Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 18 May 2010 (→‎Review of Lar's block: too bad). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    HoundsOfSpring, again

    In late February, I brought this user to the attention of this board. As of today he is still performing these problematic edits, and has been since I last discussed him here. The {{whom?}} and other tags such as those in the following diffs are still unnecessary but he still edits in this way despite both my attempts and EyeSerene's: [1] [2] [3] [4]. He's not changing his ways. What do we do?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything objectionable about the 1st diff (adding a {{fact}} tag). I could have added it myself had I read that article. Did not check the other ones. Pcap ping 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked them. He does seem to be a little overzealous with the 'whom' tag, but they look like good-faith edits to me... except that he's been asked about this before. Hrm. I'll drop him a note. Shimeru (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also let him know that he's being discussed here again. Apparently, he wasn't notified this time around. Pcap ping 07:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He can't say he didn't see it (in triplicate) now... Pcap ping 10:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem appears to be that HoundsOfSpring is too educated for the articles he's editing, and insists too much that other editors rise to his standards of sourcing and English (or too "anal", if you prefer). This discussion is a good example. Pcap ping 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason why he tags various articles with [according to whom?] seems to be that he dislikes passive voice without an agent like "shit is done to editors[according to whom?]". All his edits to Wikipedia (using this account, anyway) are only of the copyedit/grammar fixes variety, but are by no means limited to Anime articles. Pcap ping 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pcap pinged me at my talk page for "MoS" advice (but it's more a case of collaborative mechanics than MoS, AFAICS—I can appreciate the irritation, but words such as "anal" and "too educated" will do no good). Some of Hound's edits are improvements, others are not. "A second convention is planned[according to whom?] to take place from August 27 to 29, 2010, in Los Angeles". Reasonable point, but the "whom" template is unnecessary. In other places Hound is applying a too-strict rule about avoiding the passive voice, for example "an episode (or two) were dedicated[according to whom?] to a ..."—that is fine in the passive without specified agent, to my eyes. "in certain areas[which?]"—yep, it's vague. "In many series, a Ranger is also given[according to whom?] additional Zords or weapons."—no agent is fine in a vid games context for this meaning, I think. "which has gained much[citation needed] media-coverage."—I agree, this definitely needs citation.
    It's a mixed bag. My solution would be to implore Hounds and the other editors to print their proposed copy-edits and inline queries first on the talk page for a while, so that trust can be regained. It's the practical way of doing business. Tony (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the discussion. It seems that differences of opinion exist on how (and how frequently) one should use standard Wikipedia "whom"-tags. Perhaps we should have some sort of other tag to ask for more detail - or do we have such a tag already? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As it has ben discussed here and in the old thread, your obsession with the "weasel factor" of the phrasing across the project is not what is expected by other editors. These plot points or other aspects that you request elaboration on are not necessary. That is what I have been telling you for 3 months.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the Wikipedia project in its wisdom has granted us a "whom"-tag, fellow-editors can expect to encounter it from time to time. That said, I tend to interpret it literally as "by whom" and overlook the "weasel-wording" associations. Should we invent/adopt a new/different tag to ask for more information when some Wikipedians want an encyclopedia to give detail and not just to assume that "things happen" somehow? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Those type of issues you just bring up on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should lobby to make the documentation of the "whom"-tag more general. That would seem to accord with tag culture on Wikipedia. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is you effort an exercise in WP:POINT? I do have the feeling we're being trolled here. Pcap ping 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to suggest generic solutions to an general issue here. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of image link in Christian denomination

    I want to start by saying I'm not used to these noticeboards and ask for forgiveness for any hiccups resulting from that. Would appreciate feedback regarding how to better handle these situations.

    User:BreadBran and anonymous IPs 173.206.236.231 and 173.206.236.24 have been persistently editing Christian denomination to replace the image Image:ChristianityBranches.svg with BreadBran's image File:ChristianBranches.png. The PNG version appears to be a simple conversion from the SVG version with the removal of "Early Christianity" text from the leftmost branch. Consensus on Talk:Christian denomination (and from what I've been told, on Wikipedia) is that SVG is preferred over PNG for non-photographic content, so these edits are against this consensus. Furthermore, have attempted to notify BreadBran and IP through User_talk:BreadBran, User_talk:173.206.236.24, User_talk:173.206.236.231 and through the article's Talk:Christian denomination, as well as through edit summaries asking for discussion. Neither user has replied on any talk page; I went on a brief Wikibreak, came back and discovered these edits have been continuing, and are being reverted.

    Sample diffs:

    Would also appreciate guidance on whether/how to deal with the graphic itself; BreadBran originally claimed ownership, when it is clearly a port from the SVG; I edited the description on File:ChristianBranches.png to reflect this. Not sure what Commons policy is on image duplication/derivation; I'm not familiar with the Commons, unfortunately.

    It doesn't seem to meet vandalism (AGF that the user genuinely believes PNG is better for some reason), but it doesn't seem to meet edit-warring either since we've repeatedly asked for participation in discussion and haven't gotten any. 3RR isn't being violated, since the edits are being made over a longer period of time actually, IP did violate 3RR; see: [9]. For these reasons, I was not sure which noticeboard to use; this seems to meet the definition of "tendentious editing" to me; e.g. WP:POINT meant to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. Also, for what it's worth thus far BreadBran seems to be a single-use account. Would ask for an administrator's judgment on this matter as to whether/what action is necessary. Thanks,

    -- Joren (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the IP didn't violate 3RR -- the last four edits were over four days. It's clearly edit warring, though: if the IP/BreadBran aren't willing to discuss, they should back off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not important, but just wanted to clarify the diff I'd posted [10] was in fact the fourth revision in the previous 24 hours for that IP address from 11:01, 11 May 2010 to 09:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC+9). Just felt the need to be clear in case anyone wondered if I was just making up stuff :) Thanks!
    -- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the IP has now violated 3RR. These four reversions: [11], [12], [13], and [14] took place over a period of 18 hours and 18 minutes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note at User:BreadBran's talk page. Also reverted the article back to the .svg version of the image. Shimeru (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BreadBran has made the same edit again: [15]. As of yet, no statements from either BreadBran or IP address on any of the talk pages.
    -- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked him for 48 hours too. Hopefully he'll get the message. Shimeru (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP kept it up after the block. I've reblocked the IP for a year. Shimeru (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has canvassed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) by notifying a group including ARS regulars ([16][17][18][19][20][21]) about the AfD renomination (some of whom weren't even involved in the previous discussion) without notifying everyone involved in the previous discussion. The user's response to notification of this has been wikilawyering with no attempt to notify further participants in the original discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    it should also be noted that all those alerted by Richard Norton are editors known for only !voting at bilateral article AfDs. This is one of the most blatant violations of canvassing I've seen in recent times. The fact that Richard Norton as an experienced editor pretends this is not canvassing with responses like this, shows that he is deliberately trying to conceal obvious canvassing and a deliberate disregard for WP rules. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened 48 hours ago and has already been raised at the AFD. Norton has already been warned for this and I briefly considered blocking him for it yesterday but decided that it was a little after the event for this to be anything other then punitive. Add another day and block looks even more punitive and I'm afraid you just have to wait for the AFD to be closed and for the closing admin to make allowances for the canvassing. If this doesn't happen then you have a prima facie case for the close to be overturned at DRV and the article relisted. Not really sure what else you can reasonably expect us to do here right now. Spartaz Humbug! 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is that he is a very experienced editor and knew exactly what he was doing. yes I warned him after this spate of canvassing, however the bigger issue here is his deliberate disregard of WP rules, when pressed on canvassing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it wasn't reprehensible, it was was, but the time to raise a complaint is at the time of the event not 48 hours afterwards. Blocks are not punishments but preventative. What does a block right now prevent? If he canvassed further then I would block in a milisecond but unless he does that its really down to weighing the keep side against the fact of the canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea this far down the road might cross from preventative into punitive, but I found the "well everyone showed up anyways" response to be the troubling part. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    and to everyone, this is his most recent comment on this [22] and [23] which seems more disregard for WP process. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry if you feel that this report is too late to be valid, but I did not become aware of it as it occurred, and after looking around this morning I felt that it had not been raised in an appropriate forum after the lack of a meaningful reply on his talk page (as AfD should be about the article, not other actions). Personally, I'm a fan of blocking purpose #3: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated", but then that's what's used most often (as far as I can tell) when it comes to copyright violations (where policy violations are often not immediately discovered) which is where I usually work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite many people pointing out to Richard it was clearly canvassing, he continually tries to pretend and deny it was canvassing. If he said, "sorry I won't do it again" then that would be end of story but he persists with this attitude that such "notifications" (masquerading blatant canvassing) are acceptable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is the article canvass squadron permitted space to exist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it was started with he best of intentions and was not intended to just be a hardcore inclusionist voting block. Somewhere along the line most of them lost their way and became obsessed with keeping any old piece of junk as a "tactical maneuver" as opposed to actually improving articles so that they meet our basic criteria. I've been knocking around an essay on this at User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver, maybe I'll move it into project space... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it was started with the best of intentions, but I've been wondering for a while, having seen it on other AfdS, if it has changed to the point where it is no longer helpful to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some of the people who actually do the work of constructively improving and adding sources to savable articles have gone it alone. There has always been a 'turn up and vote "keep"' element within the ARS and that tends to be people's perception of the project.pretty preppy prose, pablo!   pablohablo. 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard A Norton has been given final warning. I don't monitor AFDs often, so editors that notice further behaviour along this line should drop me a note.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • When I wrote "let the wars being" in your near-unanimous last RfA, I was anticipating something like this. Glad you haven't let me down. Popcorn! Pcap ping 05:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe he only contacted people who were involved in the previous AFD for that article. Libstar is nominating the same articles he failed to get deleted a year ago, we having the same AFDs over again. Everyone from the previous AFD should be contacted, regardless of how they voted. If he failed to contact some of the participates who hadn't already found their way there, then I believe it was done in error, he not understanding the rules, they not all clearly written. I don't know if everyone contacted was a member of the Article Rescue Squadron or not, but that wasn't the reason they were contacted so isn't relevant. Dream Focus 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dream Focus you are clearly wrong, here is the original Afd, I can note that Richard canvassed these users who did not even appear in the original AfD: Namiba, AlanSohn, MichaelQSchmidt. Richard failed to contact any of the delete voters in the original AfD. clearest case of canvassing I've seen. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The best rule of thumb for this is pretty simple: don't talk to anyone about AFDs anywhere but on the AFD and the talk page for the article that has been nominated. That way, no one can ever accuse you of canvassing. There's no reason to invite people from similar AFDs, previous AFDs, or even people that have edited the article. The goal of an AFD is to get an unbiased cross-section of editors, not one sorted by any criteria, no matter how objectively reasonable that criteria seems to be.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did they give you the power to impose new policy by fiat in your RfA? I missed that part... Perhaps you should speedy delete WP:DELSORT as well, because it attracts editors that might care about certain articles as opposed to completely random ones. I've been "canvased", and have "canvased" myself w.r.t AfD a good number of times. The guideline seems to be WP:CANVASS, last I checked. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my advice, not policy. Norton violated WP:CANVAS, and that's what he was warned about and that's what he will be blocked for future violations of.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuse-making. This is an experienced editor, not a green-thumbed newbie, and WP:CANVAS has a very easy to read table to help determine the difference between proper and improper notifications. Norton only notified noted inclusionists such as yourself, and quite clearly knew what he was doing. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dream Focus, the only reason Richard Norton contacted those people is because he wanted them to come and vote keep. He selectively contacted only people he felt would vote the way he wanted, but excluded people who voted to delete last time. That's pretty obvious canvassing, and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Reyk YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone who responded has missed my point. Richard is a long-time & experienced Wikipedian; he knows about canvassing & that he can be sanctioned for it. Yet he felt this issue was worth risking a ban for doing this. Why did he do this? The reason is obvious: the unresolved dispute over "notable" bilateral relations. So it is reasonable to suspect that even if Richard is permanently banned from Wikipedia, this dispute won't go away. Attempts to resolve it by finding a consensus have been unsuccessful, to put it mildly. Yes, WP:AN/I should focus on behavior over content, but unless the deeper cause is addressed -- lack of an explicit standard for notable bilateral relations -- other parties in this dispute will become featured guests here. Which I assume no one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We did have consensus--we had an approximate standard, much less inclusionist than I would have liked, but a moderately self-consistent set of decisions nonetheless, at the original rounds of discussion on these. The recent afds are renomination of the articles that survived, and I see them as an attempt to disrupt the admittedly fragile tacit settlement that had been achieved . DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the "don't talk about AfD anywhere but the AfD discussion. It is permissible to inform Wikiprojects with a neutral notice that "article X" has been nominated for deletion. Members of that WP then have the opportunity to look at the article, and decide whether it should be kept, deleted, merged or turned into a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why the simpler approach of indef blocks for those users who continue to turn AfD into a battleground (there are less than a dozen, and three of the most high-profile have thankfully left the project recently anyway) is best. Then people can continue to argue for a more sanguine approach to notifying other editors of AfDs without acting as useful idiots for the hardcore disruptors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break

