wanted to hear in regards to that new sourcing and my attempts to get the userfied page taken off User:GalingPinas just set the guy off. Ultimately he must take responsibility for how he handled, and handled badly, criticism. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Sky Harbor. The example of GalingPinas suggests that, if anything, less accommodation is called for, and I regret the ultimately-wasted time and effort spent by valuable editors, DGG especially, to bring this person into the fold. I prefer to see this episode over and done with, rather than to have it remain a festering wound, as it no doubt still would be, had a more appeasing approach been adopted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

R-i-g-h-t. Just what Wikipedia needs to increase editor retention, a more heavy handed approach. I realize you aren't kidding, but you should be. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Not every editor should be retained.
2. I believe that overall editor retention is improved by the prompt resolution of this and similar cases. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said every editor should be retained. However, this editor should have been placed on mentorship from the beginning. This was a new editor full of passion and energy who was treated as if he had been here for years. If we took your advice, this site would be shuttered in 30 days. And, let's see the evidence for your belief. New editors are the lifeblood and future of Wikipedia. The user genuinely did not understand why the sport of Circball ‎wasn't considered notable by Wikipedia. Granted, the user was dipping into Eddie Segoura territory by the day, but he needed a firm helping hand, not a slap in the face. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to make this clear, I support the block of GalingPinas because he gives every indication that he isn't here to build an encyclopedia but to to promote a pet topic. His promotion of Circball in addition to links returned after performing a brief search on the topic, provides evidence that he may have a personal COI on this subject. However, this should have been obvious a long time ago, and he should have been given an ultimatum from the beginning that allowed him to clearly express his choice on how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• And, now, we might also have sockpuppetry Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)...
  • Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. This one doesn't want to stop. –HTD 18:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Curious that all of the versions of "Circball" were deleted by 4:06 on Dec 18, but PinasIto's account was not created til 13:02 Dec 19th. Where did our mystery arrival acquire the copy of the article now residing at the Abandoned Draft page? Tarc (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me - to SPI we go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI here, for some reason it's not transcluding to WP:SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think GalingPinas (English translation: From the Philippines) and PinasIto (This is from the Philippines) are probably different people who know each other. GP must be some PR guy for the game and PI must be the "V.V." person. –HTD 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to unblock User:GalingPinas

I have deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball, but User:Silver seren has gotten it restored and is now back to where it was. Hence, GalingPinas' block is worthless, and he should be unblocked now. –MuZemike 04:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, please stop making these pointy unblock suggestions, they're getting very tired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, always being reasonable. But honestly MuZemike, might I suggest a wikibreak? It will do you good to relax a bit, come back feeling refreshed and Wikipedia will feel much less confrontational. Prodego ^talk 04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF just happened? Can't we let this one die? –HTD 04:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I apologize to Tarc and DGG for not saying more before, but this is exactly why Sky Harbor, Vriditas, and others were wrong to say that this person was somehow mistreated or treated too aggressively. This user has now either socked or recruited another editor to try to find yet another way to retrieve the article. People said that it would have been great for this user to become a productive member of the community, when a quick check of xyr contribution history shows that literally every single edit they ever made was related to Circball. This user wanted the article recreated with special treatment (a message on the article or talk page basically pushing his non-consensus version of notability). This user refused to accept the entirely good faith behavior of DGG, who I think we all know is easily one of the fairest admins with regards to deletion decisions, and one who is even willing to work with PR firms or companies so long as their willing to behave and there's a legitimate notability claim to be made. The user attempted to extract multiple public apologies from an another editor (who did nothing more than follow standard MfD procedures) in exchange for something that wouldn't be acceptable by any means. AGF is great. People may know that I'm unbelievably willing to AGF ages after its really necessary. But when we AGF, we also need to be willing, in cases where we have ample evidence to the contrary, to take measures necessary to protect our rules when someone who is not acting according to acceptable norms shows up. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Qwyrxian completely, this is kinda ridiculous tbh. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Qwyrxian. Every so often, we have a disruptive editor who crops up and rapidly dominates the attention of roughly half a dozen productive editors and administrators for 72 hours or so, before someone imposes a lengthy block. This is just such a case. In my opinion, the odds that GalingPinas will ever be a productive contributor to this encyclopedia are diminishingly small. I think that the most likely explanation for this user's conduct is some kind of "psychological warfare art project" trolling. Kind of like the letters that Don Novello wrote in the 1970s and signed Lazlo Toth, only more malicious. In my opinion, unblocking in this case would be a banquet feast for the troll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwyrxian. Endorse and sustain block, and re-delete the "abandoned draft" - it wasn't notable two weeks ago, it isn't notable now, it isn't likely to become notable for quite some time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to respond quickly as I am at the airport, but I made it clear that what I fear is that in a bid to return to the community's good graces, GalingPinas is digging a bigger hole for him/herself. This is exactly what's happening right now, and it's not pretty. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) ...And now it's back at MfD. --64.85.221.200 (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is that GalingPinas gets to sock, places a recreated article that was deleted via AFD and upheld at Deletion Review in a place where he knows it won't get deleted, and he gets away with all of it. Either he is allowed to edit, or he is not – there is no middle ground. If we are going to continue pussyfooting with him and allow his editing even though he was blocked, then there is no purpose behind this block, because I guarantee that he will sock again and disrupt again and again and again. –MuZemike 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how this article came to SilverSeren's attention in the first place?—Kww(talk) 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All i can see is this dissuasion on his talk page [2]. Whats the point in banning a sock if he is able to try and get it through again through someone else. If we allow it then we are encouraging socking and he will sock again and become more disruptive. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say my initial sympathy for GalingPinas has started to evaporate - he emailed me asking me to preserve it at "abandoned articles for adoption" (and included the entire text of the article in the email). Oh, and he did effectively admit that the two "Pinas" accounts are both his. I shall not be replying to the email - and I would recommend a reblock with email disabled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, User:GalingPinas already had email disabled - did he email from User:PinasIto? As it is, though, I've upped the block on User:GalingPinas to indef per the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And PinasIto has email already disabled, too. Hmmmm. I've disabled email for User:Circball - presumably that's where he sent it from? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he emailed from PinasIto - and checking the timing, it seems it was about half an hour before his email access was blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

He emailed me from PinasIto, and then from Circball also, so they are all the same person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on this, I would say that SilverSeren knowingly violated WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. I'm contemplating deleting the article on that basis alone.—Kww(talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that but a rather WP:CRYSTAL reasoning, I'd say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it unilaterally - it's open to the Community to develop a consensus now, and I'd leave it that way -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Go fiddle myself

Resolved

 – causa sui (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Did WP:NPA get deleted while I wasn't watching?

