Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 4 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654.
Undid revision 401090553 by Mathsci (talk) rv becuase of accidental erasure
Line 1,054: Line 1,054:
*'''Suggestion''' - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the [[honeypot (computing)|honeypot]] articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion''' - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the [[honeypot (computing)|honeypot]] articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
**Good idea, although I would think someone in his situation would ''welcome'' constant monitoring. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
**Good idea, although I would think someone in his situation would ''welcome'' constant monitoring. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I reminded myself of the discussion linked by Jehochman in which I was involved. It concerned baiting Slrubenstein with a a lurid discussion about whether one of the corpses in a horrific image from a concentration camp was circumcised or not. I agree with MastCell that it would be hard to find a better mentor than Jpgordon. As others have said, he would have to be constantly monitored. But is wikipedia really some kind of reform school? [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


== Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts ==
== Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts ==

Revision as of 18:39, 7 December 2010


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    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. (archivessearch)

    More eyes please.

    I dunno if this would necessarily be considered an "incident", but since YMMV, and imho, more eyes is almost always a good thing, I thought I'd note it here as well. - jc37

    Stale, time to archive. Fram (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Very Important Business

    NW (Talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While I appreciate the buttons, "um"? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This button leads not to specific articles, but to random articles tagged unreferenced BLP, which is not a bad idea. Of the first two I checked, one had been referenced since Feb 20, 2009, with links to published reviews,and should never have been marked unreferenced. (Whether the reviews offer sufficient extensive and reliable coverage to support notability might be another matter); The second can be referenced easily from GNews (though whether they actually support sufficient notability is another matter also)--perhaps the note was placed here to indicate the excessiveness of the fuss over these articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be a good idea to add a "Source a BLP" link to the sidebar, perhaps just under "Random article"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, I like that idea. And I'm pleased to say that Halid Muslimović is also removed from that category. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Or can this be made into a templated button, for interested user to transclude on their pages? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. It's also defaulting me back to the nonsecure interface to do this, which results in my other username being used... Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody shrink those, please? That's kind of obnoxiously large. HalfShadow 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be a great motivational tool: let's have the size of the buttons directionally proportional to the number of tagged unreferenced BLPs ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    =D Nolelover It's football season! 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm ... could you change the title of the button to "Read a piece of unmonitored potential slander"? Works just as well for either description.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • instead of editing the button, source a BLP. that's what i did!--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Random idea; could we have this as a watchlist notice for maybe a week? Nothing heavy, just a short intro with a link to this tool --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All of you please go and read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons#Proposed watchlist notice and participate on the actual noticeboard page where the discussion is occurring, rather than being two steps behind on this page. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Template created at {{uBLP refbutton}}. Access Denied 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is exactly the sort of being on the wrong page and two steps behind that I'm talking about. If you had been reading the noticeboard page where the discussion is actually happening, you would have noticed the existence of Template:Big Red Button, substituted above but transcluded on the proper discussion page, which was created a month ago. Uncle G (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban Jcarleo

    Unresolved

    Its about time we banned this long time troll. He has caused unending disruption and endless usertalk trolling, and banning him will give us so much more leeway revertin his edits. access_denied (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support without any regret for the ban - enough was enough. Jcarleo has been trolling for years and he was blocked indefinetly in June for his actions. Now due to his trolling and recent sockpuppetry, I can say that serious disruption and trolling will not be tolerated at all, as well as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. He has also proven that he will not be fit for this site after all. So, this is a necessary end for this user. Wikipedia needs administrators, trusted users (like myself), and bureaucrats, but not trolls and users/IPs who vandalize Wikipedia. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban - [1] 20 socks!? We can do without this guy. Jusdafax 05:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - 20 isn't even close to the actual number of socks he has. Also see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jcarleo, and know that we (actually I) stopped tagging his IPs/accounts after he continuously kept removing them with new socks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For those of us who have never heard of this individual, it might help to provide a few diffs as to why exactly he should be banned? --Elonka 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: months of vandalism, disruption and harassment is enough. I see no constructive edits jcarleo has made nor do I see any in the near future. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Has there been a SPI to link the accounts? There's not one on the main account that I found...
    We have to have reasonable information on which to base ban proposals. This one so far is sorely lacking evidence. Please expand with edit history, SPI, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One place to start would be to look at the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "the history for User:C.Fred, as well as the filtered edits"? Someone post some actual evidence and links, please. This is all incredibly opaque. We can't agree to banning someone based on this kind of shaky evidence. Fences&Windows 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just one of many reasons to ban him... access_denied (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    removing words of other users

    is this [2] allowed? (Idot (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