    • It is time for an unequivocal ban on ARS canvassing. They can use a transcluded notification page and/or watchlist a noticeboard. This keeps happening, keeps causing drama, and keeps being an unacceptably one-sided form of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought there was an "unequivocal ban" on canvassing, period. Or is this a proposal along the lines of the old warning, "Offenders will be shot. Repeat offenders will be repeatedly shot"? -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never understood the long-standing battle over these relations articles - they don't seem to warrant the fuss that is made over them either way. Anyway, the comments of the usual hard-core deletionists above seem neither helpful nor unbiased as they just seem to represent one side of this battle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LAMEcup? Pcap ping 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is ridiculous canvassing. Getting inclusionists to vote on that AFD is definitely not neutral, and especially because Arthur is very experienced around here, this is clearly canvassing. Wonder why he hasn't posted here yet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the "usual hard-core deletionists" are getting just a wee bit tired of the ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs? You can't shoot the messenger just because someone got caught so red-handed. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Call a spade a spade. Whatever the intentions when created, the ARS has beomce, to a degree, the Canvass squadron. Posting a notice there invites dozens of "the usual hardcore inclusionists" to run to an AfD and start claiming that "one source passes GNG" or something like that. If there was a Article Deletionist project, it would be the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if someone did start a hardcore deletionist wikiproject, you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. Reyk YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, although members occassionally improve article, I regard ARS as little more than a subtle canvassing project. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You & I both, Colonel. I was hoping that the discussion I linked to above would have created some kind of consensus about the matter, even if in a negative manner -- e.g., "If two countries do not have diplomatic staff resident in each others countries, nor any explicit reason why this is not so, then their bilateral relations are not notable." Instead, the two camps remain at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has it been canvassing? Yes, perhaps. However when AfD's etc. are discussed here, for example, and armies of deletionists come consequently to sink articles, canvassing complaints are immediately dismissed (see [24]). Double standards? Also: I am an outspoken inclusionist, yet I've still to see "dozens of the usual hardcore inclusionists" in any AfD discussion. I would absolutely love to see examples of that, it would give me back some faith in the WP process :) --Cyclopiatalk 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone with more than a brief experience of XfD who claims to be unfamiliar with the dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption is being wholly disingenuous. Full stop. This goes double for anyone who reads enough of Wikipedia Review to be linking to discussions of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I have more than a brief experience of AfD, and I really see no "dominant inclusionist clique". I instead see a dominant deletionist bias, especially (but not only) in dealing with BLPs. Perhaps we read two different AfD's? --Cyclopiatalk 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I've just seen Jimbo's comments regarding your attitude towards unreferenced BLPs. I rather think we're on different planets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed Wikipedia Review has been tremendously helpful for identifying and focusing editors to flock to discussions and greatly sway events regardless of the disruption and invasion of privacy. In fact it's so very helpful to disrupt Wikipedia time and time again to make a point, right? We don't need a deletion canvas squadron as Wikipedia Review does that quite effectively with zero accountability and unencumbered by our pesky policies. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Our"? An odd word to use for an account's first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comfort shoe is clearly somebody's sock. A Nobody/The Pumpkin King/Elizabeth Rogan/Wikipedian, Historian and Friend has been socking again so it may be him. But it's definitely somebody'sBali ultimate (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, all that's needed is another web site, Wikipedia Unreview, for inclusionists? Pcap ping 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia gets criticised on Wikipedia Review anyway, so one has to do some pretty selective reading to suggest that it's some deletionist holdout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe a Wikipedia Review Reality Check would help or a template warning that specific discussions are poisoned by offsite canvassing. We can pretend it's all noble to critique editors and policies on other websites but when editors show duplicitous signs of disruption and defend banned users making a point it gets tired. Eroding the academic work of volunteers may be great sport however the end result remains the degrading of human knowledge by intimidation rather than utilizing the consensus processes worked out over years. Comfort shoe (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not saying anything which hasn't previously been discussed. Indeed, even the "Wikipedia review is sending people to delete our articles" trope is a well-walked road: Le Grand Roi was fond of that one for a while about a year ago. I'm still curious as to why you chose this thread as the location of your first registered contribution to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, with the exception of a very few (i.e. Everyking), I'd say most WR regulars are leaning on the deletionist side. While I can link lots of WR threads where successful AfD's are collectively cheered with smiles and hoorays, I've yet to see WR actively taking side to keep an article. --Cyclopiatalk 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that you believe that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome to link me some example of the WR community being happy and relieved of an article being kept at an AfD. --Cyclopiatalk 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discourtesy break

    The discussion in the section above is a perfect example of why this canvassing has to stop. It stokes persecution mania and militancy and reinforces the false belief in "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as mutually exclusive opposing camps when in reality there is a spectrum of inclusionism and a broad range of personal views on where the threshold should lie for any given topic. Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom. Was that intended? Probably not, but it happened anyway. So: no more ARS canvassing. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What about no more canvassing in general? Skewing consensus is bad either way, isn't it? I am not an active ARS member, but ARS has a noble objective at least -improving articles to make sure valuable material is not deleted. How can this cause "division and venom" baffles me -all what I see in this disgraceful thread is venom thrown against ARS. --Cyclopiatalk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are more than welcome to rescue articles (Uncle G is one of my favourite Wikipedians of all time, and he has a long history of doing just that). The problem is canvassing. By ARS, by WikiProjects, by anyone. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think that the issue is not that the use of the ARS is inherently bad, but that the ARS is open to abuse, e.g. where the article was already well written and referenced and so had no need of rescue. It's cases like this where rescuing an article could be considered votestacking as it then only serves to attract !voters as opposed to editors to improve the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x2) Bingo! This is my sentiment as well. To the extent that ARS members canvass (as is alleged here) they should be reprimanded. To the extent that NON-ARS members canvass, to whatever end, they too should be reprimanded. The anti-ARS rants are pointless. I reiterate my position that ARS should be a core, volunteer function like 3O, not a wikiproject with membership and leadership. Everything that CAN be improved instead of deleted should be; that which cannot, should not. ARS should be a tool to that end, and neither anyone's pet canvassing forum nor anyone else's pet punching bag. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes two to tango. This really isn't about the ARS at all, since the concern is canvassing of individuals by R.A.N., not the addition of a rescue tag to the article. If/when ARS volunteers simply vote keep without explanation, the vote should be suitably discounted as any other similar vote would be, and votes with valid reasoning should be considered; when ARS members actually improve an article, then it might be worthwhile for editors to consider the changes in the AfD when !voting.
    llywrch has one of the few constructive comments that could solve the real problem here: "What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?)".
    It appears that LibStar renominated an article for deletion that they had nominated a year prior, and which was kept. The renomination makes no mention of the the prior keep. When that happens it tends to irritate people because there's no explanation for why there is a new AfD -- it smacks of a simple deletion canvass (because every AfD asks editors to consider whether an article should be deleted, that's the nature of the AfD process). Renominating articles without a rationale for it invites drama. R.A.N.'s response is more understandable in that light, though not excused. It takes two to tango (tangle?). In any event, I'd prefer we solve the underlying problem -- the lack of consensus on how to treat these bilateral articles, because areas like this will consistently cause AN/I threads with varying labels.
    Since I am an active ARS member, I should disclose that I was not canvassed for the AfD--I noted it independently while scanning recent AfDs (not even those marked for rescue), and !voted about 12 hours ago. Cyclopedia recently noted the existence of this ANI on the ARS talk page.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LibStar has been doing these renominations for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philippines–Romania_relations_(2nd_nomination) for instance. Pcap ping 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that s/he has two barnstars that were given for the exact reason of having nominated for AfD, what I would assume to be, numerous bilateral relations articles. SilverserenC 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And considering that the last two of the three nominations of that article were "keep", the barnstars only show that an extreme deletionist camp exists, and that they frot barnstar each other. Pcap ping 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Try and tone down the language a bit, please. :/ SilverserenC 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction The result of the previous AfD for the article in question was "no consensus" not "keep," so accusations that Libstar's nomination is somehow ill conceived are ill conceived. A year ago we couldn't find consensus on the notability of this article, so it seems perfectly reasonable to come back a year later and try again. Community views may have changed in the meantime, certain disruptive editors may have left or been blocked/banned in the mean time, new sources may have become available, etc. Yilloslime TC 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Talk:Philippines–Romania relations, which lists 3 noms, as I said (the first was part of a group nom.) Pcap ping 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another more recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination); previous two nominations were "keep" as well. Pcap ping 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to Milowent's comment, not yours. Yilloslime TC 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shame on all of you

    • I am deeply, deeply offended about comments made above about the ARS. I would have thought that such long-standing members would have even a hint of civility. What, just because you're talking about a group of people, instead of individuals, it's okay to use personal attacks? That's one of the worst cases of Wikilawyering i've ever seen. I, for one, have always tried to improve an article, if it's something that does need improvement to be worthy of inclusion. If I can't improve an article at all, I don't vote, there's no point, I believe it to be non-notable. The insinuations and comments made above by other users have been absolutely reprehensible. Though I suppose it's not surprising at all, since the comments are composed by the usual outspoken critics, the deletionists. I'm just shocked that other users have just let them go on and on and not say anything about their incivil remarks. If this is the state of Wikipedia, where we just allow crass remarks and titling of sections with "Discourtesy break" to be said by established users, just because they are such, then the project is far closer to crumbling than I imagined. SilverserenC 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While heated, I think this thread is already going along just fine without the dramamongering. --Smashvilletalk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the entire section dedicated to spewing abuse on ARS members? How is that "going along just fine"? I would think that an administrator would actually want to stop incivility. SilverserenC 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you like to counter anything they said or are you just going to go on about how "offended" you are and "reprehensible"? That's what I meant about dramamongering. Would you mind giving us some diffs of personal attacks and abuse? --Smashvilletalk 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [25] "ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs"
    [26] "you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. "
    [27] "Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom."
    All of these comments I find offensive and laughable, especially the insinuation that this is the ARS' fault, when it was Richard who contacted individual members. Taking that to mean the entire group as a whole is incredibly offensive. SilverserenC 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you any diffs that you haven't pulled out of context? Granted, Tarc is pretty abrasive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that you're not exactly disputing the validity of these claims other than repeating how horribly offended you are that someone dare question ARS. --Smashvilletalk 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out and discussing behavioural problems from a group of editors is not a personal attack. The fact is that the ARS has frequently been used as a keep vote canvassing vehicle. You yourself used it that way not so long ago. Reyk YO! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a method of getting more people to look at the changes I had made. Would you say that the article is non-notable after my changes to it? SilverserenC 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it was canvassing. That's why it ended up being redacted by WereSpielChequers as obvious canvassing. Whether or not you made changes to the article is irrelevant: asking people to turn up and vote your way is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:CANVAS. The fact that hardly anyone in the ARS has a problem with it is embarrassing. As long as the Article Rescue Squadron tacitly supports inclusionist votestacking, they'll continue to be regarded as a dubious phenomenon and any good rescue work they do won't get the respect it deserves. Reyk YO! 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ARS' initial goal of article cleanup and retention may have been a noble and well-intentioned goal, but that got lost along the way. The current squad, the one who rallies the loyalistas to keep the most horridly abusive BLPs (Miriam Sakewitz, Eric Ely, Bigoted woman incident), the blindingly-obvious WP:NOTNEWS (2008 Passover margarine shortage), and the amazingly crystal-clear case of fucking a non-single song with ZERO 3rd party coverage (Money (Michael Jackson song)...yea, the current wikiproject is a cancer upon the project. A dangerous mix of blind devotion and extreme short-sightedness. Disband this fiasco for the good of all and to prevent further harm. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. What rubbish. The very idea that 'bigotgate' was even given the chance to be 'rescued' is absolute bollocks. It was deleted and salted within the hour, a decision rightly condemned eventualy at Drv as an abuse, not that that has reversed the damage or rescued the article. If those other examples are even remotely comparable, the "cancer" is not the ARS. Still, shut your eyes Tarc, don't look!. don't look!. She never existed, yesterday's chip wrappings, not notable, beneath contempt, yadder yadder. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might I suggest that folks calm down a bit? Anyone can join ARS, and anyone can participate in AFD, and no one's being shot at... --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuujinn's valid comment aside: Oh, what drama. I think Tarc is the cancer. Nanny nanny hoo hoo. (Shall I be blocked for repeating Tarc's slur?) BTW, I am one of the most active ARS members and fought hard to get Ely deleted, and though that AfD had a few 'keep' votes, there was no unified ARS opinion there, not even a colorful Dream Focus-signatured keep. Stop using the ARS as a proxy for attacking inclusionist viewpoints with which you differ.--Milowent (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame that there's no Deletionist Squadron to counter the influence of the ARS. Of course, there was one, but they unanimously voted to delete it. Just so you know my intention is to be constructive: Here's a question to consider: What is the difference between the ARS and institutionalised canvassing? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can really only speak for myself and not the group as a whole, but I know that I go into an Afd with the intention of improving the article first. If the article already appears to have reliable references and is notable, then I will vote Keep, with policy backing. But, otherwise, I will do my best to make the article better so that it fits the notability guidelines. If there's nothing I can do for an article, I leave it alone and stay out of the Afd. In a manner, Afds I don't participate in, at least the ones I look through, have an unofficial delete vote from me, because I would be voting keep if I thought it was worthy. I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it. That's my viewpoint, at least. Hope it helps. SilverserenC 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it." Srsly? That's one the most shortsighted comments I've seen in a long time. What about nationalistic POV monuments, businesses nobody has ever heard of, hoaxes, or even plain gibberish? Even DGG !votes delete once in a while... Pcap ping 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then others will vote delete. Almost all of the time the AfD is already tending toward delete as it is, what's the point of voting delete? I just move on to things that could use my help. SilverserenC 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SheffieldSteel, there is an institutionalized deletionist group, its called "Articles for Deletion." Yes, my comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but AfD is deletionist by nature, because that is its purpose. (I recall seeing comments from long time editors about how they opposed AfD even existing, or that it should be put on hiatus. I wish could find these right now, but the process is now institutionalized.) AfD works generally well, only a small percentage of discussions become battles. And over time these battles lead to working rules and guidelines to eliminate battles.--Milowent (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as this one, hopefully. I remember the guideline discussion surrounding Wikipedia:Software notability after some mass nominations that also led to a WP:RFAR (somewhat inaptly named Tothwolf, after one of the participants). Pcap ping 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Re {{rescue}}-tagging an article at AfD