• Interesting edit summary
• Another interesting edit summary

Just checking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny, for a user whose ID practically begs for telling him to use his surname as a verb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week, he's an experienced user who's had these problems before. As always, my blocks are open for review. As with any NPA block, especially against users who have been here a while, I expect significant objections, but that was blatant and direct and someone who's been blocked for the same problems before. --Jayron32 03:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the first one that bugged me as the second one, coming after Elkman's warning here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, the first was enough. I am unconcerned with how you felt about either of them. The issue is the behavior of Doncram. Action "A" gets result "B". It's not that complex. --Jayron32 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't so much issuing a warning as I was giving advice in an indirect form, as used in the book How to Talk Minnesotan. ("A lot of guys wouldn't use a welding torch so close to a gas tank like that, Bob.") Sometimes the advice is heeded, but sometimes it's ignored, and the gas tank blows up. Not too good a deal when that happens. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, culture clash. I'm from New England. We're a bit more direct. As in "Jeez Bob, have you lost your fucking mind? Turn off the welding torch before you kill us all!" --Jayron32 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And around my area, it's "Hey ya'll, watch this!" Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you're from, Ravensfire, but that shit's brilliant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ravensfire, does this ring true to you? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whew - not that far south! (But in all honestly, it's not that far off from what does get said!) Ravensfire (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not far enough south; everyone knows it's not ya'll. Honestly, get your apostrophe shit together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Well, righteous block, I suppose, but this is really an illustration of how horribly broken our DR process is. The underlying issue with Doncram is not incivility per se but competence. Doncram has, essentially, been doing a slow-motion database dump of the NRHP database; right now, he's creating articles for, as far as I can tell, any values for the "architect/builder" key that occur a significant number of times. Unfortunately, he also appears to be resisting doing any significant background research on the article topic, so he tends to "fire-and-forget" without making any particular effort to see if the topic already exists, if he's confused two architects with similar names, whether a particular value has any meaning outside the NRHP database, whether that particular architect or builder is really notable, and so on (to name some past and present controversies). Some editors, including Sarek, have been fairly aggressive in bringing Doncram to book when he creates non-notable, duplicative, etc. articles, but I think more or less everyone who's had extended contact with his work has expressed concerns about it at some level. Unfortunately, Wikipedia, collectively, has a near-infinite tolerance for people contributing at any level more productive than penis vandalism, so there's never been consensus on what editing restrictions would be suitable for dealing with this. The current procedure, wherein Doncram dumps what should be a userspace draft into article space, Sarek quickly tags it, Doncram blows stack and gets blocked, sort of achieves the same result, but it's a strange way to run a railroad. Choess (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never been involved with Doncram before, at least to my recollection, but if his editing is disruptive, a topic ban discussion could be started. I am neither here nor there on the suitability of such a ban, but if its that disruptive what he does, it may be worth delving into. I can see from his block log and some history I have dug up that broadly his creation of articles in the NRHP area have been viewed by others as a problem. Again, I have no opinion on the matter, but if you want to fix this, feel free. --Jayron32 05:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It's been tried.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good block, except inasmuch as 1 week seems a bit low for someone whose last block was 3 months. I nearly blocked Doncram yesterday for his first "fuck you" to Sarek, since it was just so blatantly over the line, but opted for a warning instead. Elkman did likewise, it seems, and if after getting pointed notes from both of us Doncram saw fit to direct another "f u" edit summary at Sarek, then he clearly doesn't understand that personal attacks are a no-go. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, except that as soon as I block for any reasonable amount of time the "Down with the civility police" people who don't understand the difference between swearing and personal attacks show up and start demanding that I be desysopped. Besides, per WP:ROPE, if this block does not fix the behavior, we can always block him longer again. --Jayron32 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The "down with the civility police people" are perfectly well able to distinguish between naughty words and personal attacks, unlike the majority of administrators and their hangers-on. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Surely best to refrain from both. Neither are helpful. 212.137.36.236 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Two questions for clarity's sake: Telling someone "fuck you" might be considered uncivil but it really isn't a personal attack, right? If so, can someone quote that in WP:NPA. Next, would this have been any different if he would have said "fuck off" instead of "fuck you"? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Swearing at something is blowing off steam. It might not be ideal behavior (YMMV) but we all get wound up and needing to have a safety valve now and then. Swearing at someone, however, is a personal attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC) No, it isn't. Saying "fuck you" isn't any kind of an attack at all; saying "I'm going to come to your house and slowly strangle your wife and children while I make you watch" is a personal attack. Or more prosaically, "You're a willy-waving neo-Nazi". Not "I think you're a willy-waving neo-Nazi", a big difference that's lost on the children who run this site. Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The way I see it we've got a couple things going on here. We have incivility directed at another editor ("fuck you" or "fuck off"; something like "fuck this situation" would NOT be such, since it's not directed at another editor personally) and personal attacks (along the lines of "this guy is following me around everywhere, he just wants to destroy everything..."). The two are distinct, but both are occurring in this case, and both are blockworthy offenses (YMMV depending on your opinions of the Civility Police(tm)). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Err.. right. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the place where 'Fuck you!' is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to your fellow editors!" People will love it. --Conti|✉ 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Welcome to the real world. I could give many examples of administrators posting far worse than that rather mild retort without an eyebrow being raised. How do you explain that? Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC) In the real world where I come from, most social groups do not tolerate people who run around and say "fuck you" whenever they're mildly annoyed for very long. And I do support the idea that admins should be treated just like any other user, and I do agree with you that this is not always the case, unfortunately. That's an entirely separate issue, though. --Conti|✉ 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Does your planet have a zip code? Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC) It's sort of immaterial whether "fuck you" is a direct personal attack or not. As Bugs Bunny would say, "Wait a minute! You can't talk to me like that! Them's fightin' words!" The use of fighting words and edit summaries like "Fuck you Sarek" is meant to provoke anger in the recipient, so that in itself should be unacceptable. Furthermore, as I indicated in my message to Doncram, someone who just came off a three-month block should try to be more careful about his behavior. In any event, saying "fuck you" to another editor certainly doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Let me try and put it another way, instead of simply saying that your lack of understanding of the real issue here is quite gob-smacking. When an administrator describes me as a moron, too stupid for my own good, that's OK because there were no naughty words involved? You guys really do need to get your house in order. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. Although standards may have dropped a bit in the last 4 years. However: NO ONE... you, me, or anyone else... is required to put up with stuff like "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Seems to depend on who you are. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Could be. As a lowly peon, I might be held to a higher standard than, say, anon IP's. Say luh vee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Random IPs are to be encouraged, to replace us lowly peons. After all, we're just units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF - an admin, or anybody else, calling somebody a moron is unacceptable. However, just because people have been allowed to get away with calling other people morons, doesn't make swearing acceptable. Yes, it all should be considered PAs and treated accordingly, but we can't say "X was accepted in case Z so we must accept Y in case A, even though Y is as much a PA as X". Two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC) It clearly isn't unacceptable, as it happens every day but only administrators get away with it; that's what's unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The issue we're talking about here, as I understand it, is whether Doncram is making personal attacks, using disruptive edit summaries, and generally being uncivil. I don't see how you're involved in this particular kerfuffle, Malleus. Yes, it's wrong that someone called you a moron and "too stupid for your own good". But, I wasn't following that discussion and I don't plan to look it up. (And if I had that sort of time free, I'd be better off improving Pipestone Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from its current pitiful three-sentence stub.) I don't see why you're trying to insert your own grievances into the discussion about Doncram. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The lad deserved 'atleast' a 1-month block. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, it deserves a "Severe Lack of Originality" barnstar. If the "F.U." is the best insult it can think of, maybe it should go back to its room and resume making its paper dolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just struck the second edit summary complaint, because if I had read more carefully, I would have seen that it was a reference to him saying it earlier, rather than a repetition of the attack. Considering all the bad-faith accusations in that diff and others around then, I don't see anything wrong with the block, especially since Jayron made it clear it was based on the first diff. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh fuddle duddle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Evlekis

Disruption and edit-warring at various bio pages of Albanian personalities, conflict pushing: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. Seeking dispute resolution. Also messing with Sali Berisha's lede, [10]. Majuru (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've just added a questionable source in this edit to "prove" that a person is Albanian, even though existing (and more reliable) sources on the article say he is Serbian. Petty nationalistic editing. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my edits: those reverts were to uphold the status quo on persons born within the former Yugoslavia and how we present their names. It is a subject that has been discussed many times and consensus has been reached on both which variations we use and how we present them. If I search my own archives, I am sure I can locate the discussions. Be that as it may, I am open for further conversation but this will need a specific discussion page opened, followed by an invitation to as many users as we can find that edit those pages. Please be aware however that if a project page is launched, using the argument "his name should not be in XYZ language because he is of ABC ethnicity" will not be considered. It will need more logistical reasons that that; if it weren't for names having more than one form then all persons would have a native (article title) name only. I assure you (Majuru) that I will alert you once I have started a discussion page. As for the Sali Berisha intro. I am offended to read I have "messed" with it. That implies I amended details for overtly incorrect information, and none of that is remotely true. I reduced the intro and there is no harm in that. No information was taken out except what was superfluous and blatantly obvious from the surrounding text. He is a cardiologist, yes, but politician? Sure if one is a president, prime minister or chancellor, etc. then this surmises that the individual is a politician. I would ask how does one become a head of government and avoid this status? Also, there is hardly ever ANY need for the word "currently". Firstly, it is unencyclopaedic - more worthy of journals - secondly, the only verb it qualifies is "to be" (in other words, is); removing it is one thing, but the person replacing it is the one who seriously needs to ask what new information he is producing and what ambiguity is created by its removal. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about removing the word "currently" from the article, as per WP:PRECISELANG, WP:RELTIME, and even more directly explained at Wikipedia:MOS#Current. You (Evlekis) are also quite known for being an editor allways open for dialogue and who edits within consensus. I just hope that the recent attacks you suffered on your userpage are not related to this issue. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Majuru-Evlekis: Use only names that are used in the bibliography i.e if the Albanian/Serbian name of a subject isn't used by a reasonable amount of sources don't add it. Born in Yugoslavia/Kosovo means that the Slavic/Albanian names should be added too isn't an argument relevant to wikipedia. As for Valonis(look up what the name means Giant Snowman) Kadrijaj, his ethnicity is inanely obvious to anyone from the Balkans. That being said articles should be written to provide potentially useful and accurate info to readers i.e adding the Albanian rendition of Ivica Dacic's name (only used by Albanian media) is just as pointless as the Cyrillic rendition of Rita Ora's name(only used by Evlekis and no other media Slavic and non-Slavic).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 06:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IAR involved block review requested

Following the recent declaration of the end of the Iraq War and the withdrawal of the last foreign troops, the article is being carefully updated. There is a bit of personal disagreement on the talk page that the war may not be over but overall we've been sticking firmly to the reliable sources in this matter and there's been little disruption. Kermanshahi, however, is clearly on a POV-induced crusade on numerous fronts: reverting any attempt at updating the Iraq war article[11][12][:File:Ongoing Conflicts.png]; removal of carefully sourced content because "not everything is centered around America"[13][14]; insertion of "American defeat" into another Iraq War-related article[15]; insertion of "Shi'a Victory" into the Iraq civil war article[16], etc.