    There are obviously divergent views on whether ARS is a net positive or negative to WP, and further discussion here on the project's merits is probably only going to raise tension. But what about the following, which is perhaps a more clear cut abuse of the ARS's {{rescue}} tag? The first time Iceland–Mexico relations was AfD'd, the tag was added to the article. Maybe this was "stealth canvassing," maybe it wasn't, but I assume it was done in good faith to improve the article. But when the article was reAfDed, the tag was readded. Here, the purpose of tagging seems more obviously to be about canvassing--after all, the article had already enjoyed the ARS's attention a year earlier, so it's less likely that the squad is going to be able to do much with the article. (In addition, the tagging editor's very next set of edits was the canvassing that is the subject of this thread.) So anyways, I guess what I'm suggesting is that applying the {{rescue}} tag to an article that's previously been tagged with it should be discouraged or perhaps even disallowed, and any editor should be allowed to remove the tag. In other words, re-tagging carries the high potential for abuse (i.e. canvassing) but low potential for additional, incremental article improvement, so articles should only be eligible for ARS improvement once. Thoughts? Yilloslime TC 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The same arguments can be used for almost any tags - the tag per se is not a problem AFAICT. The problem is that any group which "believes" in its purpose on WP can be just as culpable in making a false consensus. WP is ill-served by any such group (whether formal or informal in nature), and admins who view consensus set by any such group should ignore any improper consensus. A few of the ArbCom findings are at WP:False consensus. Collect (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite honestly, I wouldn't see this as a problem in itself; I'd rather {{rescue}} were given a concrete overcoat, but while there's no consensus for that I don't see the harm in applying it again if it could theoretically help. The bigger problem is that the editor who re-tagged happens to be engaged in regular brinksmanship regarding the boundaries of canvassing, much like Ikip did (when not simply flagrantly overstepping the line), and even editors like user:Silver seren above (who are strongly in favour of ARS even though they aren't part of the infamous bloc of inclusionists who follow each other from AfD to ANI to RfA) appear to be neither concerned about said canvassing nor even particularly aware of what the point of participating in an AfD actually is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris, would you mind clarifying who are the components of this vague "infamous bloc of inclusionists" are? Apart that being inclusionist and following AfD is not a crime (yet), it seems something vaguely existing only in your mind. What are exactly the problems? --Cyclopiatalk 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A crime no, but it skews AfD if you're not being truly objective about the article and simply voting to keep it because you !vote to keep everything. Frankly its a disservice to the community for anyone to !vote without being objective.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I wasn't concerned about the canvassing. I was just saying that Richard is the culprit in this and the ARS shouldn't be blamed just for the mere fact that he canvassed some members. Blame Richard, not us. SilverserenC 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the tag, it's the culture. The group is well intentioned but has morphed into a separate identity outside of being a Wikipedia Editor. It's Esperanza all over again, and it will end the same way. To invoke and paraphrase Twain 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.' --Mask? 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "rescue tag", like most processes at WP, works well most of the time. It alerts people that an article, which currently is so bad it may be deleted, might be especially worthy of inclusion. Most articles tagged so do in fact need some help. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not know of any responsible editor who misuses the tag. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question I posed is not about the tag in general, but rather about re-tagging articles with it. Yilloslime TC 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think retagging is a significant problem. A lot of articles are kept on the basis of the idea that an article has implicit promise. A second AFD occurs because that promise has not been fulfilled. There really isn't anything saying that sources didn't appear in the intervening time period, and perhaps a second rescue attempt will be successful. Rescue tags aren't immoral or evil, and the worst of the abusers have left the project or been blocked. Hopefully, the image of the ARS will be rehabilitated as a result.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally a sane comment. There's nothing wrong with ARS in principle. Many of the editors there are actually improving articles instead of trying to rally some kind of political force. Focus on the canvassing by Richard Arthur Norton. Even then I'm sure that only a clear warning is necessary to improve his behavior. Arskwad (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all he received, and I haven't seen any signs that anyone thinks that more would be necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: start a guideline discussion

    All I see in the various AfDs on this topic are reiterations of the same positions, which leads to WP:BATTLE among small groups of editors. I suggest that the party who wishes special (different from WP:GNG) rules to apply to this area draft a guideline and follow the usual ratification process. This should settle the core argument. After it's reasonably well drafted, advertise it widely, and conduct a RfC for its adoptions, so uninvolved participants can join an express their view once. Look at what happened with Wikipedia:Software notability; this was proposed during another fight over a large group of articles, a fight which also led to an arbitration case. Pcap ping 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's already ongoing, and isn't something which needs to go to ANI. The problem is that some editors aren't willing to stick to the regular process of gaining consensus and end up resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks, which has unfortunately become closely associated with ARS because the editors in question have been deeply involved with that project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A key question is who closely associates these dirty tricks with the ARS? Answer: an admittedly sizeable proportion of those community members who are politically active within our encyclopedias internals. Taking a broader view, the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users. Externally, Journalists have wrote positively about the ARS and inclusionists, while taking a much dimmer view of deletionists. The squad is also aligned with the Foundation who still wish to foster growth, promote diversity and a friendly collaborative project - values which the ARS reflects. The squad represents the original m:Vision of this project, which is still used in our marketing material Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. So a very credible alternative view is that its those who are overly aggressive in pursuing their contrarian elitist and deletionist vision who are casing needless hostility. A lot more could be said, but this doesnt seem the best forum, can someone please resolve this needlessly inflamatory thread? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So? wikipedia has constantly been made a laughing stock the amount of space it devotes to fictional topics, like say.. pokemon. That is immaterial and so is what "journalists" think. What is a journalist anyway? Anyone with a heart beat and access to a computer who wants to start a blog/twitter/etc? The community here long ago decided there was a threshold of inclusion and the sum of all knowledge wasn't it. Perhaps it is simply those who can look objectively at a subject and the applicable guidelines and policies and decide whether or not an article should go. But now that I'm done taking pot shots at various groups and opinions, can someone lock this so I can have the last word?--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's split roughly evenly between people who see inclusionist-related drama on ANI and attribute it to ARS because it's from someone active there (which is most uninvolved admins), and the disruptors themselves who attempt to portray any criticism of hyper-inclusionist as an attack on the ARS as a smokescreen. And oh yes, "the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users" indeed: that is evidently why your brand of inclusionism is so popular here that it requires the coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace (XfD, ANI, RfA) to achieve your aims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace"? Gee, Chris, your delusional ranting is making me roll on the floor laughing. --Cyclopiatalk 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And that will be your last personal attack. I don't know you from Adam, which rather implies that you're not one of the editors who is really being discussed here. It's not my job to provide you with a full history of this two-year dramafest on demand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't attack you (sorry if it felt this way). I am only criticizing (harshly, I agree) your point of view on the situation, and the way you present it. You are talking about vague conspiracies, and when asked for information (implicitly or explicitly) you just answer that it's not your job. Well, if there actually is such a conspiracy, it would be perhaps not your job but a courtesy to inform unaware WP editors of what is going on, so that we don't get caught in shady things, and to provide evidence of that. My experience in AfD gives me a completely opposite picture, that's why I am so incredulous and surprised. --Cyclopiatalk 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can conclude with n-th law of Wikipedia: "The cabal is always the group you're not associated with." Pcap ping 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyclopia, this is approximately the hundredth time that one of this group has been the result of ANI drama in the last two years. I am being deliberately reticent about naming names a) because I've no time for the mock outrage and heated denials which would result from that, b) because it's a group behaviour which is the problem here and a correction there would be far better than individual sanctions, and c) because frankly anyone who has been following this at all closely should be able to name most of the parties in question without too much thought. If you're not in a position to do that then great; you've not been editing in quite the same circles as the problemative editors, so pretty much all of this discussion is inapplicable to you. I would far rather not have to go discussing this offline, so this is the compromise I've found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delsort queue fixed

    I've noticed there was a delsort queue for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, but it was badly formatted, and it was never approved at WT:DELSORT. I've fixed it and added without prior discussion as an emergency measure. Hopefully, interested parties can now watchlist this instead of the more arcane and less transparent means of AfD notification. Pcap ping 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric144

    Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

    He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

    I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

    1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [28]
    2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [29] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
    3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [--Eric144 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Goldsmith&diff=prev&oldid=310206554] Again in a subsequent month [30] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [31]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.[reply]

    He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [32] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[33]

    Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

    It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

    I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [34], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

    --Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

    --Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
    After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.
    The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

    "the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

    including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

    unrelated WP:PEREN policy discussion
    By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably no one's reading because this thread has pretty much ended, but my question is serious -- what reasons can people have not to make an account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread and probably the board generally isn't the venue for your meta/philosophical question. If you wish to discuss such things you may like to discuss it on each other's talkpages, on meta, or the village pumps. But please don't hijack this thread.
    The thread is about a user's violations of the living persons content policy, personal attacks and disruptive editing. It is unresolved / unactioned, and there is a 'blp victim'. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you for the advice, IP editor who has only edited under this address for the last week, but who has clearly edited before and who might be the same person as the other 92.xxx IP editors who have dominated that article for quite a while but I can't really tell because of the way their IP address changes with frequency (maybe, if that's the same person). I surely understand now that there's no reason to treat IP editors, who with great frequency it is difficult to hold accountable for their editing history, any differently from editors who register an account and can have their history checked relatively easily, unless of course they use sockpuppets, which is to say another account, a concept very similar to, but apparently much more frowned upon, than hopping (deliberately or not) from one IP address to another. I'm glad to have had you answer my simple and straight-forward question – in which I asked for a legitimate motivation for people to edit with an IP address rather than an account – with the royal blow off. I'm sure there's no reason for Wikipedia to ever consider banning IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Restoring from archive as instructed at top of page. This remains unactioned after sitting for more than 7 days, which I think is explained by this board's talkpage that says sometimes threads get forgotten. I recognise it's a difficult case compared with some here, but I urge an admin to take a look and give it consideration.
    The user's blp violations are important; the personal attacks and disruptive editing, including ignoring any concerns (instead commenting on an unrelated issue in the article or different article entirely) when raised, directed to unregistered and registered users alike were the basis of their past block and are clearly a pattern. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would guess that the reason why comment trailed off is because Eric144 appears to have stopped editing soon after this matter was raised. Looking into their editing history, this account appears to be fairly infrequent and now orientated toward one topic. Should they reappear and make similar edits, put up another post and link to the archived version of this one - or nudge me on my talkpage. Otherwise let this matter be for the time being, the article is in fair shape now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be it. The various activity was repeating each time they logged in, inc. here, though like you say editing appears to have stopped. Thanks for taking a look, appreciate the response. Taking all considerations into account, what you suggest is probably best. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    The so called unsourced document was by Guardian and NYT journalist Jonathan Friedland in the Guardian which 92.30.111.99 seems to think is a tabloid. The other one (posted by 92.30.111.99) was ridiculous nonsense about Zac being a gentle person accoding to his mother. It was removed with scorn by an intelligent user. The same user also removed another very biased edit by 92.30.111.99 by commenting He didn't "refute" the claims, he denied them". This is someone with an agenda. I am not happy at all with the attacks made on me. I have no idea how to do advanced wiki editing and never will.

    --Eric144 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, Jonathan Friedland is a very clever man. He writes for the Guardian and New York Times and he is Jewish himself. Not likely to be antisemitic then.

    --Eric144 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    This all started when 92.30.111.99 sent me a warning saying the article was unsourced, then said it was from a tabloid. Why was I sent a warning from a total stranger on preposterous grounds ? It is actually from a distinguished international journalist in the Guardian. If any one of you people wants to know the editing history, it is all recorded. Why don't any of you you do that ?

    --Eric144 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Please also note that RolandR has come to my defence and called out my accuser on his deception.

    --Eric144 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributions of 92.30.111.99 have consisted almost entirely of highly biased edits of Zac Goldsmith's page and an obsessive vendetta against me, contacting various adminstrators.

    --Eric144 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Draganparis, GK1973

    ...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

    I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All above users notified. SGGH ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[40]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

    Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.
    BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.
    Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.
    More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:
    I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.
    GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.
    The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)
    Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.198.174.202 (toolserver IP / AIV bot blocked)

    Is 91.198.174.202 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems that way. I have blocked it. Crum375 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't the consensus against blocking AIV bots, even logged out? They run from the toolserver IPs [41]. Pcap ping 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe that was the consensus, so I've unblocked it. —DoRD (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After you've unblocked it, it has made more logged out edits. I had notified User:ST47 of this, but he doesn't have access to the tool server now. Is the bot maintained by someone else now? Pcap ping 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, a pair of proposals stemming from this discussion have begun at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Anomie⚔ 04:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronnie James Dio

    Resolved
     – No action required - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Went to update Ronnie James Dio on the untimely passing of the rock singer (and creator of the Devil Horns) and the page is locked down due to vandalism. Could an admin add the passing and this reference? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't need to come here. Use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page with the change you wish to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's not dead. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct....OK, so I went with the immediately release of information. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were going to add news of someone's death to a BLP based on a post on a rumours website? Top marks to whatever clever admin protected the page to prevent that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was the first story I came across. Admittedly not the best link I could have picked, but the only one available according to Google. Oh well, didn't happen, so all's well that ends well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, looks like you were right after all, as his death is now being reported everywhere. It is good to make sure that being right takes precedence over being early. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first instance was just "jumping the gun" to pardon the pun, but the second time is the real deal. Still sucks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People have been vandalizing the page stating he's dead since at least May 4th, even as he's posted to his own website that day. HalfShadow 19:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Samofi vandalism, personal attacks