Although I was "involved", given the fact that this was such an obvious case, the history of disruption, and the fact that they were making disruptive edits faster than could be cleaned up while simultaneously writing up a report to ANI (which I was literally trying to do), I just blocked him myself (obviously under the justification of IAR). I don't feel that this was a controversial block, but obviously considering the circumstances (as well as a show of good faith to the blocked user), I invite review of the block. Thanks, Swarm ^X 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How can it be an "obvious" block, but one that "in the circumstances" you consider yourself bound to seek review of? If you were involved, you shouldn't have made the block and you could have asked for consideration of a block by an uninvolved admin here. If you were not involved and it was an obvious block, this is a waste of time. If the editor contests the block, let him/her do so; it'll be picked up at RFU and brought here if necessary. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no harm in asking for review from other admins rather than waiting until the user contests the block. It doesn't, prima facia, suggest that the block was so marginal that it should not have been made. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's totally unfair both to me and the blocked user. "If you were involved, you shouldn't have made the block and you could have asked for consideration of a block by an uninvolved admin here." Normally, yes, but I ignored that rule, which is precisely why it's only fair to request uninvolved opinions. Swarm ^X 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And what was the pressing imperative to ignore the rule and risk bringing yourself and wikipedia into disrepute with a (possibly) involved block? (essentially per Fluffernutter below) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Myself and Wikipedia into disrepute? Good god, if I've done something that dramatic I'll retire now. Swarm ^X 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, I said "risk". It goes without saying that bad blocks, especially involved blocks, are at high risk of such consequences. You didn't answer the question: why could it not have waited (say, an hour), while you did what a non-admin would have had to do and bring it here? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said I couldn't. I explained below why I didn't. And, in response to the fact that "I gathered the diffs anyway", yes, I did—just not at the tradeoff of allowing the disruptive editing to continue. Swarm ^X 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, WP:NOTBURO, nuffsed. --Jayron32 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• The issue of waiting until the user protests is a moot point, anyway; the user has requested unblock. Swarm, while bringing this directly here for review was a good choice on your part, I have to say that I'm not seeing really emergency-block-level disruption in Kermansahi's contribs. He's clearly got a POV, and he's clearly disagreeing with you, possibly tendentiously, but for an emergency IAR block, rather than a report-to-ANI-and-let-everyone-there-hash-it-out block, I'm not sure I'm seeing firm grounds. It might have been better for you to finish your initial ANI report, post it, and then worry about cleaning up whatever you felt needed to be cleaned up from his contribs, rather than blocking and then reporting it as a fait accompli. I'm not saying a block may not have been called for here, but I think it would have been better treated as the sort of block that comes out of a couple admins putting their heads together to make sure they're on the same page, rather than an involved admin jumping in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it wasn't an "emergency IAR block needed" situation, it was simply a "why allow the behavior to continue while wasting time gathering diffs so I can ask someone else to impose an obviously neeeded block?" situation. Swarm ^X 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per this response to my question on their talk page, my recommendation would be that Swarm grant Kermanshahi's unblock request. 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• POV pushing is not acceptable just because you replace POV that's "just as bad, if not worse". I've always respected your opinion, 28, but per this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, and this refusal to understand why they were blocked, I will not be doing so. This editor clearly doesn't think their edits were disruptive in any way. Swarm ^X 20:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• May just be a difference of interpretation. I took the "probably not" to be an acknowledgement that their edit was not appropriate, which one doesn't always see in an unblock request. 28bytes (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Even with the acknowledgement that that one edit was 'probably' inappropriate, the actual unblock request still stands to blame the block solely on a personal bias on my part and refuses to acknowledge that removal of sourced content in order to push a personal opinion is disruptive. Swarm ^X 21:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the unblock request itself is no good. The subsequent talk page discussion is a little more encouraging, in that there's at least some recognition of the problem with their edits. 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stricken, as their subsequent WP:NOTTHEM response to the unblock decline has made it clear that I overestimated their willingness to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about their editing. 28bytes (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, you have admitted to have been involved in a dispute with the user. You have failed to explain the pressing need to block, let alone the pressing need for you to block (as opposed to report him for an uninvolved party to consider what to do). IAR is all very well, but it is for when "the rules stop you improving wikipedia", but here the rules did no such thing - because IF he needed blocking, asking for that to be considered on ANI was a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. Now what you've done is to stir a drama that will be focussed on your poor judgement, rather than on the user's actions. Badly done.--Scott Mac 21:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Where have I admitted to being in a dispute with the user? My involvement in the content area over the past several days (as an editor, that is) is enough where I assume I'm considered "involved", but apart from reverting their disruptive edits, I've never even seen this editor before in my life. Secondly, how have I refused to explain the need for a block? I do so in the blocking rationale and I have done so above. Any editor who looks at the situation should be able to see it on their own, anyway. Ironic how you flame me for stirring up drama focused on "poor judgement" rather than the user's actions, when your comment is the only example of that. Swarm ^X 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it pains me to agree with Scott Mac I would also question your methodology here. I can't believe any block can be both clear cut and yet urgently in need of further review at the same time. I disagree (obviously) with much of Scott's (as usual) pot-stirring commentary above, but I think the early stages of this debate should be enough for you to reconsider some of your actions. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I never said there was urgent need for further review. I'm perfectly confident it was a good block. My purpose in requesting input was not to clarify my own doubts (of which I have none), but solely in the interest of fairness to the blocked user. Clearly a mistake on my part, as I forgot for a moment that ANI is plagued with people who are more interested in creating drama and flaming people than actually helping eachother. The more fool me. Swarm ^X 22:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So when you "invite[d] review of the block", you only wanted some high fives? --Mkativerata (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise then. To me if a block is obvious....then it's obvious and you block. People will soon come running if it's not. The immediate request for review implied a lack of confidence. Obviously in that I'm wrong - you're clearly happy with your decision. As for getting flamed - well ANI is the new 4chan and Scott Mac's position moot? Ha. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I'm a bit lost here. You described yourself as "involved" at the outset- which normally means you have a content dispute with the user. Reverting obvious disruption isn't "involved". You also invoked IAR - implying that the block was normally somehow illegal/irregular, which I took to mean because of your "involvement". Your introductory post suggested that there was something you regarded as irregular in you doing this blocking. I was merely saying that if "rules" need to be ignored, then there needs to be some urgent reason to do that - if there is none, then the correct thing to do is to ask report and standby. What you are now suggesting is that this is, in fact, a regular blocking. I have no problems with regular blockings being reported to ANI (unnecessary, but harmless) but your opening post suggested there was more to it than that.--Scott Mac 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• We all watch articles. We might even make a correction here and there. In an article with the visibility of the one in question, I have no issues being taken with quick action by someone in that position. Having it "checked" by peers is a show of maturity, not something to be sneezed at (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm frankly not pleased with the attitude of "I felt this was a clear block, so I went ahead and did it even though there was no rush." The thing about being INVOLVED is that you're, you know, involved. You have a position on the issue. Things may look clearly one way or another to you when they may not be any such thing to an uninvolved mind. In the case of an emergency or a pressing need, a block like Swarm issued is fine - get it done to prevent disruption, get it reviewed to prevent unfairness, and we all live happily ever after. But Swarm himself has said that there was no pressing need in this case, no emergency. He simply didn't feel like going through the process of having uninvolved admins handle the issue. Again, circumventing process like this does have its place, but that place is in the "oh SHIT this needs to get done right now" zone, not the "Bringing in an uninvolved admin? Meh, why bother?" zone. I would very much like to avoid "well I may be involved, but I was sure I was right and I didn't feel like asking someone else" becoming an acceptable reason to take action as an involved admin in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• The idea of blocking and coming here immediately strikes me as vaguely similar to (although of course a lot less serious than) the provision in the laws of some jurisdictions that all death sentences immediately be appealed. I don't think that every admin should come here to ask for review immediately upon making a significant block (we'd get too clogged here), but I agree with Bwilkins that it's clearly a positive sign when an admin comes here in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bringing it here post-blocking was absolutely a better decision than not bringing it here. I just think that an even better option than that in this case would have been bringing it here rather than blocking by himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• We have talked a lot about how proper it was or wasn't for Swarm to make the block, but we haven't talked that much about the block itself. Does anyone else think that it should be overturned? Some of the blocked editors' edits were poor, but others seemed quite legitimate—certainly not "trolling" or "crusading" or whatever they were described as. A simple statement of concerns by an uninvolved editor might have easily sufficed just as well. NW (Talk) 22:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• He does seem to have understood a bit at the unblock request and on his talkpage. Perhaps a few hours break was what he needed and Swarm could consider accepting his unblock request or change it to time served. I don't see any wheels dropping off if that was to happen. Youreallycan (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just declined Kermanshahi's unblock request. While Swarm shouldn't have been the admin who implemented this block in my view, the block itself was well justified. Kermanshahi has been editing since 2007 on articles concerning ongoing wars and related topics, and should be fully aware that the kind of conduct he or she was engaging in was totally unacceptable and not how disputes are resolved. The block duration was fine as this is Kermanshahi's third block for edit warring this year and he or she has a long history of troublesome editing. Given Kermanshahi's experience and history, their comments in relation to the request to be unblocked were unconvincing. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I should note that while I think that Swarm might deserve a small WP:TROUT for implementing the block, asking for a review here immediately after having done so is excellent conduct. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)I just don't get the logic of an admin asking for a block review and then complaining when the block is criticized. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speaking as a random passerby, I don't think it was a bad block, but since the need was only moderately urgent (persistent POV editing perhaps, but not a rampage), bringing the issue here for somebody else's attention would have been a better move. Broadly, I agree with the sage Fluffernutter. No need for further drama, though; can't we all sit down and have a nice cup of tea? bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwern and Lucia Black

Neither Gwern (talk · contribs) nor Lucia Black (talk · contribs), until recently known as Bread Ninja, are new to the community. They know about AGF, CIVIL, DR, and so forth. Another thing they have in common is that they consider it unnecessary to follow the community's behavioral guidelines. Add to that a strong inclusionism on one side, a strong exclusionism on the other, and a mutual desire to edit articles related to Neon Genesis Evangelion and you'll have a rough idea of what this is about. Edit warring, incivility, you name it. I could dig up diffs to prove what I'm saying (and will do so if it is requested), but I don't think that will be necessary. They won't deny it. They simply don't think they're doing anything wrong. As I see it, that is the key problem in their conflict. As disappointed as I am to find myself here suggesting this, I don't think they'll respond to anything less than a stern warning from someone capable of blocking them. They have to be made to understand that following Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines is not optional. Until that happens, all attempts to engage them in the normal consensus building and dispute resolution processes will be futile.

Finally a few diffs showing the recent events that led to this report, just the tip of the iceberg mind you: [17][18][19] Goodraise 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• User_talk:Gwern#User:Lucia_Black_and_civility seems relevant. causa sui (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know about Lucia Black, but I don't thing Gwern knows a lot about manners or about such things as WP:RS and all. They also seem to think that grand reverts are acceptable here--see the history of Neon Genesis Evangelion, which they seem to think of as their own property, where ordinary guidelines don't apply. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't attempt to own..the series needs a lot of standardizing and I (as I am sure many before) attempted to.Lucia Black (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about RSs? That is very rich coming from you, Drmies - or have you forgotten that I did that 'grand revert' because you removed a ton of standard RSs like Ex.org? --Gwern (contribs) 15:49 21 December 2011 (GMT)

Review of block reviews

I have only recently -- after the Berkman Science Po banner discussion brought to my attention that Administrator's Notice of Incidents is no longer limited to Incidents requiring Administration Notice -- been watchlisting ANI, although I've polled from time to time over the past few years. It my admittedly limited sample, block reviews either turn into combative inter-admin plus peanut gallery e.g me kerfuffles or mutual admiration sessions. Therefore I suggest if you have a sysop bit and are not sufficiently confident to lay the block without asking for a review after the fact, don't do it in the first place. If the block gets flipped Wikipedia now has an unnecessarily aggrieved editor. If it doubt just post please block x because of y, i'm involved, or I think z should be blocked because of w, request second opinion.