    Just need a quick intervention against this user, the situation needs urgent admin action. The user is out of control with personal attacks coupled with vandalism of an article currently under afd. Some personal attacks (edit summary): [42] [43] [44] Also see the contribution history of the user. [45] And a large number of vandal reverts on the same article ([46] [47] [48] [49] all within 1 hour) All this most recent outburst seem to be connected to an attempt to post his personal essay as a wikipedia article which was deleted [50]. I will not go into deep detail here as this needs fast reaction, but there are some other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Once already blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, this seemingly had no effect at all. The danger here as if these actions continue unhindered he might try to influence other editors as well such as [51]. Hobartimus (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No personal attack, in my opinion is Hobartimus paranoid and anti-slovakian, its my POV and not personal attack (i did not use bad words and word "fascist" as is in wikipedias rules). Check what he does. In article about Slovakization is not definition of Slovakization, no reliable sources about this topic. Its about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange and about Slovak-Hungarian relations and re-Slovakization (its not Slovakization). Article is considered for deletion second time, from different editors but its here lot of Magyar nationalist so they keep article. I tried to save article and hold the substance of article. But he and other Magyar editors are not able to undestand that. I made lot of new articles and Iam here almost from the begin of Wikipedia and I had problems only with Hungarian nationalist. I made lot of articles in Russian, English, Slovak wikipedia. Some changes in Polish and Czech. Please check Horbatimus activities against my person. He from the "his principle" delete all my contribution even if I put relevant sources or arguments. He should be blocked. --Samofi (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is a good example of how this user operates. He writes "I tried to save article" and yet he has TWO separate delete votes in the afd debate of the article [52] [53]. It is also notable that this user was warned as early as 2006 [54] by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry refrain from changing "articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view." Even though most of the time since then was spent as a "sleeper account" now In my estimation it is clear that this user is not here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlogic, how I can vote 2x from one account??? I wrote 2x delete in my speech, but vote only 1x. Its defame. Its my personal thing what I did 4 years. I was active but less. I was study to not be stupid and I was active at russian and slovak wikipedian. You put not verifiable sources to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Černová_tragedy its vandalism. Slovakization was not defined, so all article has not theoretical background - so no legitimity for article. Again manipulation with my words, admin should look all discussion in afd - I wanted delete article in form as it is now, or rename to re-Slovakization, or completely change content. Now its synthesis with sense of antislovakian propaganda. Its here more Magyar editors who tries to hold monopol about Magyar/Slovak history and relations. Its lot of old and new books from English, Czech, Slovak, Romanian authors about falsification of history from the side of Hungarians, here is neutral one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ih_muDscIY8C&pg=PA300&dq=hungarian+falsification+history&hl=sk&cd=2#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20falsification%20history&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?ei=o3HwS_ymA9KkOPW3qKEI&ct=result&hl=sk&q=hungarian+falsification+history&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh http://books.google.com/books?id=R7phyBbqZDoC&pg=PA23&dq=hungarian+history+falsification&hl=sk&cd=2#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20history%20falsification&f=false Its problem of education in Hungary and problem of clima in Hungarian society (crisis, false of history, bad relations with neighbours, poorness, chauvinism, nationalism) that Hungarians are not able to accept that true can be somewhere else. Or it can be 2 or more trues. --Samofi (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to stay out of this as Samofi is not the only one with issues at Slovakization, or its AFD, but I cannot stand by and be called something I am not. I have voted to keep the page (and thus have been called by Samofi Magyar editor and nationalist) which is a typical assumption by this edd, I am not Hungarian and have never even been to the country (i have never even eaten Goolash). He claims to be trying to save the articel, but it was his PROD that had the page nominated for deleteion (and hye has in fact voted for deletion) (twice)). He has asscused me of not understanding what the page is about [[55]] after I provided sources using the term in the context of the page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I wrote it before you voted for keep, so its irelevant - nothing against you. I was not too much active here, but in russian wikipedia and in slovak wikipedia yes and I had no problems. I study this topic so I know more than you about this, you know almost nothing about this topic according to your sources about slovakization, I will cite you: " *Comment The term certianly exsists, and is even contested as a theory [[56]] [[57]] now the only question is how notable is this as a concept?Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC) "[reply]

    You mixed articles about history of Slovak language who was based on Czech with article about re-Slovakization. Nobody from you guys in the page gave me clear definition of Slovakization. Its fact, so I dont see legitimity of this article. I did not voice twice, my account is only one - from one user is one vote so I can write delete 100x with one sign and it will one delete and one vote. --Samofi (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just doing a word search to determine if the word actualy exsists (I would argue the first set in an AFD is to see if whatever it is might exsist, if i had found no referance at all then delete). As I said more work was not needed to determine actual notabilit. I have now provided a number of sources that talk about the subject using the term (Hungarian and non-Hungarian (not that nationality matters)). By the way you said (on this page here) more then an hour after I voted that you wrote 'but its here lot of Magyar nationalist so they keep article' and 'But he and other Magyar editors are not able to undestand that' as well as 'I had problems only with Hungarian nationalist' So do you see why I thought you were saying I was some kind of Hungarian Nationalist?Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I told in global, persons to who I wrote it knows it and they are silent about it. Only you noticed this, hungarian nationalists not. --Samofi (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are any admins reading the above posts of Samofi? And also [58]? If it weren't such broken English it would be more, evident, but I think it's a safe guess that he is under the impression, he can continue making attacks while writing in general (global in his word). "I told in global, persons to who I wrote it knows it", a block is really needed here. Hobartimus (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its your problem you dont understand my english, its not against rules. I was warned with admin Dougweller, from that time I told nothing personal to you. So calm down. And dont put to my mouth something I did not say. Hobartimus has good fantasy. Please admis check my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samofi. Hobartimus gave me warning against the rules of wikipedia according to article about [Tokoli]. I put there information about Slovak King. He was called Slovak King, I put sources and other Hungarian editor (Baxter9) adjusted it and confirmed. Its bullying from the side of Hobartimus to my person. --Samofi (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There never was a "Slovak King" any time anywhere during history as there was no "Kingdom of Slovakia" ever, trying to push these types of radical fantasies in any manner shape or form only confirms that your presence is a net negative for Wikipedia. Also this user's comment that others don't understand English is certainly an interesting observation to say the least. There is another reason to check Samofi's contributions, as significant damage can be done to quality of text by editing articles with such a level of English as he displayed above and elsewhere. Hobartimus (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was according to Dangl, based on corespondention between Hungarian noblemans. Baxter agreed its on the talk page. It was not Kingdom of Slovakia, but it was Slovak land from 16th century as geo-ethnical area according to Heltai Gáspár encyclopedy. You try to delete all conections of Hungarian Kingdom with Slovaks.--Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Doug has some minimal involvement, I've asked him for any input. Samofi, while poor English isn't necessary a problem, it becomes questionable when I see someone with such poor English arguing about English language sources in such volume, I have questions as to what's going on. Honestly, it seems that assuming good faith is not clear to you. Nonsense like "Hungarian users are not neutral." is going to get you blocked from here and for a long time I'm afraid. There exists article talk pages for a reason but right now I need some indication that you aren't just trying to ram this topic here because of an improper motive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Iam able to read english. I have not academic knowledge of english, but I was in England few months and I read english books. Its not improper motive. In a both AFD of Slovakization the all Hungarian editors had completely opposite oppinion as Slovaks. They are not neutral, same like Slovaks are not neutral. Its bigger problem as to block me. 2 different understandings of history. I will not block, If somebody say about my topic to which I put 20 sources that its in my head such Hobartimus did I have right for defence. --Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite my warning and his statement above, in the same paragraph he manages to attack Hobartimus. Combined with his apparently using Wikipedia as a battleground for his pov, and the fact that his level of English combined with his prolific editing are, I agree, a detriment to our articles, I'd support a block now. I came within a hairsbreadth of issuing one last night. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I must do it. I put neutral english sources to Černová tragedy. In rules in Wikipedia its written that: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Why he can use Hungarian sources from Jew-Magyar internet magazine written by Manager, with name "Hitler Hlinka"? Its 3 scholar english books supported my theory - written by not slovak authors. He deleted one my book. I only comment his activity with right words. Its here equal and more equal? I was writing about this slovak/hungarian topic with Joe Daly from Wikipadia info center before I started more actively edid, I put sources and he wrote that I can improve wikipedia. If I would blocked I will mail him and I will refer about: using of magyar non-english and not neutral sources in slovak/hungarian issues supporting hungarian right, I will report about deltion of relevant english sources from articles by magyar wikipedians, I will refer about bullying from Hobartimus who nominates article for deleteing few seconds after it was done, or he deleted my changes few seconds after it was done, he had not chance to read sources what I have used to support facts, few seconds after I nominated Slovakization for delete he was for speedy keep. Dont you see who is bullying to who? Its still no definition of Slovakization from relevant source and article is still exist. I did not start battelfield with deleteing of Hungarian sources (after 2010). It was Hobartimus who did delete connections of Slovaks with Hungarian Kingdom. What is his role in Wikipedia? Use magyar sources and support hungarian POV of history? --Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I had "some" difficulties with Samofi.:) Although sometimes it's really hard to understand him, the main problem is that he doesn't want to adopt the wiki rules and he continues contributing as he thinks. I asked him several times to read WP:RS, WP:OR or do not add a fascist (please note that according to him that site is only "patriotic") webpage as a "reliable source", but his answer was "Fuck of u mutherfufker! Do you think Stefanik was fashist? Fuck your muther you shithole" Note that he still keeps adding unreliable homemade webpages or blogs as sources to support his pro-Slovak POV.([59], [60], [61], [62], [63]) I also tried to understand him (see his talkpage) and his views, but it was a complete waste of time. He never showed reliable sources (but he thinks that Encyclopedia Britannica is unreliable: "but you make citation with stupid encyclopedia britannica") just his extreme opinions, like Slovakia ["Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak, Upper Hungary"](i.e. an independent European country which exists since 1993) existed before under different names (he also tried to add this into article Slovakia). He insulted me several times when I removed his unsourced nationalst edits: "you are hungarian jingo", "Hungarian chauvinist", "antislovak Baxter" or other Hungarians, and even Hungarian political parties like FIDESZ ("maybe FIDESZ are more close to fascizm"). Samofi's another favorit issue is the ethnicity of "famous people from Hungary"). The best example is, perhaps Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka who's Polish ethnicity is well referenced, but since Samofi thinks that he was Slovak he turned the talkpage of the article into a forum where he tried to push his pro-Slovak POV, regarding the issue of the article and others like (the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks, the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary, and the old "Slovakia existed b4 1993 etc). The best example is this.--B@xter9 10:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    Given that these articles already fall under WP:ARBMAC, I'm actually surprised this editor lasted this long. Are we really down to nobody dealing with these ethnic warriors? Normally, once bit of language like that and we have post after post on ANI from every direction wanting to ban each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. Good riddance. Pcap ping 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it falls more under WP:DIGWUREN than under WP:ARBMAC. The Balkans are a big place, but Hungary isn't part of them. Other than that, no objection against blocking, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggested to the editor that they look a good look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPA to get some idea of how to edit here. They've agreed, but we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving bot misconfiguration?

    I checked the WP:ANEW noticeboard to see the status of my recent report and noticed that it had been archived with no action taken! diff Is this a misconfiguration of User:MiszaBot II? Shouldn't it stay on the noticeboard until some action is taken? If the configuration is correct, why wasn't an {{Admin backlog}} placed by a bot when it reached a certain point? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Check the above diff more carefully. Sweetpoet was blocked 24 hours by Dougweller for edit warring. There is no dedicated bot for the 3RR board; it uses conventional archiving by MiszaBot. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I reported User:Mysteryman557, which is farther down. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's been there for 48 hours without action, chances are action won't be taken. You said yourself it's not a 3RR violation. –xenotalk 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Slovaks in Hungary

    Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about WP:BRD?

    Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

    I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.
    (As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.
    An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."
    In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.
    Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".
    Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.
    Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."
    The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.
    The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.
    The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.
    Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivil and unwiki post by talk

    Moved from WP:AN

    Here user User talk:Breein1007 dropped something on my Talk-page. He could & should use the article's talk instead, of course, and has no need to use "what the hell". Just a notification for now. Of course I will flush the stuff from the talk shortly. Whatever happens from here. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is it exactly you want people to do? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    isn't it obvious? He's trying to use AN/I as a weapon, treating WP as a battleground, to get an ideologically opposed editor sanctioned. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, I'm just wondering what they want people to do about it. You don't normally complain and then suggest no action to better the situation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "What the hell" is not going to arouse the "shock horror factor" in anyone; least of all the seasoned readers of this page. I suggest you answer his question politely and move on.  Giacomo  17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: I have seen the posts after spotting this exchange. I hardly find them overly offensive, or rising to such a level as to be sanctionable in any way. Momma makes the most cogent point of all. The two involved editors must learn to deal with each other, and this is not the way to do it. Countering views and questions should not be met with a jump to bad faith, and I think that is what has happened here. On that basis, this matter should be closed. We must assume good faith.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is considerable debate on this project as to what level of civility is demandable from the participants. What is desirable, however, is enough civility to avoid having people feel offended and come running to ANI.
    While I agree that this case was not an admin-actionable breach of WP:CIVIL as a policy, it's clear that Breein could have engaged in a more respectful and less confrontational manner which would have focused on content rather than initiating a dramatic incident.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also clear that you should never have made those libelous comments accusing me of being a sock puppet without offering any evidence to support that statement, but what can we do? What's done is done. I'd appreciate if you disclosed your previous history in the future when commenting on issues concerning me. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And it would be nice of someone to inform me about this post, so that I can have a chance to see what people are saying about me and respond if I so see fit. Since DePiep clearly isn't a novice, I expect that he knows better. Breein1007 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mk5384 / Pink Floyd

    Mk5384 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

    A rather unpalatable edit war has occurred lately, across two Pink Floyd albums; The Final Cut (album), and The Wall. I've already reported this matter on the edit warring noticeboard, but so far no action has been taken.

    I'd appreciate further comment on this, and some action if necessary (a word in his ear perhaps). While any editor is quite right to ask questions, highlight problems, and make bold edits, this user seem only to believe that he is right, and that everybody else (well, me) is wrong. He seems to be no stranger to edit warring; I've noticed several reports on this very page concerning this user's behaviour, and I believe he's also been blocked for it. I have had to stop interacting with this user, in case I begin to comment on him, and not his edits.

    While I don't hold with Wikipedia's civility policy, I must say its quite difficult to remain calm when faced with this. His latest edits, just now, are to remove perfectly valid cited text from The Wall, in the mistaken belief that the citation does not back up the claim made—it does. I've asked him to re-read the source provided, but he refuses to do so. This is a blatant violation of WP:3RR, his second in less than 24 hours.

    Is anyone going to do anything? I'm not inclined to continue reverting his changes, for fear of being blocked myself. This editor has no such regard. Parrot of Doom 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected The Wall a bit before you posted this. Discuss it on the talk page, and perhaps someone could actually quote the cited source to back up an argument?—Kww(talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Would you mind reverting to this version please? If you can read it, this is the source which claims that The Wall is a rock opera. The revision linked is the version of the article with this citation, and is the version which MK5384 has been reverting. Parrot of Doom 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Mk5384 for 2 weeks. –xenotalk 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two weeks seems a little harsh to me, I'd have thought a day or two only, just to let him calm down? Parrot of Doom 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is part of a repeating and apparently escalating pattern from this user, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I'm no expert, and while I'm not his biggest fan its only his methodology I have a problem with, not his willingness to contribute and improve these articles. Perhaps he might benefit from being mentored? Parrot of Doom 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict) Indeed, the block length is intended to prevent further disharmonious editing. I note that has been twice indefinitely blocked. (After ec) @POD: Is there a willing mentor available? I am willing to consider reducing the block with conditions. –xenotalk 15:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, when it comes to working with this editor, I think I'm out of the picture... Parrot of Doom 15:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Based on a further review of the history of The Wall, it looks like you (Parrot of Doom) also broke 3RR at and didn't discuss at Talk:The Wall#changes. At this late stage, I'm not going to block you, but keep in mind that edit warring of this nature is not acceptable and you should discuss at the talk page before continuing to participate in an edit war. –xenotalk 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well its a good job you didn't, because I don't think I exceeded the 3RR rule. I made a change, Mk5384 immediately reverted it, I examined my edit and corrected it. Mk5384 then presumed I'd not made any corrections, and immediately reverted. I then made three reversions before posting here. Parrot of Doom 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ← Here's my count:

    1. 18:36, 16 May 2010 [64]
    2. 22:10/19, 16 May 2010 [65]
    3. 06:58/07:28, 17 May 2010 [66]
    4. 14:07/10, 17 May 2010 [67]
    5. 14:17, 17 May 2010 [68]
    6. 14:31, 17 May 2010 [69]
    7. 14:43, 17 May 2010 [70]

    Looks like a violation of 3RR to me? –xenotalk 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first is not a reversion per se, as evidenced by my edit summary. The second is. The third is a new edit with a fresh citation in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Mk5384 claimed that this citation didn't warrant claiming that The Wall was a rock opera. Now I'll admit to making a mistake there, because I inadvertently copied in the wrong citation, and it doesn't, as he said, back it up (although it does in that book's index oddly enough). Mk5384 reverted me, so I looked again and corrected the citation (4th edit), which does indeed say that the album is essentially a Rock Opera. The fifth is a reversion, because Mk5384 didn't notice that I'd changed the citation, and reverted me immediately. The sixth and seventh edits are also reversions. At that point, being able to go no further, I came here.
    Perhaps my maths is faulty, and perhaps I misunderstand the 3RR rule, but I count only three reversions of the same text in there. If I'm wrong I'd like to know now, so as to avoid any problems in future. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." And I'm not sure there is really any distinction as to whether you add a fresh citation; if you're still reverting the previous editor (i.e. changing concept album to rock opera), I think it still counts as a revert. –xenotalk 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think that applies in this case, since I was adding material to the article, and not simply reverting this bit, and then that bit, etc. I'll take more care in future to avoid such discussions, however, so thanks for the advice. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To chime in here, given that this is the fourth time that MK has shown up on the Admin Noticeboard in as many months, also given that MK continuously claims he is doing nothing wrong and every report or sanction is a "lie" or a "conspiracy", I would say at this point WP:RFC/UC would be warranted. I could get the page started up if need be. I'm sure MK will state this is a further stalking action against him on my part, a lie and a conspiracy, and no doubt bring up five year old items I did under the handle Husnock but this has to stop. And, as unbelievable as it may sound to MK, everyone is trying to HELP him. Noone wants to see him indef blocked and good contributions are always welcome. But edit warring, personal attacks, and refusing to work with others is getting us nowhere. -OberRanks (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Danielgreen1970

    User talk:Danielgreen1970 has been making wholesale changes to the Celtic F.C. article, including adding players names to the squad without any referencing. I have asked him to do so without any reply. They have also just come off a block. I believe he has been making changes also at other football articles though I have not had a close look at them. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    reverted the Celtic FC ones, I checked a couple of the players he added to other articles and their own stats pages and offical pages confirm that they are not new signings. It's ill-informed vandalism as far as I can see. Final Warning given. Editing is curret so a block might be coming soon. SGGH ping! 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, he stopped! :) SGGH ping! 20:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully he won't start up again in a day or two. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in the end he tried to kill the beloved President so I dispatched him for a week. SGGH ping! 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He must have thought moving on to non football articles would have protected him. Strange! Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikinger disruption

    I just blocked an apparent fake bot account, Malarz pl BOT (talk · contribs), an apparent sock of banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs) posing as a legitimate bot (allegedly operated by a legitimate and entirely unrelated user in good standing, Malarz pl (talk · contribs)). Wikinger has tried such stunts before. I would appreciate if people could help keeping an eye on all pages that the fake bot edited, or where it is discussed: any IP or new account turning up to mess with the same edits (including reverting them, reinstating them, demanding their reinstatement, or fiddling with the postings of people discussing any of this) is with 100% certainty also the banned user, and should be blocked on sight, without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should all the fake-bot contribs be reverted as well? I see you did a couple but not all of them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (From the 6 edits I checked) It seems like they just replaced Template:Table Greekletters with Template:Greek Alphabet, which is fine, since one is a redirect to the other anyways. No reason to undo them that I see. Avicennasis @ 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a good reason for making those edits? Maybe if you think it might get around someone's watchlist, or page protection... SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about those cases where he replaced actual transclusions. The nonsense edits were those where he replaced links in talk space and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fram

    Mrlob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    BerndGalama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Fram has made my life miserable for quite some time. He just today blocked me indefinetely. Luckily User:Prodego lifted the block and talked to Fram. Still, he has abused his admin rights and he has done it in the past. They should be taken away from him. Kind regards, BerndGalama (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block by Fram, very bad unblock by Prodego. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See User_talk:Prodego#Block for a bit more background. This is the sock of an indef blocked user, User:Mrlob. FYI. Equazcion (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, per that very fact, should be reblocked by the next available admin and Prodego blocked himself for clear misuse of admin tools (unblocking a sock, what are you thinking Prodego?). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So what? Fram blocked me for no reason. He made a mistake here, a big one. I am a good user and after all the trouble he put me trough in the past, I just wanted a fresh start. BerndGalama (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are a sock of an indef blocked user, per the rules and policies of Wikipedia, you get no "fresh start". You lost that chance when you were indef blocked. Want the chance? Convince an admin with an {{unblock}} request on your main account (that being User:Mrlob) and let them decide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @BerndGalama: Gloat much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram just made a mistake and has to accept that. BerndGalama (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No dude, you made the mistake and you are trying to pawn off the consequences onto someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he did. He has to apologize for his action and then maybe I'll consider accepting them. BerndGalama (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Apology. –xenotalk 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Next admin available, could they please block this troll of a gloating sock? This has gone on far enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be wheel-warring; apparently Prodego has unblocked (well, created a new account for this person) after an unblock-en-l or IRC unblock request. (Unless you hang the block on their actions in this thread) –xenotalk 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Whatever Prodego's reasons for thinking this person deserved to be unblocked via a new account, based on one of their first actions being to come to ANI like this to complain about an admin action that's at the very least understandable, I would say Prodego's reasons are now moot. Equazcion (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Well, BerndGalama has already two controversial edits, which were reverted by Prodego, and ran to another admin. This is a "fresh start"? Seems like trouble making. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Clean start or not, this guy should at least get a temporary block now just for having an attitude, especially right after being unblocked on shaky ground.Love, →Nekami 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Or just re-indeffed, considering it took him all of 15 edits to get back into troll mode. --Smashvilletalk 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support reblock-Unblocking this indefinitely blocked sock master account is in my opinion after looking at the sock account history is not something I would support and the accounts comments here do nothing to allay my issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support Reblock - With Prodego seemly offline, there is "no one watching the store" and BerndGalama is left to do whatever he wants seemly with the "no wheel warring" in place thanks to Prodego. Prodego has screwed the pooch on this one and leaving us to clean up the mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the block is for net-new behaviour it won't be wheel-warring. I don't really think the user's actions in this thread rise to the level of deserving a block, but they certainly don't reflect favourably upon them. –xenotalk 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • BerndGalama has admitted he is a sock of User:Mrlob, can someone block him now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please review the history; this was a known item when Prodego created the new account in lieu of unblocking the user. Prodego has taken a leap-of-faith here and this classic boomerang moment is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last time, an admin will have egg on their face shortly after they've taken a chance and issued an unblock. –xenotalk 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the user a) to prevent disruption, b) sockpuppetry and c) so he can't edit himself into a ban with some silly comments. I don't suspect he will be too happy about that. however it may save him a permanent blocking if he cools off for a bit before coming back. Feel free to review. SGGH ping! 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That BerndGalma used to edit as User:Mrlob was never in dispute. If you all think I'm assuming too much good faith and reblock him, it doesn't really matter to me. But the worst case is we reblock him, and the best case is we get a productive editor. There really is no 'lose' option here. I've always been willing to unblock anyone who comes to me with a (seemingly) legitimate request to make positive edits, and reblock them if that turns out not to be the case. Its not that difficult. Prodego talk 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's unfortunate that, so soon after getting a chance to make a fresh start, this editor was making unsourced additions to a BLP, reverting those changes back in despite being asked for sources, and baiting an admin. Not surprised by the block. Don't think Prodego should feel bad about extending good faith either. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite block based on insufficent explanation of block by the blocking admin on the user's talk page. Blocks should have an explanation for others to see. It's ok if the user removes it but at least the courtesy of a ruling/reason should be made. Otherwise, that would be like sending a man to prison with no charges. That is what they do in dictatorships. The lady or man is mad. That's bad. Support seeing if editor is willing to work with a mentor and, if so, to set a time to begin (later this week?). The mentor can report to Wikipedia if this doesn't work. This is the way that sex offenders are sometimes treated. If no mentors volunteer, then indef is a possibility. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered all of these on two talk pages. :) SGGH ping! 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have to support the indefinite reblock in this case. You have clear disruption, trolling, harassment, and sock puppetry to boot. This is what happens when someone AGFs (like we're supposed to), and it ends up getting shoved back up his/her back-door. –MuZemike 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Prodego seems to be repeatedly doing the same brazen actions.... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If the user wasn't community banned, or arbcom or jimbo banned, any admin can within their discretion unblock indef admin blocks.
    That said - I think that in this case, a reblock and leaving it there seems appropriate.
    If Prodego does this every day or every week then it's a problem. I don't recall that much of a problem pattern. It would be good to get this sort of thing self-disclosed on ANI in the future perhaps, just to get discussion going before it's seen as a crisis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the sock being unblocked (temporarily) doesn't put egg on Prodego's face (unless it gets to be a habit), it puts it on the face of the sock itself, who took a rare opportunity for a fresh start and screwed it. The sockmaster has nearly 2 dozen confirmed socks and a dozen suspected socks. He apparently just can't help himself. (To put it in as "good faith" terms as can be, under the circumstances.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we have the unilateral deletion of the goatse image, the Tanthalas fiasco, now this. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a pattern. Sooner or later, Prodego will do something that'll trip what I'll term the Trusilver Bright Line], and then it will be out of our hands. And all for the better, as no one seems here seems to want to do much about it. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated at his talk page, I'm also not big on comments like this, specifically, "You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me." (in this case said to another admin). That comment wasn't even directed at me, but it really bothered me. I'm not normally one of those users whose compulsion is to say that admins are on power trips, but in this case, there's been some repeated evidence of this from where I'm standing. Nothing will likely come of this at this point in time, but I wanted to point it out, for the future. Equazcion (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One admin telling another admin to "absolutely not" do something is a bit out of line. But I've said before that admins shouldn't unilaterally undo the work of others without consulting first. Maybe they have the authority to, but they shouldn't do it, because it makes admins look bad when they get into a public food-fight. These kind of disputes should be conducted behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblocking – Way too big of a problem already, has numerous socks. We've already AGF'd enough times; we don't need to do it again after this user has lost the community's trust. I am not, however, criticizing Prodego in any way—he's just being bold. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not have had a problem with a new start for this user is they acknowledged that their earlier behaviour was blockable, and if the unblocking admin would follow some basic policies, like contacting me before the unblock (or new account), and clearly indicating that the new user is the same as a bunch of old ones, instead of after-the-fact incorrect applications of WP:CLEANSTART. Considering however that this user was given this chance after complaining to Prodego of my incorrect blocks, and that he claims on my talk page: "Fram I never have been a vandal. I always edited in good faith [...]", I fail to see how he will not continue editing like he used to do. To give just one example of many, creating a redirect from Maphia Italya to Touch the Clouds is not a good faith edit, but pure, simple and blatant vandalism. His last IP block I'm aware of dates from January 2010.[71] Fram (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    174.140.102.231

    Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaCtalk to me 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.
    You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.
    Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([72]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sexism in India

    I'm wondering if I can get a few more eyes on this article. An IP in the 59.178.* range has been adding material that advances the fringe theory that men are the victims of sex discrimination in India. At first glance, this section appears to be well cited and supported, but upon closer examination the citations don't support the core theory, where they exist they simply discuss programmes aimed at empowering women, they don't even touch on the theory that the IP is peddling.

    Note that this is not the first time that this article has been identified as problematic, it was initially located at Sexism against men in India before being moved on the grounds that the title was inherently POV. A few users have attempted to sort out the issues with the article but the IP has persistently and patiently re-added the information.

    I reverted these additions on the grounds that they constitute original research, breach NPOV, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. However, the IP simply re-inserted the information citing my "large content removal". Ideally, I'd like to revert the article to the version without this and semiprotect it, but as I'm now involved that's probably not a great idea. I hope that someone neutral can take a look at the situation and take appropriate actions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I see that's been going on for quite a while. I've semi-protected it but maybe a range block would be more appropriate if there wouldn't be too much collateral damage. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avargas2001 Edit Warring, Vandalism and personal attacks

    Resolved
     – Avargas2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and violating NPOV. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [73] Sole contribution is to insert false information on Falklands topics, tied with extreme POV edits, has ignored numerous warnings and is now making personal attacks alleging racism and bias. [74]. Please could an admin intervene, and would someone clean up his latest rant. [75] Justin talk 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hour block for passing final warning (several times) inserting POV (and factually inaccurate and unsubstantiated) information. SGGH ping! 23:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term abuse/repeated insertions

    Resolved
     – Page protection requested. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi

    There is an anonymous user that has inserted unhelpful external links in the page The Shack. Diffs (small set of offending edits): [76] [77] [78] [79]

    The user has been using these IP addresses: Special:Contributions/41.56.199.24, Special:Contributions/41.56.194.253, Special:Contributions/41.56.198.52, Special:Contributions/41.208.234.0 and some others.