You earned the trust of the community before you got the bit. We rely on you to keep Wikipedia from turning into unmoderated alt usenet groups. Trust your judgement. If the block is horrible a fellow admin reviewing an unblock request will tell you. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree fully. Checks and balances are never bad. I do appreciate the trust you have in us though (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Bwilkins. I would much rather an admin proactively invite scrutiny of their actions than be dragged kicking and screaming to AN/I because they refuse to consider the possibility they might be in error. 28bytes (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Submission of actions by admins to admins is an incredibly important process – there are over 1500 admins on the English wikipedia with a huge range of experience, and all of them may well be watchlisting this page. That's a great basis for a moderation process. Remember too that admins have to watch their own backs; they are regularly criticised for their actions by users, and seeking validation from other admins is the best way to ensure best practice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All of them? The great majority of them are completely inactive. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

Watch each other's their backs???? What perceived threat requires such a defensive mindset? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "watch each other's backs", I said admins had to "watch their own backs". I just think it's a good way of admins making sure their actions are backed up by second opinions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Block reviews are generally a good thing: Scrutiny is always good, and there is no antiseptic like the light of day. I see no problem with an admin requesting a review of their own actions, or actions of another. However, I must vehemently disagree with Basalisk on one point he seems to make: Admins should be open to scrutiny by all users, and there's nothing particularly about being an admin that allows admins special privilege in reviewing each other's actions. In other words, every editor has the right to comment on and discuss the actions of an admin, adminship is not a closed club, and I am quite disappointed in the sentiment that Basalisk expresses which makes it seem like it is. If Basalisk is sensistive to general criticism against administrators, it is his exact attitude that is expressed above that is the primary (and well justified, I might add) reason for that criticism. Insofar as administrators view themselves as "special", that poses a major problem for Wikipedia. We are not special. We have a few more tools, but that should not grant us any more status in the community. --Jayron32 04:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Misquote corrected, question remains: What perceived threat requires such a defensive mindset? Additionally I note 'criticised by users.' 'support from admins' -- do you consider these groups disjoint? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Block reviews are a perfectly fine practice. Watching AN/I for block reviews will generate an exceedingly biased view of blocks in general due to a very strong selection effect. Only a small fraction of blocks committed are mentioned on AN/I and among those which are they are much more likely to be contentious than a random selection of blocks. Protonk (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• In general I'd also echo those above that feel block reviews can be a good thing. In general I've found that those admins. who submit themselves for such things are the ones willing to take on feedback and input from the community. At times our policies and guidelines can be a bit ambiguous; or at least open to interpretation. (for example: at what point does one become wp:involved?) Yes there are times we operate in a culture of "we've got your back", but there are plenty of times when honest "I think this would have been better" comes out of a discussion. Live and learn. Times change. People change. Policy changes. My personal belief is that if more folks would be open to the "I did this, what do you folks think" mindset - there would be much less drama in the long run.

Now, all that said .. I suspect that this was really a topic better suited for the talk page here rather than an "Incident". I say that simply because I don't see anything to be done here - but it's cool that the topic was opened and is being discussed. — Ched :  ?  11:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where would you prefer Housecleaning discussions take place? Yes this an the AN are primarily targeted at Administrators, but sometimes a "pulse of the rank and file editor" is requested to verify that the administrators haven't secluded themselves in an ivory tower. As a (hopefully) future admin, I think watching and participating where appropriate in these conversations is important to see behind the curtain of the organization. This is of course my viewpoint and could be totally wrong. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the question "Where would you prefer Housecleaning discussions take place?" is to me, then my reply would be the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard as typically the "project page" is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.. Not that it's any big deal, I was just picking nits is all. — Ched :  ?  18:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A number of places. WP:AN would have been my first choice, as it is a more general noticeboard for admin (not the talk page for AN). The talk page for the blocking policy, if that is trafficked in any significant degree. The village pump, perhaps? Just not AN/I. Protonk (talk)

I'd specifically object to Wikipedia Talk:Blocking policy as that page is used to discuss changes to the policy. In general I agree with others that nothing is wrong with the practice as it is. causa sui (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Prodego undoing revdel without discussion

Resolved

 – Effective troll was effective causa sui (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just revdel'ed this edit under RD3 ("purely disruptive material"). The edit is essentially a death threat, purporting to speak either from the CIA telling us that the CIA will be killing us at [day and time], or as an outsider planning to kill members of the CIA at that time (due to the poor grammar, it's difficult to tell which was intended). With no discussion, Prodego (talk · contribs) undid my revdel with the summary "silly". When I asked for an explanation on IRC, he informed me that he hates people hiding diffs for "no reason" on "all vandalism" and that I had no reason to carry out my action. He refused to consider undoing his action, despite my explaining to him RD3 and exactly how death threats purporting to be from/against a government agency are purely disruptive.

Since re-doing my action would be wheelwarring, I would appreciate some outside input into the propriety of both my and Prodego's actions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of RevDeleting that. I don't think a threat to kill all of the fellow CIA officers (given the user said it was in the CIA and is posting on the CIA article) like that is to be taken seriously, if it should be, then the appropriate law enforcement authorities should be informed rather than worrying about RevDeleting it. However, our WP:REVDEL policy is broad and this case can clearly fit under criterion number 3. I do not agree with that policy, but that's a matter for Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion, and irrelevant to this discussion. I understand Prodego's concerns and reasoning, and mostly feel the same way, but policy has been established and as it stands right now, it clearly allows for this kind of RevDeletion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, I was in the process of checking with other admins whether people thought the edit should be reported to emergency@, etc when I was derailed by Prodego's telling me of his action. Any input people have to offer on whether reporting it would be appropriate is welcome. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recommend reporting it to the emergency list; it's almost certainly just dumb vandalism but it's better to err on the side of caution in my opinion. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't know how a threat construed like that, against the CIA out of all things, can be taken seriously. However, anybody here is free to report it to the list, so if you feel we should err on the side of caution even in this case, you should just go ahead and report it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While I told Fluffernutter that they may do whatever they want with the diff (including rerevdeleting it), it seems they have chosen to take it here for more input. In that case I'd like to explain mine. The threat has no credibility, and is not specific. It is simple, minimally disruptive vandalism. If we are going to rev delete that, then I can easily argue that all vandalism should be rev deleted, which was never the intention of the tool. Rev deletion and RD3 should be reserved for deletion of material that, if not deleted, would disrupt Wikipedia. Frankly, deleted or not the only way that vandalism is going to disrupt Wikipedia is if we have to have an ANI thread about it for no particular reason (which is why I told Fluffer to do whatever). For threats in general: if someone feels that a credible threat exists, they should report it to emergency@... But in this case, the threat is quite the opposite of credible. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Prodego. Obvious childish graffiti should not be dignified with RevDel, but merely reverted. Bishonen | talk 02:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

I would contend that "I will kill you on [date and time]" is very different than the typical "ur a poopyhead" that I would call "childish graffiti", and the mere presence of death threats in viewable article history can be used to disrupt or bring disrepute upon Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my hands are tied by WP:wheel now and I cannot reinstate my action despite Prodego's telling me to "do whatever." Our policies say that when an admin action is undone, one does not re-do the action without a discussion reaching a consensus, thus I brought the action to ANI.

It appears very much to me that Prodego disagrees with policy and chose to manifest that by unilaterally undoing a perfectly within-policy admin action I took; I find this extremely alarming and would ask Prodego to please either explain how a death threat is not purely disruptive, or to undo his mistaken action. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's an overly conservative view of wheel war -- while I appreciate the caution -- I'd suggest Fluffernutter just go for it or another admin do the deed. Prodego has already explained their reasoning but green lighted going ahead with the revdel. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking this seriously is a waste of time. It may or may not fit under RD3 (as worded) so saying that Prodego disagrees with policy is not correct. You and Prodego have differing interpretations of the policy but that's about it. "Do whatever" sounds like the perfect advise here. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Collective feeling that I'm taking this too seriously is noted and taken on-board. I've restored the revdel, since Prodego is ok with me doing that, and now I'm off to see the Wizard try to figure out where I left my sense of humor. I think I last saw it under the bed -- or was that just a dustbunny? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Be careful it's not the Crud Puppy! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a Korean speaker

Apologies, this isn't really in need of admin attention, but this is the only way I can think of to find the needle in a haystack that I need. Yesterday, User:Yswj700 created the page List of female monarchs. The page was tagged for speedy deletion under A10, because we already have a more comprehensive article on the subject, List of female rulers and title holders. Yswj700 almost got blocked yesterday for repeatedly removing speedy deletion tags from xyr article; instead, I deleted the article. I also found that the user's userpage was a copy of the deleted article; yesterday I deleted it, and today I restored it to xyr userspace at User:Yswj700/Sandbox. Unfortunately, Yswj700's English isn't clear enough for me to understand what xe is trying to say.

I've been trying to discuss the issue with the editor, but we're definitely not fully communicating due to Yswj700's relatively weaker English. You can see those conversations at User Talk:Yswj700#Reported to AIV, User Talk:Qwyrxian#Deleted article, and User Talk:Qwyrxian#female monarchs of the world nations`>>>>``list of female monarchs. At one poin Yswj700 indicated he was going to recreate the page again at a different title; luckily my message of "Do that and I will block you" got through.