    I have been reverting these insertions.

    Another user has agreed with me that a ban may be appropriate. [80]

    What is the next step to place a ban on the anonymous user doing these insertions?

    Thank you peterl (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You should request page protection which I did for you. Puffy (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. peterl (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time for Kyle262 to be blocked/banned for multiple copyright violations?

    Earlier today Maczilla97 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was indef blocked for multiple copyright violations (around 6 warnings). However user Kyle262 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has recieved 29 copyright violation warnings but is still active. is it not disproportionate that Kyle262 has not been blocked too i wonder? I pose the question in the title of this thread... should he not be blocked also? (p.s. neither editor has any involvement with the other nor have i to my knowledge other than reverting Maczilla97 edits when incorrect) Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like he learned his lesson: no problems in three weeks.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair play. Just wondered if there's a number of warnings before further action should be taken? While i'm here i pose the same question about final warnings. how many should someone recieve before administrators are brought in? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For petty stuff (like vandalism), rule of thumb is four. That's the time it takes to progress to a final warning if you are using standard templates. For complicated cases, judgment is more important than counting: if you think you are making progress in getting the editor to understand that his editing is disruptive, there's no need for an admin. If progress comes to a halt, admin help may be useful.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maczilla97 has been blocked indef for uploading copyvios. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the brief assistance of an admin

    An editor with whom I am having content disagreements has resorted to making personal attacks against editors on the article talk page.

    Typically, when Xenophrenic sees a valid edit (by wiki policy) that he disapproves of (for whatever reason), he seeks to get others to remove it. This strategy is quite effective as he says the edit needs balance, or needs the proper context, or isn't the full story, etc. There are many different reasons used, but the end result is him adding so much trivial nonsense ( > 2 to 1 ratio in his POV) that average editors cringe when they see it. Xenophrenic then declares that the original unbalanced POV version can ONLY stay if his even more unbalanced additions are there to provide proper context. This leads to edit warring over days and even weeks, articles often get locked down. Some reasonable and responsible editors step in and remove it all in the name of peace and to move forward in improving the article. Xenophrenic gets what he wanted all along, and boosts his edit count with the disruptive edit warring. Some call this tactic a form of wiki-terrorism, I say it shows that Xenophrenic is quite calculated and intelligent, even though he is mostly obtuse during discussions. †TE†Talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [81][reply]

    The above comment not only grossly misrepresents my intentions and my editing, equating it to "wiki-terrorism", but also calls my contributions "trivial nonsense" and brands me as "obtuse". He is welcome to his opinions of me, but he is not welcome to billboard them on article talk pages in clear violation of No Personal Attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK policies.

    I tried to refactor the attacks from the article talk page. He reverted me.
    I requested on his talk page that he please not post the uncivil commentary about editors on the article talk page, and I even offered to continue discussion of his issues with me on his user talk page. He reposted the attacks again anyway.
    He seems to think an article talk page is a forum for discussing editors, as his recent edit summary suggests:

    (Undid revision 362703846 by Xenophrenic (talk) It's a collapsed thread that is quite civil and also educational. Trying to understand what drives an editor to act out is a good way to en) diff

    I'm requesting that an admin remove the personal attacks from the article talk page and advise the editor that article talk pages are not the appropriate venue for "educating" people about your opinions of other editors. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was posted 9 minutes after ThinkEnemies declared that his participation on this page was contingent on solicitation from an administrator, instead of the angry party. †TE†Talk 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a basic personal attacks warning. I haven't had time to review the complete wider talk page series of events yet, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your attention to the matter, GHW. The editor agrees with your assessment that he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but appears unwilling to remove the inappropriate personal attacks from the article talk page. In fact, he has reverted any and all attempts by myself and other editors to remove, refactor, or comment out the violation since you contacted him. A related incident report was opened by another editor, two reports below this one, at header: Edit warring over personal attacks. May I specifically request that you remove the offensive commentary, GHW? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skookum1

    Resolved
     – User had unfortunately retired from the project--SKATER Speak. 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. Just received a personal attack from User:Skookum1 on my talk: User talk:Fastily#You're got some kind of problem, dude. It would seem that this attack is on the basis of my routine file copyright tagging and deletion work. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've interacted with Skookum and his work over the years, based on common geographic interests. He has contributed a lot to the project; while that certainly doesn't excuse the recent issues, it should be taken into account when assessing recent behaviour. I've left a friendly note on his talk page asking if everything is OK. --Ckatzchatspy 03:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know him, but AGFing that this is not his usual behavior I left an as friendly as possible warning.
    The attacks are not appropriate, but for a user without a history of attacks or other abuse it's not something we need to immediately block for or anything.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's got a habit of crying "censorship" or "POV" when it comes to content decisions he disagrees with, and I've had a couple rounds with him, but like Ckatz, I do believe Skookum does some very good work overall. Hopefully he will understand in this case that we can't just assume an image is PD when we have no source info and ensure that this is not an issue into the future. Resolute 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He's just attacked users who are trying to reason with him: [82]. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now that's just going a bit too far. No attacks, period. I might AGF if he stops attacking other editors. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not excusing the PAs, Skookum1's complaint seems to be that Fastily nominated files for deletion without notifying Skookum1 that the files had been nominated. Skookum1 was therefore denied the chance to comment on the proposed deletion and assert that the files were either in the Public Domain or Crown Copyright Expired. Failure to notify the uploader may be excuseable where that uploader is inactive/retired/banned etc, but an active editor should be notified of such nominations. Failure to notify is in violation of Section 3 of the instructions at WP:FFD. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a mistake, yes, but one that could easily have been corrected if he chose to be civil about the matter. Alas, it appears Skookum has chosen to to retire rather than engage everyone in a positive solution. Resolute 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More so then the attack on me by telling him about the image policy, I find his edit summary to be more offensive.--SKATER Speak. 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We lost another great writer (someone that actually contributes content to articles) ...Very sad to see this .. :( Moxy (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very unfortunate to lose an editor of his quality, but his actions were incivil and bordering disruptive, from what I've seen it seems this was just the final straw to push him over the edge. This thread can no longer assist in anything but beating a dead horse (Not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing it), marking as resolved--SKATER Speak. 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over personal attacks

    As background, the Tea Party movement page is a pretty contentious mess, and recent events have led it to be fully protected for three days to try and get everyone to the talk page.

    Today, ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) posted this edit to the talk page [83] under the edit summary WP:XENODONTLIKEIT, in reference to an opposing editor Xenophrenic (talk · contribs). Xenophrenic took offense to the comment, and struck it. ThinkEnemies reverted, which began an edit war [84] [85] which paused when ThinkEnemies collapse the thread [86]. His close comment and title was again WP:XENODONTLIKEIT (which he has also invoked on other edits). Xenophrenic tried to change the section title, which resulted in more back and forth [87].

    Xenophrenic came to ANI which resulted in the thread above [88], and a personal attacks warning issued to TE [89] by admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert (who appears to be offline right now). TE's response [90] indicated he had "no problem" with GWH's assessment, and he saw it as "an opportunity" to show Xenophrenic the errors of his behavior.

    Following the admin discussion, he added the WP:XENODONTLIKEIT title again [91] with the edit summary "Sorry, take it to ANI...Oh Wait...". I then changed the title to a neutral "off-topic discussion" in hopes of ending the entire mess. TE changed it back [92].

    While I was willing earlier to overlook the personal attacks if they were collapsed, it seems now that ThinkEnemies is purposefully trying to antagonize Xenophrenic, on a talk page where there's already far too much bad blood. I would request an admin take a quick look at this situation, so this page will calm down. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified here [93], acknowledged here [94] where he says he'd feel better about coming to the ANI page if he were "invited by an administrator." In the meanwhile, he's reverted to the XENODONTLIKEIT title again [95]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) To be very clear, the admin did not ask me to remove the collapsed thread, he certainly didn't refactor it by changing the name. So when the above editor says: "Following the admin discussion, he (TE) added the WP:XENODONTLIKEIT title again [96] with the edit summary "Sorry, take it to ANI...Oh Wait...," we must ignore the mention of my discussion with the George (the sysop that commented on my page). He was not part of any edit warring on Talk:Tea Party movements. That is all †TE†Talk 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't wikilawyer. GWH's second paragraph to you clearly states [97] "your comments and behavior in this situation clearly violate our policy against making personal attacks and our policy about editing in a civil and collaborative manner." Dayewalker (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words into his mouth. He did not explicitly ask me to rename or remove the collapsed thread. It doesn't take a wikilawyer to see that your mention of George has nothing to do with my preserving of the title, which I used in creating the collapsed thread, which I voluntarily closed. After that sentence of I and me, I know you're thinking narcissist. I had a good chuckle crafting it. There I go again. III †TE†Talk 07:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ThinkEnemies, I've removed the offensive header. If you restore it I'll block you for being disruptive. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As he repeatedly put the content back after acknowledging my warning, and made further pushes here, I believe he intentionally and knowingly was continuing the personal attacks. There's not much to do other than block when someone's that persistent about keeping up a personal attack after warning. I've blocked for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How strict are we interpreting the new (April) BLP unreferenced policy?

    Resolved
     – Editor indef'd. All articles WP:BLPPRODed. Welcome to WP:BLPedia. Pcap ping 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoping for some honest feedback here. User:Anthonythecameraguy has created many new unreferenced BLPs. None appear to contain controversial info (although they are a bit close to IMDB content for my sixth (copyvio) sense). I've mentioned the BLP policy to the user on their talk page multiple times, but they continue to create them without reply. The patroller in me says they should all be tagged BLPProd (if I don't have the time to reference them myself). The non-biting welcomer in me says to let it slide. The best path, as always, must be somewhere in between. Any admin guidance appreciated.  7  06:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a bit late for me to be digging around on this, but it seems to me that Thewinnermon (talk · contribs) is related with their same style of editing and focus on The Penguins of Madagascar. It might be a sockpuppet of the blocked AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs). I'm not familiar with this particular editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one I looked at was a blatant copyvio, so I've deleted it. The ones about minor actors who've only played extras that are lifted straight from IMDB can be speedy nuked, as well. There do look to be some that are worth expanding (but not many). I've got to go to work now, unfortunately. I would suggest that someone blocks him if he carries on creating them, just to save people work later. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User continues to create them, and has now lapped his way around his list and has started re-creating some of the other ones deleted over the last few hours. Can someone please block him.  7  09:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the point of the new policy on unreferenced BLPs was that it was more important to avoid having articles containing unverified information on living persons than it was not to hurt people's feelings. If a user who has patiently been pointed to the current policy and informed of what it means continues to ignore it then we're given no choice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - Bubba got him. In addition to the BLP issue there is the SPI issue mentioned by Gogo Dodo mentioned above.  7  09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs) is suspected sock of Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs) who, in turn, has a list of suspected/confirmed socks as long as your arm. A tangled web, indeed. – B.hotep •talk• 09:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth a CU or not even needed at this point?  7  09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What with Thewinnermon (talk · contribs) as well, I reckon so. Although it is strange that they would be editing on the same day when neither were blocked (although one is now!) – B.hotep •talk• 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Big sweaty Mark

    Resolved
     – User blocked, disruptive FfDs closed. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently reverted some edits by User:Big sweaty Mark which had added unsourced claims about the relationship between race and crime, such as these. I also nominated File:Negro Stab.jpg, which the editor had uploaded, for deletion. Having tried to remove the file's entry from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 17, the editor then seems to have started to nominate files that I have uploaded myself for deletion in retaliation. Two have been nominated - see File:Ascot railway station layout.JPG and File:Asylumapplicants.jpg. Finally, the user threatened me on my user talk page. I would appreciate if someone could investigate this incident and take appropriate action if deemed necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your report. The user has been blocked. – B.hotep •talk• 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the FfDs have been speedy-closed, too. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you all for your prompt help. Could I just ask someone to clarify the block? The block log suggests it's permanent whereas the notice on the user's talk page suggests it's temporary. It doesn't bother me which it is, but they should presumably be consistent! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. I have changed the block message to a generic indefinite one. There were many reasons he could have been blocked; the "One of these days I'm going to get you!" remark was the thing that stuck out for me. The harrassment block template doesn't cater for indefinite blocking, but generally disruptive editing (which he carried out previous to this) does. – B.hotep •talk• 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. My main problem was with the possibility of more retaliatory deletion nominations, which would have caused a bit of a headache. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine that if he were to be unblocked (for whatever reason) that if he took up the same behaviour as before, he would end up blocked again much sooner rather than later. If you have any more problems of this nature, come back here, or you're more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page if I'm around. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine him being unblocked considering the message on his userpage bluntly stating why he's here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, as reasons to block go, I'm most convinced by "rape and theft are common antics of the sub-saharan negro." This is not a contributor we want, frankly. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was working in reverse chronological order, and, to be honest, had seen enough in the final five contributions before his timely demise to make an informed decision. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    More on Slovaks in Hungary

    There's no particular drama here, just a procedural question on which Spartaz and I are disagreeing. (For the avoidance of doubt I quite like Spartaz and I often agree with him, just not in this case. Spartaz advised me to raise the matter here, so I'm doing it with his full knowledge.)

    The situation is that following Guy's early closure of the AfD for Slovaks in Hungary, about which there's a long drama above, Dpmuk wanted to raise a deletion review to examine whether the process had been correctly followed. He did this here. Spartaz pre-emptively closed the DRV on the grounds that the article has been userfied. Spartaz's view is that because the article has been userfied, no deletion has taken place, which means that DRV has no jurisdiction. Spartaz thinks the correct venue for Dpmuk's request is WP:RM.

    My view is that DRV is the correct place for challenging a deletion decision, and that RM has no jurisdiction to decide whether Guy followed the procedure correctly. I therefore think Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was inappropriate.