I'm looking for a Korean-English billingual editor to try to 1) explain to the user why we can't have 2 pages on basically the same topic, 2)try to find out why the user thinks that xyr article is a different topic than the existing one, and 3) whether or not English Wikipedia is really the place for xyr. I looked through the Babel-box generated cats of Korean speakers, but I didn't see anyone that I recognized, and WikiProject Korean seems to be fairly inactive, so I don't know where to search other than here. I'm not really sure if Yswj700 can competently contribute to this language Wikipedia, but I at least would like to try to explain the details to xyr so that xe will understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I made a post at WP:Korea asking for help. You might want to go over to Category:User_ko and see if you can find somebody who is active and speaks Korean.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You can try and ask User:SEVEREN (ko:사용자:SEVEREN). Seems active on the Korean wikipedia. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 03:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Alex Stegmeyer

Resolved

 – NLT indef handed out, editor seems to have kapoof'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the article Alex Stegmeyer for speedy deletion - its an obvious hoax. The editor who created the article responded at Talk:Alex Stegmeyer with a legal threat. I suspect the editor is schoolboy Alex Stegmeyer and this is not a serious threat, but it does breach WP:NLT. So I'm bringing this here for admin attention. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I guess the Founding Fathers were prescient, seeing as they put in the Constitution "the unalienable right to have a Wikipedia page about yourself." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that in the 1337th amendment? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That joke deserves a legal threat of its own. --NellieBly (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sparthorse (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Occupy" mess cleanup

The "occupy" protests seem to be basically over but, looking around, there are still scads of articles around for each individual protest in each little city, based on local media sources. Is it time to start deleting/merging articles, or should we wait until we're sure the SPAs have gone away? Kelly ^hi! 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly something administrators need to deal with. Send the articles to AFD and let the community decide whether the subjects are notable or not. --NellieBly (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an editor who recently tried to clean up one such small mess and got absolutely rinsed by a bunch of activists, I'd advise you to leave it, at least until it all dies down a bit more. See this debacle, and note the canvassing, SPAs, generally messy discussion, admin close, admin undo-close, and then re-close. Nightmare. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• It took ages just to delete an obvious copyvio photo from one of the articles. Kelly ^hi! 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's like an infestation, but there's nothing to be done about it whilst there are still so many supporters around making a massive noise about it all. But to return to the original question, you could always pick one of the smaller articles and suggest a merge on the talk page and see what reaction you get? Despite my sarcastic comment above, I would still encourage you to take an article to AfD if you think it's appropriate, reason may yet prevail. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is just getting ridiculous. Wikipedia is being used by small groups for promotional reasons. Basalisk is 100% correct, OccupyMarines is a clear delete, the arguments point to that and the arguments for keep just don't stand up to scrutiny. The whole mess of Occupy articles needs to be sorted but it just won't happen because anyone who tries will have a ton of crap flung at them. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for a harrassing IP

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

---

Some history.

Long story short: an IP editor (mostly using Road Runner, with a couple of Sprint IPs thrown in) has spent the last four months (At least) harrassing user:Yworo. This initially took the form of looking through Yworo's contributions and reverting for specious reasons, before moving onto personal attacks on Yworo's talk, coupled with swapping IPs whenever a block is issued; the most recent escalation was to incite the now-indeffed Irolnire (talk · contribs) into posting a copycat "evidence" page at abusive editor via email.

Basically, this has gone on long enough, and we should establish that while we probably can't preemptively block likely IPs, we're not going to accept the continued contributions of this user. That means that should any similar activity happen again (said IP is pretty easy to recognise from previous behaviour) editors can revert on sight.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - long term harassment is a serious issue, especially when it is over a minor editing dispute as this originally started out as. I support treating the easily recognizable IP accounts and any named accounts created to continue the same harassment, as WP:banned. Youreallycan (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Being able to block on sight would be useful, and it'll provide a bit of moral support for Yworo too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Harassment is not, should not, and will not be tolerated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the veil of anonymity does not give any user the right to wage a campaign of abuse and harassment against another user without risk of consequence or sanction. SuperMarioMan 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Ched :  ?  13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Yworo (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This person has a first-amendment right to express himself freely. Nah, just kidding. Support. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Sohompramanick

The above user is first and foremost a fan of an Indian film actor called Dev (actor). Like most fan boys he is interested in adding information in the article. That's understandable. However, this one is keeping on adding huge chunks of unsourced information, adding a fansite (www.devthesuperstar.com) continuously as official website of the actor, all the while claiming (rather YELLING) that it is the real website, though reputed sources have debunked it. The user was blocked for this, but came back today, first placing false warning templates on my talk page, which I had thought was a mistake but later knew that it was intentional. Then he added the same content in the article for which he was blocked, claiming that he got permission for adding the content. Also, added a picture, claiming to be a free one. I know that this is a new user, but the thing is that I have countless times asked him NOT to add the unreliable fan pages, and explained him what can be considered reliable. However, the user fails to pay any attention and is probably thinking I'm hell-bent against this actor, which I'm not. Hence I have come to ANI to ask and intervene. I don't want the user to be permanently blocked, seriously. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The content is a copyright violation of [20], the user needs to back up the claim of permission with proof. He's had two blocks already; looks like it's time to close the door per WP:COPYVIO, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDHT. MER-C 13:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed as in "until he shows he understands what he was doing wrong". Sadly, not every person belongs at Wikipedia... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio; good block. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Word Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip123456

Problematic edits by Chip123456 (talk · contribs) were reported here on ANI just 4 days ago. I've copied the thread back here, out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732 (diff), and I'll add to the end of it...

The thread, previously entitled "Unsure of WP:3RR", follows;  Chzz  ►  17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if I reverted this, would I be in violation of WP:3RR? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, kinda. But honestly, I think you're absolutely right and this is a case of WP:IAR (even though like 2 or 3 days ago I arguing WP:IAR is no reason to edit war). Try discussing it on the talk page. I'll leave a warning for the user that they need to add a citation instead of just reverting the tag.--v/r - TP 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, no as you have only reverted 3 times. A fourth time would put you in violation. However it is clearly a burgeoning edit war so please refrain from making the changes again and discuss them on the article talk page. Also note that you can be still considered to be edit warring and blocked if you try to game the system by making additional reverts outside of the 24 hour window. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've undone the most recent re-addition, and added one more note on the user's talk page, asking them to discuss on the article talk.

Clearly, Chip123456 (talk · contribs) needs to learn about the need for good references (WP:V). I can see there's been a bit of discussion on Chip123456's user talk page, and on Redrose64's [21]; I suggest both editors discuss it on the article talk page, Talk:Chippenham railway station.

I hope Chip123456 will accept the need to discuss changes. I'll notify that user of this thread.  Chzz  ►  14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Crikey - please don't frighten him off ..lots of templates and warning on his talkpage.. his edit seems to be completely correct according to the parent article - Go!_Cooperative and its not like its contentious content - the users contributions seem well informed to me, yes, find a citation but don't treat him like some kind of wiki criminal. Youreallycan (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Dropped a note on the editor's talk page attempting to calm things down a bit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Add a citation. I didn't intend to make any fuss over something. I had done my research on the plans and put what I thought was correct. I again ask why it has been removed. I'm not angry just wondering. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you show me a external link to a WP:RS where the content you are desirous of adding is supported I will add it for you. See WP:Citing sources - Youreallycan (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was a few days ago. Chip123456 was given very clear warnings, which can be seen on eir talk, about a) not adding unreferenced information, and not repeatedly adding information without discuss/consensus (including the discussion directly above here).

--- End of the previously-archived thread ---

Since then, Chip123456 has continued to add unreferenced information (e.g. [22]) and continued to repeatedly add same information without discussion/consensus (e.g. [23] [24] [25]). I will notify Chip123456 of this re-post, and I'll mention it to Redrose64 (just for the sake of form).  Chzz  ►  17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask why adding facilities you need to have a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip123456 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Because otherwise, anyone could edit and say that Chippenham railway station had e.g. a swimming pool, a ballroom and a heliport. And their edits would be just as valid as yours. Please see WP:PILLAR. And please explain why you repeatedly added things, even though you had been explicitly warned not to do that without discussion.  Chzz  ►  18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I added things as I though it was needed on the page. I did go on discussion page and had no reply. Why would I out a swimming pool or anything like that. The only problem is, if something is wrong with respect you tell them what to do you offer no help or advice. It wouldn't be hard if instead of you took the information, looked at it and thought well there is no ref so I will add one instead of complaining. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipeida must cite a reliable source, and it is strongly preferred that it have inline citations. Any information that is uncited can be removed by any editor at any time; while adding the {{citation needed}} tag for a period of time before removing uncited information is a courtsey, it is not required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip, I'm a bit puzzled by your comment "I did go on discussion page and had no reply" - the only article discussion page that you have posted to is Talk:Chippenham railway station, where you have made five postings: four of these were answered within 45 minutes; the last hasn't been replied to, but this is most probably because it's a statement not a question. Also far from offering "no help or advice" - this has been offered at Talk:Chippenham railway station and User talk:Chip123456 by myself and by others. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

non sequitur

Forgive the non sequitur but has anyone considered that this may be User:Crouch, Swale? I just get suspicious when people are acting dodgy and the first article I open happens to be around Swindon. Is there a checkuser in the house more familiar with our hamlet bandit? Syrthiss (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC) No, he is  Unrelated to Crouch, Swale. –MuZemike 19:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Thanks Mike. Forgiven, Syrthiss. Hope you don't mind my collapsing this bit, in the interests of reducing excess DRAMA.  Chzz  ►  20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack

• Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of Honorverse characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A simple disagreement about tags on an article. Said tags were removed with this (hidden) comment inserted into the article. I reverted and explained my rationale on the article's talk page. That was re-reverted with another hidden comment inserted into the page. I removed that again, which resulted in this. Being compared with a Nazi thug is not something I take kindly... Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[26] and [27] are completely unacceptable and as such, and given this user's long history of harassment (see block log), I have blocked Fabartus 1 month for harassment. –MuZemike 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just lookign through the talk page and that last comment, I have to ask the question: Is Wikipedia better off without this editor? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that he seems to believe you don't have to reference fictional-subject articles at all, I'm inclined to agree. I suppose you could AGF that he's confusing the "you don't have to cite plot summaries of fictional works, as they are cited to the work itself" somehow, but that's a stretch, and given the Godwinian attacks, I'm inclined to think the end result of this will be a WP:NOTHERE verdict. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Human rights sourcing to humanrights.wikia.com

Resolved

 – The named user has been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A user (presumably the same one from both an IP and named account, see 212.219.156.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Q011845 (talk · contribs)) has been re-adding the same content to Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

This appears to be original research (the humanrights.wikia.com has 13 pages, and only two named users). However, the user is not responding to warnings, and simply re-adding the content. Can some other editors take a look? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Be wary of WP:3RR. I'm keeping an eye on the article and sending a message to him. I recommend filing a report over at WP:SPI to completely verify that it is indeed the same individual, so that there's no question if you need to file a report at WP:3RRN. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew I was right at 3RR, so won't be reverting the content any further myself at Human rights - but thanks for pointing it out in case I forgot. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: The named account now also adding the same content to Philosophy of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• OR or not, Wikia is not a reliable source. And my spider sense is telling me we have a Truth seeker here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, he's jumped to Natural and legal rights now. Maybe a block will get his attention? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