    Please could uninvolved people decide which of us is correct?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with S Marshall: if an article has been deleted at AfD and then userfied, DRV is the correct forum for deciding whether it should be allowed back into the main space, relisted for AfD, or stay out. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It has never been deleted. It has been moved to user space. A move is not an admin action and does not have the effect of an admin enforcing a consensus with tools. Its an editorial outcome that can be changed by any new consensus. As such a deletion review is nugatory and this can either ne resolved at RM or by gaining a new consensus on the article talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A move isn't an admin action, but deleting the resulting redirect is. But the main point is that a fresh consensus about what's to be done with the article does an end run around what is undoubtedly a DRV function:- to oversee whether Guy followed the process correctly. Admins are empowered to make emergency decisions and judgment calls, but if they do, they aren't above scrutiny of their actions at DRV afterwards.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also brought the matter up at Spartaz's talk page. Userfication is basically the same as deletion (in fact it normally happens after deletion) and has never been a reason to stop a DrV in the past. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • My view on this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Here we have an article which, after significant discussion, everybody agrees is seriously noncompliant with core policy. It fails WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and is also in very poor English. The creating user has since been indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing due to POV-pushing in precisely the area covered by the article's contents. So we have now spent a significant amount of time and energy arguing about whether this should sit in article space for a week before its inevitable deletion, or whether it is somehow a terrible abuse of process to move it to user space where someone has expressed an interest in fixing it. I am utterly bemused by the determination of some people to keep what is by common consent a terrible article in mainspace, rather than userspace, while we decide to nuke it. That is plain silly. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slovaks in Hungary is a redlink. Clicking on it gives me the option to view or restore 7 deleted edits. Typing "Slovaks in Hungary" into the search box does not find it. This is exactly the same situation as if the article had been deleted and userfied: Article gone from WP / article present in userspace / no way for a regular user to find it. I don't think it's a very good argument to say that "it hasn't been deleted" because effectively - very effectively - it has. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, DRV would be the right venue if you disagreed with Guy's closure. Technically Guy did close it as delete, but userfied the article in the same action. No, DRV is not necessary if someone is going to work on the article in their userspace and move it to the mainspace once it's suitable. At that point, it would go to another AFD. Whether Guy's early closure was suitable invocation of IAR is an exercise left to the reader. –xenotalk 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was correct given that the drv was clearly process wonkery. I don't feel that Spartaz' reason for closing the drv was good, since reversing any decision made by AfD is presisely what drv is for. So I think the closure should be "closed as beeing a call for procedure for procedures sake", or WP:SNOW. Taemyr (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, at least, is a fair point. Perhaps Spartaz would like to change the closure summary. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen no comment in the AfD or DRV that states the current content should be in the mainspace; at best, some think there is something to salvage with heavy work needed. Frankly, I see both the AfD and the DRV as process for process sake. All that should matter is that the content be sourced and updated to maximize its encyclopedic value so that it can be evaluated in the mainspace. Who cares if the TPS reports were properly filled out in the interim? The optimal outcome—a properly-sourced and relevant article in the mainspace—is still achieveable and another discussion about the intracacies of proper i-dotting and t-crossing will not help with that. Move on, everyone. These efforts would be better spent at the userified article. — Scientizzle 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the point of process, Scientizzle? It's a serious question:- Why do we bother to have AfD discussions? And why do we bother to have a DRV process for reviewing whether they're closed properly?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a balance thing - enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness, not so much process that we're all spending our time filling out forms in quadruplicate. What WP:IAR basically means is that the right result is to be more highly valued than which pathway is used to achieve it, so if the procedural niceties are getting in the way, it's OK to jump the line. It answers, for Wikipedia, the age-old question of whether the end justifies the means: here, at least, it does, when the end is important enough. Certainly improving the encyclopedia is important enough, and I've yet to see an argument in all this silliness that the article in question, in the state it is in, improves the encyclopedia. The correct result (or some version of the correct result - perhaps Dougweller is right and it should have gone to the incubator) was achieved, and nothing got broken in the bargain, except maybe the desire to elevate process for its own sake to a more important status than advancing the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearing in mind that this thread is about Spartaz' early close of the DRV, and not about Guy's deletion of the article, is it your position that enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness took place?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spartaz' decision seems to me to be exactly right: there was no deletion, therefore nothing to be reviewed at DRV. A controversial action with no specific forum designated for discussion is therefore dealt with at a place for general discussions of controversial actions, i.e. AN or AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of process? The Wikipedia processes exist to serve the needs of creating a better encyclopdia only. Processes like AfD are for gathering feedback towards that end, which may be best acheived by eliminating content or spurring the relocation and/or improvement of that content. Speedy deletion exists for when the content is unlikely to ever meet reasonable inclusion criteria. DRV exists because AfDs are not always clean and easy to close, speedies may be overzealous, conditions may change in the real world that may reasonably alter the fate of a deletion discussion given a second look, and admins are human and prone to make mistakes.
    It seems abundantly clear that reasonable, knowledgable editors don't think the current content of the Slovaks in Hungary article is ready for Prime Time, therefore it should not be in the mainspace. It's also clear that some reasonable, knowledgable editors think there is some work that can be done to possibly shape it into an appropriate article, which is recommended to be done in userspace. Therefore the optimal transitional state has currently been acheived: the content is now in userspace to be worked upon by those interested and capable, thus increasing the liklihood of creating an encyclopedic article. I've seen no indication of a reasonably-likely process outcome that would be clearly superior to this. If someone can provide one, I'd like to know. Process can get in the way when sensible actions (such as userifying marginal content for improvement) are inhibited or actively opposed.
    And to head off any concern over ends justify the means extremism: this only applies to reasonably sensible outcomes acheived through reasonably sensible—if out of the ordinary—actions. Naturally, any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation, but my view is that the means should be optimized to meet the ends, that the means should never be an end unto themselves, and that the optimal approach is sometimes out-of-process. — Scientizzle 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I came back to make exactly that point, that process is most important with marginal cases, where it helps determine what consensus is. In this case, at all points along the way, the consensus concerning the result was never in doubt: no one has disputed Guy's litany of the things wrong with the article, and everyone seems to agree (in broad terms) with the outcome. This is not a marginal case, and it is exactly those situations in which WP:IAR encourages us to "just do it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's exactly my view as well, Scientizzle. Would you agree with me that when you say, "any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation", the correct venue for critical evaluation of a deletion is DRV?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire point of that DRV, it seems to me, was placing the process ahead of the outcome. Dpmuk even stated in the AfD "I would have no problem with a userfy close", which, incidentally, was the close. Your comments in the DRV, S Marshall, were similarly concerned with process over outcome: "follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion." If deletion/userification is a reasonable outcome, and that outcome has been acheieved, what is the point of further process? What do you want out of this, S Marshall? What is there to gain at this point? — Scientizzle 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      To expand upon my thoughts here...DRV should be used iff the outcome and process were both questionable. To expand upon BMK's points above, the processes exist to expand the liklihood of a useful outcome in those gray areas of editing and to provide a sort of quasi-anarchic checks and balances-type control against actual abuses. I have yet to see a strong, clear objection to the actual outcome of all of this, or that some aspect of editing process was damaged, thus I see no need to worry much about whether the outcome was acheived by-the-book. — Scientizzle 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do I want to see? Well, there's a main point and a subsidiary one. The main point isn't specific to this case. I would like to see it established that in principle, an AfD close as "userfy" can be challenged at DRV. Spartaz' close states that it cannot. In other words, to take Spartaz' close literally, there are no circumstances in which a "userfy" outcome is subject to DRV—and that's not okay.

      The subsidiary point is in sympathy with Dpmuk, and it's about FairProcess. And before we all start being snide about processes again, the word "fair" is the important one. Dpmuk hasn't been treated fairly here. He's effectively been told that even though he objects to Guy's out-of-process close, it can't be challenged in any venue. That's not collaborative; it's kafkaesque.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    it can't be challenged in any venue - This is the community discussion on those actions. An unnecessary discussion, IMO, but a discussion nonetheless. Dpmuk hasn't been treated badly, his actions, although in good faith, were ill-advised, and the result commensurate with their (lack of) usefullness to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amen. There is no harm in letting the DrV go forward, and the reason given for the close is a horrible precedent to let go forward. By closing this early we spend more time on this, not less, so it's self-defeating on top of everything else. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How's that, then? –xenotalk 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I personally don't see the reason for not allowing the discussion to go forward. Let the day in court happen. I realize it's bounced all around, but frankly there were serious problems, in my opinion, with the AfD close. I've not followed the whole case in detail, but a speedy closure by what appears to be an involved admin is never a good idea. I may be missing something, but I think it's better to have that discussion rather than sweep it under a rug. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder that we are all here, supposedly, to build an encyclopedia. The administrative and logistical "tail" that is necessary to support those "front line" activities should be as large as necessary, and not a whit larger. Any energy which goes into these kinds of conversations is energy that is not being applied to editing the encyclopedia, and is therefore to some extent counterproductive. The actions that were unnecessary in this case were (1) undoing the initial userfication, (2) tagging the article with a "procedural" AfD, (3) bringing the AfD result to DRV and (4) asking for review of the DRV result. These actions sapped energy to the detriment of the project. The other actions (i.e. my initial userfication, Guy's closing of the AfD and Spartaz' closing of the DRV) were all geared towards the most minimal possible action to achieve the obviously desirable result. To say that they provoked all this palaver is ridiculous: at each point along the way, it was the objections to those actions which caused additional discussion – this is yet another example of why the focus on process over result is detrimental, and why we have IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this breakdown of the situation and Floquenbeam's take. We're not arguing against process, we're arguing against the repeated use of progress for no perceived gain to the project. — Scientizzle 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody comes to AN/I to build an encyclopaedia, BMK. People come to AN/I to talk about how a collaborative encyclopaedia ought to be built. Which, I'm afraid, involves processes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    64.65.220.26 warrants long-term blocking

    Resolved
     – No administrative action required at this time. – B.hotep •talk• 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, user 64.65.220.26 has a history of vandalism, as can be seen by most of the contributions listed under [98].

    Isn't there some way for a permanent block? The IP addressed was blocked 3 times but only temporarily.

    We don't indef block Ip's. The block just gets longer and longer the more they continue.--SKATER Speak. 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We do sometimes if it is obviously a static IP and continuously vandalism. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirming the above: next up would be a one week block, but only if they have been warned enough and the vandalism is current. – B.hotep •talk• 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Also, there were only four vandalism edits in the last month or so, and zero talk-page notifications. How is anyone to even know there might be consequences to their vandalism?  Frank  |  talk  12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another chance?

    A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid (Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified. Elockid (Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWRpropaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.[reply]
    Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid (Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I blocked HelloFloreda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for serial WP:BLP violations.

    My block message:
    I ran across your editing history today. You have caused disruption in several ways over the last five months:

    Since you have blanked all previous warnings, I'll assume that you've read them. Given that the bulk of your contributions have been attacks on living persons, I think it's likely that you will continue to be disruptive. Therefore, I am blocking this account indefinitely as a preventative measure. Should you wish to regain your editing privelages, please state your intentions to follow Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines in an unblock message.

    I do think this block is preventative, as the WP:BLP-violating behavior has been ongoing for several months and the user has made no acknowledgement of these problems beyond blanking usertalk warnings. I would, however, like to be sure and ask for your feedback. Thanks, — Scientizzle 14:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If this had been 3 days ago, I would have said it was a good block, no question. Since they haven't edited since the warnings were placed on their talk page, though, I'm a bit iffy about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back, I see they got a warning about Jon Voight in April, blanked it, and then left the most recent edit summary anyway. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I always push to archive instead of blank. Imagine someone with a busier talk page trying to hide warnings like that. If proper edit summaries aren't left it could be a nightmare of trying to piece together a talk page diff by diff to figure out what happened there.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with it. They seem to have developed a dislike of John Voight around the beginning of April and then gone away for a month to think about it, but found that this disliking has not abated. They can always appeal the block when/if they come back – with assurances that they will stay away from the article. – B.hotep •talk• 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the contribution history I'm not seeing anything that isn't at least borderline axe grinding. If it was an editor that also did good work elsewhere I might suggest a different approach, but I'm not seing any evidence that this account is here to do something for the encyclopedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that this was a good block. If they wish to come back, they can appeal the block, if they don't make more unconstructive edits. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Aldred

    Mark Aldred back as 70.127.204.44. Prime Blue (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked and article semi-protected. — Satori Son 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And back again as 69.22.184.10 (talk · contribs · block log). Prime Blue (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagged and tagged. — Satori Son 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Latham & Watkins

    The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWRpropaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! TFOWRpropaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued

    I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV...

    ...could use an admin or two. Gracias. APK whisper in my ear 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Superiorname23 - good cop needed

    Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xenotalk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    G.-M. Cupertino block review

    G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino), basic for chronic incivility and edit warring. Reviewing his edits since his return, I note edit warring with four editors on five articles, replete with edit summaries describing things as "idiotic" and "stupid". I've blocked him again due to his apparent utter lack of comprehension of the reason he was banned previously, pending an agreement to agree to a 0RR restriction. His edit summaries are a step up from a previous one, but that edit may be construed as "previous involvement", so I'm bringing my block here to be reviewed.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse indef. If a one year arbitral ban wasn't enough to get the point across, nothing short of an indef block can help.  Sandstein  20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Climate Change probation

    2/0

    Requesting review of 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

    2/0 has unblocked William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with no attempt to contact the blocking admin, Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 2/0 claims Lar is involved with respect to WMC, but 2/0 is at least as involved with WMC as Lar, having previously defended WMC's actions at the Climate Change probation page. In any case, 2/0 should have at least discussed with Lar before proceeding. Requesting review of 2/0's actions here. ATren (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In which case, you're requesting review of the action, not 2/0 himself? Your post should make that clear, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I hope you don't mind my editing your post, but I changed your templates to ones with better links. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. The first version was transcluding 2/0 and my user pages right here on AN/I. Honored, I'm sure, but no :) ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a review of the action might well be in order. WMC was disruptively edit warring by reinserting material into the uninvolved administrators section of an enforcement request and got a one hour (!) block to stop the disruption. 2/0 in his unblock characterized that as a "cool down block", which shows that perhaps he wasn't clear on why exactly the block was placed. Cool down blocks don't work and I don't place them. As to the involvement thing, I think a case could be made that 2/0 is indeed far more involved than I. But I prefer not to make that case. I'd like the block sustained, although we can forego reimposing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't pretend to be informed enough on the history here to judge, but maybe a stern warning might have been in order before a block? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hundreds of warnings have been issued to this user in the past. But maybe. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm no admin, but looking over this situation I think that A) the blocking admin removed material inserted by WMC in the wrong place rather than moved it (which is what the section header said should happen) B) blocked over a revert of that removal C) is editing the same section the edit war happened over in a way that is at the least a technical violation of the rules stated for that section (said violation is also being discussed on the same page). I think the original block was wrong. No opinion on the unblock itself (said admin also seems to be involved). Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting review of a block and unblock, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of Lar's block

    Note that this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2.2F0 above.