They are also posting the material to Peace now as well. I'm too involved to block them myself; but I agree with you, and fully support one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The named user has now been blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Indef block of Malleus Fatuorum requires review

At 22:34 UTC Thumperward (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs). The trigger was 19 hours before that; the matter had since been chewed over at WT:RFA and Malleus’ talk page and dropped. Though the issue was for all intents and purposes stale, Thumperward cited "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" as the reason in the block log. Explaining further the reasoning behind the block, Thumperward said "Block is based on the faulty premise that "almost all contact with him has a negative effect". Regardless of whether his behaviour in this instance was in line with community norms, it cannot be denied that there are many, many people who have had positive interactions with him. The archives of his talk page are filled with editors asking him for help, and sometimes thanking him for it. An indef block seems like an over-reaction and requires review, and given the issue had been dropped and no further disruption was being caused I suggest that it should have been raised here before administrative action was taken. Nev1 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just an FYI. If this block is hastily reversed without discussing it w/ the blocking admin or seeing a broad consensus here I'm taking this to RFAR. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Has Malleus requested unblock. Indef is very harsh but if it was any other editor it wouldn't be here. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I second that the issue should have been raised here before any action was taken. I do not believer that the matter was thoroughly discussed with Malleus before the block took place, and his many positive interactions with other editors means that this is not a clear cut case. Having said that, I do believer that Malleus was out of line in his comments at RfA talk page - his argument with other users were completely off the topic of the discussion, the argument solely over his use of an expletive. I do not believe that using the expletive itself was worthy of any sanction; however, his conduct when other users questioned him was bordering on personal attacks, and was certainly to the detriment of the discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock this is a punitive attention seeking block which serves no purpose. Ask Malleus to refrain from directing the "C" word at no one in particular as it upsets the sensitive and move on. Giacomo Returned 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock So MF doesn't like some admins. Now there's a news flash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock This block appears to be for using naughty language or for suggesting that some admins are dishonest? I don't get it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock In view of the timing, coming so long after the puny offense, this looks too much like a punitive block. Favonian (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock Outrageously poor judgement on Chris' behalf IMO. Using swear words on a talk page does not warrant an indefinite block under any circumstances, let alone when the comments have been dormant for almost 18 hours. BigDom 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, this is par for the course for Thumper, who as near as I can tell got his adminship from a Crackerjack box. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review coming up. One of the things about getting hit with a half-dozen angry comments upon a block is that one has to rejig one's rationale to address them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope I don't see Protonk at RFAR, as I've just told Thumperward I'm about to unblock Malleus, although I would prefer it if he did. This is the silliest block I've seen in a while - the conversation was in the early hours of the morning, and Malleus had allowed someone to redact the rude word - which seems to be the root of the problem. I have one of those, and therefore am allowed to say I didn't faint when he referred to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• It would be hard to disagree with, "long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds" . However an immediate and undiscussed indef (which will be anything but indef in practice) is one of the more stupidly blunt admin actions for a good while. In what possible way is that going to encourage any change in Malleus' behaviour?

Dealing with Malleus obviously requires some skilled and insightful adminship. This isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we all just intent to miss the forest for the trees? How come every time this issue comes up we repeat the refrain that each individual issue isn't sufficient to merit a block despite the issue coming up dozens of times a year? Protonk (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed he was blocked, and I agree 100% with Nev1 that Malleus's talk page shows clear evidence of the positive impact Malleus has made to the project through his kindness and generosity to other editors. I hope that consensus forms to unblock. That said, if anyone is shocked or outraged that calling people dishonest cunts will get you blocked, well, they ought not be. 28bytes (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. Was Malleus's actions a glorious example of how an editor should act> No. Should saying Cunt be an indef-blockable offense? Again, no. Shorten the block to time served and lets move onto something that matters. Malleus's net actions seem to be more on the positive side of the board then many other users. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• To some extent, Malleus I'm sure expects to be blocked for using the language he does (as do I when I'm at my grandest), but an indefinite block is abusive. For an editor as prolific as Malleus who creates and improves content and fosters other editors' efforts in doing the same, conjoined with his tendency to provoke reactions in admins who adhere to civility rules at the expense of common sense, indefinitely blocking him is not a decision that should be made by any single admin. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• What concerns me is that most of us were recently involved in a discussion about incivility at RfA, and in Wikipedia in general. This seems to go beyond the bounds of simply being a bit rude, as he engaged in an long argument with a number of users, and made personal attacks. A lot of what he did detracted from and damaged the encyclopedia. I'm on the fence for this one, but I don't think a block would be completely unjustified. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I'd support a reduction in the length of the block - a block is certainly deserved, but an indef block is excessive. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The argument I suspect thumperward is making is that this isn't even remotely the first time we have had this discussion and the answer has always been "well it isn't worth it to block for just this once" Protonk (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll likely unblock Malleus myself in a few hours if nobody else does. Yes, his way of putting things can be nettleseome, I wouldn't even blink at a 24 hour block but there's lots of background to this and one way or another, an indef (moreover without straightforward consensus beforehand, which would be unlikely to happen) is not the way to deal with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock This seems totally counterproductive. Lookat the drama it's causing. Besides, I love cunts and big boobs, so unblock him post haste!PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• As someone mentioned RFAR I have a question. I saw the incident, and I approached Mal on his talk page to discuss the matter. (you know.. it's that thing you do where you don't wade in full of self importance, speak your mind, and then listen as well). My final decision in light of 1.) the offending word was redacted. 2.)we have an oft referred essay for the opposing gender's genitalia 3.) the word was not used in reference to any individual. was to NOT block. Just not sure where the wheel ends and the war begins here. — Ched :  ?  00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• One way of ‘re-jigging one’s rationale’ would be to admit that one was perhaps in the wrong job (unpaid and as a volunteer, of course), gracefully resign as an admin and find some other way of contributing to the common weal. Ian Spackman (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just wish to clarify a few things here for the sake of those reading, as I've seen some people going around suggesting Malleus was blocked simply for using the word "cunt" or "just for swearing" and nothing else. The diff Nev posts above clearly shows Malleus saying that he "can think of [admins] who appear to be dishonest cunts": The fact that this insult is aimed at a collective group of editors rather than an individual user does not make it any less of a problem: if anything, it worsens it. In addition it's worth noting that he made this comment with the edit summary "stick that in your pipe and smoke it", which appears to promote a battleground mentality. On the same page he also made this edit, which is a clear failure to remain civil. Given that I have posted links above to three policies that Malleus violated, and given that this is hardly a first offense, I think that as a community we need to consider a remedy for this issue, rather than all either wildly opposing the block, or staunchly supporting it: the suggestion below of a topic ban from WT:RfA seems like an idea to pursue. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• So anybody who attacks admins as a class (violating WP:NO CLASS ATTACKS) should be banned from contributing to the appointment of admins? And anybody who is dubious about the political class of their nation should have their vote removed, I suppose? Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I had never seen that expressed quite so bluntly. What fun! I can only congratulate yourself and Thumperward for contributing to the gaiety of Wikipedia. Ian Spackman (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• It would perhaps help if you actually, y'know, read my comment before going on a rant about it. I never said he should not be able to vote on RfAs or be "banned from contributing to the appointment of admins", I very specifically suggested that the community look into the possibility of perhaps discussing a ban from WT:RFA. In addition, I at no point voiced my own view on it, which is currently unformed; I instead suggested that the community discuss the idea: sorry if this was unclear. In any case, less with the strawmen, please. Lets discuss this maturely, rather than making sarcastic accusations at one another. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why on earth would you suggest pursuing the idea of a topic ban from WT:RfA as ‘an idea to pursue’ if you didn’t lean towards its being a good idea? Ian Spackman (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• What I said was "I think that as a community we need to consider a remedy for this issue [...] the suggestion below of a topic ban from WT:RfA seems like an idea to pursue", I said it seemed like an idea to pursue because this is an issue relating to MF's comments on WR:RfA, and the idea of a localised topic ban has already been suggested and endorsed by several users below, and as such it seems like a good idea to have a proper discussion about the idea, even if a block is not supported. I said this because it seems that a lot of people are just saying that the block should be lifted as inappropriate, which could send the wrong message: i.e. it could give the idea that the community endorses this kind of behaviour, whereas all that it really shows is that the community does not endorse a block. As such, I think it's important that we consider other remedies, e.g. a topic ban. That's all I said; I'd rather you didn't jump to conclusions about my motives or inclinations: it results in me having to write up pointless explanations like this, whereas you could just have taken what I said at face value. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

By John, who will probably comment here shortly. 28bytes (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw no reason in policy to block and a strong consensus here to unblock, so I unblocked. I would be interested to see Chris's explanation of the indefinite block but there seems no reason to leave Mal blocked meantime. --John (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • John...have you read NPA...CIVIL? "no reason in policy to block"...you are surely kidding? You and Malleus are chums, no? Now I expect to see the usual cadre show up at thumperwards page demanding he recall, resign, or he'll be dragged to arbcom...all this could have been avoided had Malleus been less abusive. Amazing.--MONGO 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Question. What the fuck does someone have to do around here to be blocked indefinitely? Protonk (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I hear that eRaging over an amateur rec league "sport" is grounds for beheading. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, having been on the receiving end of three editors who are no longer with us, I could answer that, Protonk, but if I told 'ya, I'd have to kill 'ya (translation-- WELL beyond anything Malleus has ever done, to the point that even remembering or talking about those feckers is no fun). Get a grip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban from RfA. It is incredibly stupid to block experienced editors in the same way as vandals. Experienced editors should only be blocked for breaching a ban, or to prevent ongoing disruption. Block policy is in disarray here. Few blocks of experienced editors are preventative: most are punitive. And they are punitive with a big "fail" with regards to rehabilitation. Do admins here think Malleus is going to use nicer words after this block?

One of the first questions I was asked at RfA was the difference between a block and ban. With regard to experienced editors, admins rarely take advantage of this distinction. If a particular issue causes an editor to be disruptive, then why not topic ban them from that issue? Then at least they know in advance that if they comment on the issue they will be blocked, rather than the post-facto pre-emptive blocks that cause so much trouble here. Geometry guy 23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah! edit conflicted with you while trying to say exactly the same thing. His entrenched and colourfully expressed views on admins are bound to get him into trouble when in an arena dedicated to....talking about admins. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Malleus is in the same timezone as me, and I turn into a pumpkin if I edit after midnight...! So perhaps editing at 3 in the morning isn't a cracking idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, are you suggesting Malleus be topic banned from all RfAs and the RfA talk page? As he is the chief critic of admins and the RfA process, someone will have to stand in to be as effective a crank as he. Or rather, it seems as if RfA and admins are silencing their harshest obscene critic. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone to call bullshit is always a good thing. Someone to actually *say* bullshit (or cunt) is even better. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone on my short list of trusted admins once told me that it's good to keep admins' feet to the fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes: it is far preferable to topic ban him for a month/week/day than to block him for a week/day/hour. Have admins lost their clue? Malleus clearly "wants" to contribute to RfA, and can be a valuable contributor, but that does not mean the rest of the encyclopedia is a hostage to his terms, quite the opposite: tell him what our terms are! Geometry guy 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support topic ban from the RfA talk page. So many discussions at WT:RFA end up as a slanging match between Malleus and someone else. His comments at actual RfAs are usually valid though. Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Time out; nothing is on fire. Relax. Let's talk.  Chzz  ►  23:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I think that it is important to ensure that Malleus has input into this discussion, I will simply note that he is far and away the most frequent poster on WT:RFA. [28] Risker (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know how most admins feel, but if someone is as productive, as helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and as supportive of newcomers as Malleus, they're welcome to call me a cunt any time they please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no excuse for ever using it. Outside of the bedroom with a partner who likes it, anyway. That said, I don't see the point in the block, but I'm open to convincing. As if it makes any difference in the end...sigh! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case in the US, but in the UK "cunt" isn't particularly offensive in most contexts. Parrot of Doom 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Cunt is the generic noun and verb of Aboriginal Australian English. Cunt is the generic noun of about half the class lexicons of Australian English. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Elen (00:03), I am also on the same time zone, but often edit "overnight". It depends on the individual's work/life pattern. Or, in my case, a non-existent sleep pattern. I would be quite pleased to have some work or a life, but sleep routine is my issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fire!!! Fire!!! Oh, my God, the Wiki is on fire!!! –MuZemike 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

En Fuego!! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblocking I think the unblock was the right call. The word Malleus used is ugly, granted. Malleus can be a hothead, granted. However he contributes far too much help to this project and editors here for an indefinite block to be a reasonable way to approach this situation. As for the word being applied to a group of people, it explitly said "some admins"; he neither tarred all admins with the same brush, nor specified individuals to attack. LadyofShalott 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
• Block for "time served" Was it right for Malleus to use that word? No. But indef-blocking an editor for that is overkill. --Rschen7754 04:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Rationale

Right: full rationale.

Firstly, I'll be pursuing John (talk · contribs)'s wheel warring. Unblocking while an admin is drawing up a rationale (especially when the blocked user is in a timezone which makes an immediate unblock largely unnecessary, and where said user has not even made an unblock request) is wholly inappropriate.

Next, let's make some basic points regarding civility, recidivism, and collaboration:

1. Swearing, while not forbidden, is not typically considered to be entirely collegial.
2. A comment can be threatening, negative, and otherwise unproductive regardless of whether it contains swear words.
3. Apologising for making inappopriate comments does not make them unsaid.
4. Refusing to apologise for inappropriate comments may exarcerbate them,
5. Comments are not made in isolation. Threatening or otherwise negative comments made by an editor may be rationalised away in particular cases, but a pattern of such comments makes for a breach of our conduct guidelines.

And then some facts regarding this situation:

1. As Prontonk says, this is not by any stretch of the imagination the first time Malleus has made comments which are disruptive, devisive, and wholly out of line with WP:CIVIL. Barely a calendar week goes by without such an occurrence.
2. The language used was, in isolation, wholly unacceptable as far as any collegial editing environment is concerned.
3. The context in which said language was used was a wide-ranging attack against other editors. While not addressed at a particular editor, it was certainly aimed at a certain 'group of editors.
4. When challenged, Malleus not only refused to redact or apologise for said comments, but made a belligerent stand for them.
5. Malleus has had more blocks for said behaviour (I mean exactly this sort of thing, for years) than any other editor I can name, and likely more than most can name.
6. No time-limited block has had any positive effect on Malleus's behaviour to date.

Some straw men to blow down:

1. This is not because Malleus swore. It is the target of the comments in question, the response to challenges made in regards to said comments, and the long-running history of similar comments.
2. This is not because Malleus is a non-admin, or critical of admins. This behaviour would be unacceptable if Malleus were an admin, and it would be unacceptable if the targets were not admins. No examination of the actual events would honestly suggest otherwise.
3. Editors who are "productive, [] helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and [] supportive of newcomers" are not exempt from our conduct guidelines. No editor is bigger than the project. Allowing editors to flout our conduct guidelines if they make good edits destroys the collaborative environment and actively works against a pillar of the project.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You lack the appropriate temperament for an admin, and should resign immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that John wasn't wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL. He (and I, and Gwen Gale, and a couple of other admins in the half-hour or so between the ANI notice and the unblock) all thought it was a bad administrative action, which can be undone by another administrator. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great of Chris to, just as Malleus was complaining about kiddie admins, to give us a prime example of what happens when you have too many of them. But seriously. Given Chris thinks that John's actions were "wheel warring", let's judge him by his own rules and make a ruling on his block after Gerardw (et al) declined to do so many hours before.101.118.2.240 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth, Elen. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors who are "productive, [] helpful to people building the encyclopedia, and [] supportive of newcomers" are not exempt from our conduct guidelines.; I used to spout this line. It's bullshit, though. Malleus does good stuff, and is almost consistently helpful to anyone that asks for assistance with their prose. And he writes/copyedits brilliant articles. You know; the overriding idea of our community is remove people who are not contributing to the encyclopaedia. Oh, Malleus yells at people - he maybe puts some people off from contributing (but I wager not many). But I doubt they are newbies, and I doubt they contribute all that much in article content. And at the end of the day if you offer me the trade of someone like Malleus for most other editors on here (me included) I'd probably support him. If I recall correctly the first interaction I had with him was a pretty explosive argument, which ended up with him copyediting my pet GA for me :) I think fewer sticks up our assess is a good idea. Just saying. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support for John, Elen, Deskana, Gwen Gale and others per unblocking over-zealous blocks of productive contributers...Modernist (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking experienced and productive editors is almost always a stupid idea, but it happens frequently, and generates unnecessary drama here. There are many other ways to sanction conduct than a block. Why are they so rarely used instead? Geometry guy 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It couldn't be more simple. Constructive ways of sanctioning conduct in experienced and productive editors are rarely used because Wikipedia gives the right to jerk around and block experienced and productive editors to hundreds of people who are not experienced and productive editors, and have no background or qualification whatsoever that might equip them to handle such matters in an aware manner. This is the root inanity of Wikipedia, that powers the fraught environment we have here for editors who want to actually write Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

support block of some length Really? So we can allow users to spout out profanities and personal attacks like he was and get away with it? You gotta be kidding me. Alexandria (chew out) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's almost as oblivious and empathy-challenged as this. Nice going, Alexandria. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

There was no personal attack, as what he said wasn't directed at any one person. Also, there are no rules against swearing, really. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

These were arguably personal attacks: [29][30]. His response to being asked to remove the swearing was more problematic than the swearing. Epbr123 (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How tendentious is the argument required? I'd suggest that the generic emphatic is required to indicate how tendentious your argument is. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this willful ignorance? Protonk (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I just happen to disagree with you. Sorry about that. ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Some administrators are people who are vile and despicable individuals, who back stab you, who vary their policy to suit their ends, whose arguments are pathetic self-justifications aimed at serving their own personal needs. Some administrators routinely and habitually break social norms of courtesy in order to abuse other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. You are too kind. Fortunately, since I am a more productive editor than you, by your own argument, we can waive all that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just here to defend cunt and to oppose the behaviour just described (that I haven't observed in you); not to propose a hierarchy of contributions. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That is indefensible. The only question is whether you should be blocked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question