    Lar is one of the administrators in the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Largely as a result of his actions there, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar was created and certified by William M. Connolley and Polargeo. The RfC has attracted fairly wide participation by both involved and uninvolved editors, with predictably mixed results. The most widely supported opinion is critical of Lar, and it seems obvious to me that the RfC is not a mere nuisance request, but has fairly wide support and has a useful and legitimate purpose. The RfC, certified by William M. Connolley, is still open. Despite this, Lar still maintains that he is uninvolved with respect to William M. Connolley, has argued for sanctions against him in the role as an uninvolved administrator, and has today blocked William M. Connolley after he replied to such an argument in what Lar considers the wrong section of the probation page. Given the open RfC and the history of bad blood, the claim that Lar is uninvolved enough to block WMC seems unsupportable to me. I request independent opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the RfC.. my first impression is that I do not see a problem with the block. One cannot take an uninvolved administrator who makes decisions you do not like, drag him into dispute resolution, and then claim that automagically makes him involved. SirFozzie (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The core of the issue is that this whole probation system for the climate change related articles has degenerated into a Kindergarten level brawl. It has little to do with seriously editing articles. Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with Count here. I'm disappointed in just about everyone here (for various reasons), and considering if the Community General Sanctions need to have some real steel put into them. SirFozzie (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to steal any thunder but there are folks (led by 2/0, who I happen to disagree with on this particular matter, but who I respect for trying hard) pulling an RfC together to ask for input from the community on how this enforcement has been going so far. Most admins participating in the enforcement use a lot of discussion first and a very light touch. Maybe we're doing it wrong and firmer, faster action is needed. So please wait a bit for the RfC and opine there. (I've also considered asking ArbCom for more clarification directly) ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The probation system has clearly failed to solve the problems with our climate change articles. In fact, the sanctions are being used as weapon to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. To compound matters, the probation system has no real teeth, so the same editors who were causing all the problems to begin with are still around and still editing disruptively. As best as I can tell, our climate change articles have been a battleground for years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it has teeth. Many many people have been removed. It's just that some people are harder to chew than others. Arkon (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Count Iblis. SirFozzie, I believe that ArbCom intervention in this matter would help, ideally resulting in discretionary sanctions and possibly the topic ban of some of the more hyperactive editors on both sides. I originally participated in the enforcement of the community sanction, but that venue has become so much of a battleground - involving admins on both sides - that I feel that it's not possible to do much as long as compelling arbitral sanctions are not available. I see that involved editors now seem to be using lengthy threads on an enforcement board to bicker about who gets to post what in which section... that sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.  Sandstein  20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the door to WP:RfArb is open, needless to say, if folks want to bring it there. However, needless to say, I will be recusing in any such case. (Promised I would a while back, with regards to at least one side of this issue) SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad. Recusal or not, your advice and thoughts on this matter would be great. I hope you choose to participate in the RfC (I mean the upcoming one on the CC itself, but you're welcome in the one started on me as well of course) or the talk pages. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Personally I have never seen a clearer example than WMC of someone who repeatedly attacks the admins who address his behavior. It's hardly just Lar; you can see on his talk page how he responds to being blocked by another admin, LessHeardvanU: "Good grief you're a biased bozo."[99] Another time his response can be seen here. This is, in short, an editor who actively cultivates "bad blood" with other editors. This is not something others should encourage. Mackan79 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting review of a block and unblock, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The most supported view in the RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar#Outside_view_by_Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris is that of Short Brigade Harvester Boris, which provides evidence of commentary by Lar showing he is no long uninvolved in the area. To me, this shows that Lar can no longer be considered an uninvolved administrator in the topic area, certainly not with regards to William M. Connolley who certified the RfC. If the RfC was totally frivolous, then Lar could take action against William M. Connolley, but it clearly isn't given the most widely supported view. I haven't looked at the merits of the block, but to uphold procedural fairness and to avoid suggestions of impropriety, Lar seriously needs to take a step back from this area and not use his administrator tools again to enforce the probation. In my opinion, Lar has overstepped the mark with this block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 22 endorsed that view, 17 endorsed Lars response. Seems fairly close to a wash to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'm unsure of the dynamics to the subset of editors involved in this fiasco, but from what I gather a number of the RFC's participants have a record of voting in support of one another in various discussions. That the view by Short Brigade is the most widely supported may not be as significant as it at first seems. AGK 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both sides have a number of supporters with well-known and shared opinions. If you subtract them, SBHB's comment still comes out ahead. But that misses the point a bit. It's clear that serious concerns about Lar's level of involvement are shared by a number of both involved and uninvolved editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but I would urge Lar to respect the fact there are various users who believe his administrative conduct in the area is no longer neutral and take a step back. Certainly not everyone endorsing that statement are involved in the climate change topic area - quite a number of uninvolved and respected editors also endorse that view. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me though that before you used that small sample size math to declare the block an oversteping, you would have taken the time to look at the merits of the block, which you say you haven't done. There are only a couple of diffs. Shouldn't take you long.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, it is not an accurate reading of the RfC. Boris' view is extremely hedged, and even states that Lar is not involved. It then presents vague concerns with Lar's actions. The statement is much weaker than the RfC statement itself, which was not endorsed by anyone. There is certainly not independent support for the very odd idea that Lar is involved in this area (though if involvement in an area were an accepted concept this would be an obvious bar to other admins who have been participating, though still not to Lar). You have to realize also that every admin in the area is widely considered biased; if this were a bar we would not have any. Incidentally this situation has resulted in a fairly noticeable "noise machine," in which people continually try to ensure that their accusations of bias are the loudest, which I doubt I'm the only one to notice. Mackan79 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review of a block and unblock

    The Climate change sanctions discussion page is going a bit off the rails at the moment. I would like to request that a few uninvolved editors review the situation. Particularly, User:Lar just blocked User:William M. Connolley for one hour for disruption, and I have unblocked pending review here. I think that Lar is too WP:INVOLVED to make this block, and it looks like a cool-down block. I will reblock myself if there forms a solid consensus that he acted correctly. Disclosure: I did not discuss with Lar before unblocking due to the short duration of the block, but did request that William M. Connolley not edit that page for the duration of the block.

    The edits in question are: William M. Connolley comments in a section reserved for discussion of possible sanctions by uninvolved administrators, Lar reverts without moving the comment to the appropriate section, William M. Connolley reverts, Lar reverts and blocks. Another user has moved the comment to the appropriate section now, and I consider that matter closed. There is also a discussion at that page regarding whether there should be an "uninvolved admins only" discussion section, as that page is something of a hybrid between WP:AE and WP:AN3.

    There is currently a Request for comment where several editors have asserted in good faith that Lar is too involved to be acting as an uninvolved administrator in this area. Disclosure: I have commented on that RfC, opining that he has been doing a good job at a thankless task for the most part but requesting that he avoid acting as an administrator in that topic area for the duration of the RfC. I stress that Lar has stated that he bears William M. Connolley no animus, and I think it would be very bad for the project if it is given to editors to choose WP:INVOLVED status merely by accusation. Nevertheless, I present recent comments by Lar leading me to believe that he is not WP:UNINVOLVED for the purposes of making this block: advises another editor to "keep trying" to sanction WMC, snarkiness, pure snarkiness, advises another editor to "compile a chart of WMC-to-polite speak", bickering (note that this is not connected with the reverts leading to this block.

    Please, please let us handle this simply and civilly with an eye to de-escalation. I would also like to note that, clearly, I am involved in this situation and have been since before my unblock. If possible, I would like to focus on the narrow question of whether Lar was correct to block and whether I was correct to unblock. Obviously, I will be taking no further action in this arena until this thread resolves. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FFS guys. That's 3 sections on pretty much the same thing, somebody wanna do some merging? Arkon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nearly every other Admin who touches WMC is called off for review. Let's get to the root cause of the disruption please. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've yet to see anything to suggest that WMC wasn't posting disruptively. He has enough edits on that page to know his comments don't go in the uninvolved admin section. He certainly knew that putting them back there the second time was disruptive. An unblock based on WMC agreeing to play nice is fine. That said i'm not seeing anything wrong with the block to prevent the initial disruption.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WMC was unblocked 16 minutes early - I think it would have caused less drama to let the block run its course. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jzyehoshua, again

    Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked twice[100] then topic banned from Obama pages.[101] Has just returned from five-month near hiatus[102] and a few dozen edits later is doing a WP:BATTLEGROUND in multiple forums on the exact same point:

    • Talk:Barack Obama[103] - series of edits shows edit-warring on talk page, WP:AGF / WP:NPA / WP:CIVIL violations (accusing "liberal editors" of plotting, cabal behavior), WP:SOAP posts (building long screed accusing Obama of murder over abortion stance, not being US citizen, etc)
    • Wikipedia:CNB[104] - uses content forum to accuse other editors of bad behavior, disparaging perceived opponents' "disciplinary histories"
    • WP:BLP/N[105] - uses noticeboard to accuse other editors of misbehavior, soapbox about Obama's "dirty laundry"
    • User talk:Jzyehoshua[106] - uses own talk page as an attack page to build case against perceived editing enemies, reinserts after I removed it and warned him about it.[107]

    Reviewing the incident, other editors made comments that could have inflamed Jayehoshua (e.g. using the "T"[roll] word[108], or seeming to endorse the cabal theory in the guise of support[109]). As always, I think a more dignified, polite response is more helpful. I don't know if that would have helped or not in this case but it's worth a try. In the interest of disclosure, I tried both before their first topic ban and again now to counsel the editor to contribute productively, and archived some threads I saw as tendentious, for which the editor has pegged me as one of the pro-Obama cabal. This being a place for dealing with future disruption, it's pretty obvious that whatever brought them to this point, if the editor doesn't get on the straight and narrow soon they're heading for a longer term ban or block, so if we can cut to the chase could someone please give them some strong direction on the bounds of acceptable editing behavior, and deal with them sooner rather than later if they won't change course? Incidentally, given their threat to file retaliatory complaints here against me and others[110][111] I'm going to section off any complaints about others, and probably ignore them - if we don't manage this one firmly it could become messy. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally came back to the page and noticed many of those I'd previously bumped heads with were not active in the discussion. Only after I began speaking did BrendanFrye and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) both come onto the topic and begin flinging insults about racism and conservatives and the Tea Party.
    • 01:35-36, May 17, 2010: When a user who asked why the page did not mention why the page did not cover controversies about Obama, and was told to search through the 69 pages of archives for the answer, I responded, saying I did not think the page covered controversy, and suggested that it was being covered on rarely viewed subpages but not allowed on the main page.[112]
    • 03:32, May 17, 2010: BrendanFrye, who had not been previously active in the conversation, came in suddenly denying that conspiracy theories could be criticisms, and telling me I was "full of it".[113]


    • Scjessey states "Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so."[114]
    Furthermore, both Wikidemon and User:Abrazame refused to moderate this, and would criticize me for going off-topic when trying to respond to these attacks.
    My original comments dealt with controversies not being adequately mentioned, and in good faith, I even provided over 50 sources showing they were already mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and in the news. Not only did no one bother addressing these sources, or the reliability of them (not a single one was criticized individually as unreliable, or a single argument made about notability), but they began piling on insults and requesting the topic be closed. While I reacted defensively, suggesting they were not addressing the material/content proposal, and simply were resorting to personal attacks, I tried to get the focus back on the material. Nobody took me up on the offer. BrendanFrye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey tried to start edit wars by protecting Scjessey's racist charge comment and reverting my edits. I thought I did a good job of avoiding this attempts to bait me into a rule violation, but Wikidemon is closing the conversation and all my attempts on other noticeboards as well.
    Rather than stating what part of the conversation is unacceptable, and seeking to allow discussion, he simply ends all conversation and refuses to even allow discussion about the inclusion of controversy on the article. Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a longer history of discipline on the article, along with Scjessey and others, including their involvement in the famous 2008 Obama articles case where Scjessey got a 6-month topic ban and Wikidemon was admonished for edit warring.[115] [116]
    My discipline came as a result of them closing conversations and using inflammatory comments in December to bait me into an edit war the same way they tried to do here, and, unfamiliar with such tactics, I fell for it at the time. The conversations are archived on pages 65-69[117][118][119][120] of the talk page archives. They've been involved in a number of confrontations with other members on the talk page as well in the past, as I learned from reviewing archives and arbcom records, and it's true, I have begun believing that the numerous accusations of a cabal[121][122] seeking to silence calls for controversy mentions on the Obama page are indeed accurate, and not overblown as one might think. While I try to remain cool-headed, it is difficult in the face of such constant attacks, and to not state what you believe concerning what appears very clear discriminatory bias at a high level in the Wikipedia structure.

    --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Kww

    Resolved
     – The boomerang came back. –xenotalk 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason why Kww is semi-protecting pages such as "List of Italian-Americans", "Kimi Raikkonen", "Fernando Alonso" and "Celebration"? These pages rarely contribute to vandalism, so I don't see why they have to be semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could clear this up. Thanks 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.17.241 (talk • contribs)

    Why not ask them? –xenotalk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I semi-protect any pages that they edit. These articles were protected due to CharlieJS13. Given geographic location, there's somewhere around a 99% chance that 86.136.17.241 is also CharlieJS13.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently because someone is IP-Hopping to target articles? [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive] for more. (he put that as the semi-protect reason, that's how I know) Have you brought this up with Kww? (I sense the footgun being used, an IP complaining about someone semi-protecting an article to prevent an IP hopper from disrupting....) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And both the socking IP and the reporting IP here both resolve to British Telecom DSL in London, England. What a shock. — Satori Son 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly has a good gun-sight on his footgun. IP blocked 72 hours, Vogue (Madonna song) semi-protected for a month. It's come to my attention that this is probably Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that CharlieJS13 is just a sock, not a new master. Can't be proven at this point, but seems likely.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=362884221"