• Is this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Vested_Contributors no longer the case? Or should Wikipedia:Civility be marked as historic, along with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Maybe even rename it to four pillars? --86.6.105.188 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're a bit out of date there; you seem to have missed a later case where the arbs left that barn door very widely open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Might as well. It seems good mainspace contribs excuse horrid behaviour in WP space (see giano, bugs, rob, others). I mean if good mainspace contribs are all that count lets unban ottava shall we? Alexandria (chew out) 01:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked above whether admins had lost their clue, as if they ever collectively had it. Maybe this is wake-up call, and it is about time admins got some clue about experienced editors. Blocking them is generally a complete waste of time, So can the collective imagination of the admin corps come up with a better strategy? Geometry guy 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you got your answer yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's called arbitration.--MONGO 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, the behaviour is caused by trying to maintain the integrity of content. I've rarely known Malleus get on his high horse with decent contributors (the ones that try to get him to spell potato with an e at the end, yes maybe...) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate to put it like this, but putting it like that seems to me to justify being uncivil to make a point. Alexandria (chew out) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You try arguing with Randy in Boise.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Elen: It is in dealing with difficult editors in which MORE care to be civil must be taken, not less. SirFozzie (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with Elen. I would hope that there is an expectation that anyone who's mature enough to edit Wikipedia is mature enough to not punch poor young Randy in the face, even if he's annoying. User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Essay on civility is an interesting essay on this topic - the idea that responding to stubbornness or stupidity with rage is among the poorer ways to deal with it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the case for most editors but not for a select few--ironically these same editors spend a lot of their time insisting they are unfairly persecuted rather than universally above reproach. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The avowed primary purpose of this site is to create an encyclopedia. Administrators and other office holders should always ask themselves whether an exercise of their powers advances or hinders this purpose. The higher the quality of an editor's contributions to the project, the higher the threshold should be for taking action against them that prevents them from editing the encyclopedia, especially in the long term. Malleus has contributed more to the encyclopedia than most other editors, therefore he should get more leeway than someone who spends most of their time POV-pushing. If this results in there being a select few who are able to get away with rudeness to less productive editors, then that is a price worth paying. All you have to do to is produce lots of good content and then you too can be one of the select few.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to propose that change to the policies then. I have no problems with Wikipedia operating in a closed fashion if it thinks it is best, as personally I am just a reader who very rarely contributes (but is interested in the way the wiki works behind the scenes too), but stating the opposite in official policy and then beheading admins who enforce the written policy is pointless - unless of course you also wish the admin corps to be a closed circle of vested contributors too with secret 'understandings' and rules. This is especially important as the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be wanting to increase editor attraction and retention. If the English Wikipedia won't support such a move, it should be made clear in the mission statement. --86.6.105.188 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also to make it clear, I am discussing this from a viewpoint of 'I have seen this sort of drama here for years now'. This isn't a specific dig at the handling of this situation. I am merely concerned/interested about how the project will proceed into the future. Wikipedia is a pretty interesting thing to watch as a developing social sciences topic. --86.6.105.188 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I can't block my betters and now so does chris. I'm just embarrassed we have built an entire artifice around the excuse. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just noting for the record that I have full-protected the RFA talk page for an hour to stop the continuing edit war on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dream on

I've only just come across this topic, and I'm rather astonished by its length. The clear purpose of those who ought to be eliminated is to eliminate me. Dream on. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have had a number of dreams come true.--MONGO 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wet or dry? Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take some time out, Malleus. Being so disrespectful on an ANI topic discussing a block of you for a civility violation is inadvisable: WP:WHEEL does not protect you from community consensus, regardless of how safe you may or may not feel behind it at the moment. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a goop, Malleus :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are so much a fucking cunt Spitfire. Malleus Fatuorum 04:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John involved?

Just a quick search through Malleus' talk archives has turned up these: User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#Consistent_citation_style; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#Hogmanay_greeting; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/January#A_statement_of_policy_concerning_the_wikicup; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/February#Dr._Blofield; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/February#Nice_one; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/November#Hey; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum/Archives/2011/September#Courtesy_note; User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Thanks: all of these seem to show interaction between John and Malleus, in which John is not acting in an administrative role. Given this intense level of interaction over such a long time period, I struggle to believe that John (talk · contribs) is able to pass an unbias judgement on Malleus' unblock, and personally think he may be in violation of WP:INVOLVED. In the unblock message, John noted that there was a consensus at AN/I (here) for the unblock, however, the discussion here was still ongoing, and Chris was still in the process of writing up his rational, which he'd noted here that he was doing. In addition, given the large number of "eyes-on" in this case, I fail to see why an admin with such a hgh level of involvement with Malleus needed to make the unblocked, especially since they have not contributed to the discussion here. Thoughts? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John has contributed above before he went to bed. Also, has the consensus shifted such as to prove his actions wrong? If consensus stands, I believe he may stand justified. Quite a number of other admins indicated they would have done the same thing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed the comments above from John, however, they do not constitute extensive engagement. However, that is not a significant part of my comment above. A couple of notes to make in response to your comment: firstly, involved admins should generally not take action, especially not before a consensus has been established. Secondly, there is a large difference between an admin saying they're considering taking an action, and actually taking it. Also, in re. to your edit summary regarding pitchforks, I am not personally interested in seeing any "action" as such taken against John, however, should the community support it, I think it would be appropriate for a rebuke to be made specifically to him for failing to relinquish himself from making administrative decisions in a case where he is clearly involved, and also for making that decision before community consensus was established. In addition, he failed to mention his involvement. This is conduct less than I would expect of an administrator, and I think it's valid of me to bring it up here. Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was unjustified. Wet trout time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible class assignment?

I noticed a bunch of unsourced and malformed edits to Corroboration in Scots law this afternoon that appear to me to be a class assignment. Is there a standard "welcoming committee" for this sort of thing, or should I just revert and drop a standard welcome + "please use sources" note on their talk pages? 28bytes (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are supposed to send them to WP:SUP and WP:WOA. Heiro 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see if I can whip up a nice note for them with those links. 28bytes (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with WP:Government

I have been more or less prevented from editing this page. Threats of blocks have been issued by a few Admins. The basic issue is that some editors want the original proposal to be marked as failed while, when I started the page, the idea was always to first look at the feedback and then to rewrite it to accomodate for the comments. But because of lack of time and my priority on Wikipedia being the Ref Desk, I more or less forgot about [WP:Government]]. But Beeblebrox forced my hand a few weeks back by marking the original proposal (which wasn't ever meant to be proposed formally) as failed based on the old comments and based on the fact that it hadn't been edited for a while. I then decided to do what I perhaps should have done sooner and just write up what the current practice actually is, I have written that the community doesn't want a formal government system. But I then also removed the "failed" tag, because it has been rewritten to make it compatible with the expressed views. Perhaps it is better to make it an essay. But all that Beeblebrox and a few others are interested in is the "failed" tag. The very fact that I dared to remove the "failed" tag apparently constitutes edit warring (of course simply reverting will eventually be edit warring, but that's not what is going on now), and I will now be blocked if I make any changes to the status of the page. Presumably, I am also not allowed to change it into an essay. They are hell bent on having a page with title "Government" and then a "failed" tag below it, no matter what the page actually says. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the accepted options for a proposal that gained no traction is to turn it into an essay, so I'm not sure why anyone would object.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, once it has failed as a proposal, it has failed. Make a new proposal on a new page. Failed proposals should probably be kept as a record of precisely what failed. Editing the page destroys this record. It should be left as it was when the failed tag was originally placed on it, and a new page made for any new proposal so as not to disrupt the record. On that note, it probably shouldn't be deleted either. Yworo (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, what you are witnessing here is a user who is upset that the rest of us are not willing to come on a fantasy ride with him. This issue has been to the Count's own talk page, to DRN, to MFD, and to AN3 already. At every turn one user after another has attemted to talk the Count down off the ledge. Since he didn't like those results, he has chosen to ignore them and pretend the problem is somewhere other than with him. The best option here would be for a decisive admin to close the MFD. Do yourself a favor and don't bother trying to discuss with The Count, unless you agree 100% with his perspective he will just make up nonsensical objections. Please, somebody just close the MFD and put an end to this foolishness. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, 3RR, RFC, etc.

I've tried my best at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RFC_on_Recognizability_guideline_wording to form a sensible process to resolve a flaming dispute that erupted last night on that page. But User:Born2cycle subverted it by refactoring the previous comments of a bunch of users from before, stacking the RFC in his favor rather than allowing for an airing of ideas, issues, and opinions as requested. I reverted this addtion, and he reverted back. Noetica took them out, too; twice. And me again after a 3 RR warning. He has four times reverted the removal of his improperly refactored talk comments of others, which he added under their signatures, even after I advised him civilly that his wasn't going to get us to a useful place; see User_talk:Born2cycle#RFC. I'd appreciate an uninvolved admin letting each of us know whether we're out of line or not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From the looks of it all three of you probably ought to be blocked for edit warring. 28bytes (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that was one outcome I had predicted as possible. That's why I asked for feedback rather than a block. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is not restoring my own comments that were deleted by others contrary to guidance at WP:TALK exempted from 3RR and edit warring? I assumed it was. If it's not exempted, I won't do it again. If so, does anyone have any advice or suggestions for handling deletions of one's own comments from a talk page? I have never encountered that before. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You added the comments of others, with their signatures. Not your own comments. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted others - you know, I put their comments in quotes and Italics, and attributed their words to them using Template:User. For example, this is from my talk page:

• "Is it really considered abusive to quote others on a talk page? I have always felt free to quote others whenever that would help make my point. "--Art LaPella (talk · contribs) [31]

How is that any different from what I did there? Are you going to delete this quote too? According to my understanding of your justification for deleting those quotes, we should wait for Art to come here and comment for himself. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that any different? This new edit resolves my main objection – while recognizing that previous discussion couldn't be based on an edit that just occurred now. Well, my main objection other than the fact I'm not an edit warrior. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Dicklyon and I have acted in good faith throughout. Dicklyon started an RFC, with an impartial preamble, in an attempt to resolve an issue that had been handled chaotically and without any prospect of resolution if he had not done so. I reverted Born2cycle's attempts to censor or suppress elements in the discussion, to "stack" the RFC, and to subvert due process. I consistently called for calm, slow process, and collegial respect. This was, and is, desperately needed at that talkpage. Born2cycle has been almost continually disruptive and manipulative at WT:TITLE. It is one thing to engage in vigorous debate (I do that, he does that, many do that). It is another to monopolise the page as Born2cycle will do if no one moderates his behaviour.

I have never been blocked; and I never initiate action here. I prefer collegial means of resolution. I would not have started this action; but I certainly understand Dicklyon's doing so.

I am an editor deeply committed to the collaborative development of Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines, and I am proud of what I and others have been able to achieve. It may or not be of interest to anyone here, but I put this on record anyway: if I am blocked for attempts to maintain standards of orderly discussion and process, I will immediately leave Wikipedia.

Noetica^Tea? 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Without checking the substance of the RfC, I observe that Born2cycle seems to have broken WP:3RR at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. If a case about this had been submitted at WP:AN3, it might have been closed with no block if Born2cycle was willing to make assurances about his future behavior. Born2cycle's rearrangement of others' comments seems to run afoul of WP:REFACTOR, which requires consensus for such changes. "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Clearly there are objections. Based on my review of Born2cycle's actions, I suggest he take a one-week break from the talk page and the policy page. I haven't reviewed the other two editors' work, but encourage anyone who has concerns to do so and see if any sanctions should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)