    Broadly, yes, per WP:NOTAFORUM: "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." Discussion should pertain to the article not just chatter about the topic in general. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On that theory, the entire section should be removed. Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) was simply answering the question posed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken the "bold" step and added it back. If someone wants to delete the entire section, that's somewhat different, though it doesn't seem necessary. Questions and answers about the subject can lead to improvements in an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And someone deleted it again, just that one part, rather than the whole section. Maybe someone more familiar with this particular page can explain why. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just like User:SGGH wrote - discussion pages are for discussing the shape of article, not discussing the game itself. For example: statement like "creature X has better stats than creature Y" shouldn't be on discussion page, on other hand if you write "I think section in article about creatures should be rewritten" is of course OK. If someone wants to talk about the game in general, there are plenty of forums in Internet - Wikipedia is just not place for it. Sir Lothar (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the content of the page, and have removed ALL of the non-related article stuff. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the case can be closed now. Sir Lothar (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets: again

    Resolved
     – User blocked indef as a duck GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baseball fan4541 sounds just like User:Smiley4541 and User:Baseball Fanatic. Please block. Perseus (tc) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See this. Perseus (tc) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Either a very obvious WP:DUCK or an impostor. Blocked indef at any rate. Favonian (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He lasted 5 1/2 hours, but it was in the wee hours of the night. I liked the part where he welcomed himself, on his very first edit yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not very subtle, I'll admit. Now, about your username — are you sure you're not a sockpuppet as well? "Fanatic", "Bugs", there is a similarity. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly sure I'm not anyone's sock, unless my invisible 6-foot roommate, Harvey, was messing with my PC while I slept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the old WP:GOTHACKED defense. Indef with talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you wascally wabbit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He signed his guestbook. I found him by looking at his guestbook. The whole "4541" thing is a real spoiler. Perseus (tc) 14:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GOTHACKED? I thought I was familiar with most of the Goth sub-genre's... Doesn't seem to be an article on it, but I suppose it is only a matter of time (frequently midnight on the 13th of a month). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has to do with the Cathy (comic strip) maybe (she said "Ack!" a lot, as I recall), about when she went Goth or something. I didn't know Bugs had such breadth in the strips, though. This is worrisome and I think a siteban is called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you not heard the expression "a hare's breadth"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if there was ever a catchphrase ownership lawsuit between Cathy and Bill the Cat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm shocked... shocked... that editors are talking about poxy comic strips on ANI. I've added a siteban tag to your userpage, Bugs, since consensus is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ban "roll-on" or "spray"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You tweachewous miscweant! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont think that User:Baseball Bugs is a sockpuppet of WP:Baseball FAnatic. just because they have similar names doesnt meant hat 1 is a sock of the other, and im a little appalled that anyone would even jokingly make that sugestion in this plcae where people can take things out of context. I have read most of Baseball Bugses posts on the Wiki and he seems like a reasonable and productive editor and not someone who woudl willingly agree to become a sockpuppet for a banned user. User:Smith Jones 19:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Smith Jones. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves to defame such a model citizen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know that Baseball Fanatic was considered to be a model! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your relentless sarcasm support, but I ain't no model citizen. THIS is a model citizen. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Vewy cwever, mista! I was kidding in the previous coment but i really do think that you are the great part of the Wikipedia project. User:Smith Jones 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Looks like a duck to me Perseus (tc) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Daffy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LemonMonday again

    LemonMonday (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

    LemonMonday is currently blocked for editwarring with User:Fmph at Belgium. This is very interesting because he had just reverted Fmph on Climate of Ireland to an unsourced position in the last 2 days.

    Both of these editors have worked the British Isles naming dispute area. LemonMonday has been a single purpose account whose main space edits from 2008 - Winter 2010 were made up of reverts of User:HighKing at articles they (LM) have never edited before. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] He was also recently blocked for violating WP:BATTLE twice (October 30th and October 8th by Jehochman)[10]. Jehochman was convinced to unblock following this promise by LemonMonday. Subsequently LemonMonday raised two malformed article RFCs [11][12] - he was advised, by me, on how to fix the RFC at WP:BISE[13] but do date he has not. These RFCs discussed the subject of British Isles rather than how to improve the articles. The RFC on Talk:British Isles borders on falling under WP:NOT as it asks a question beyond the remit of Wikipedia to consider at all.

    The above issues with this account fall under disruptive editing generally, but more specifically, WP:POINT, WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLE. LemonMonday was warned only a week ago that single purpose accounts are “expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda” (per the ArbCom ruling at the Race and Intelligence RfAr[14]). This recent spurt of reverts is alarming because LemonMonday has never edited either of these articles before. LemonMonday is now following another editor around reverting them.[15][16][17][18][19][20] LemonMonday has been the subject of a series of ANI threads in 2010[21][22][23], there are also issues with this account going all the way back to 2008[24]. Each one coming to the conclusion that LemonMonday was making pointy edits incompatible with Wikipedia.

    Proposed remedy

    I’ve been enforcing the British Isles probation for the last few months, but I now believe that LM’s issues with Wikipedia policy are beyond the scope of just that probation. It is time that this editor learned either to abide by policy or is simply prevented from disrupting others. Hence I put forward to the community that LemonMonday should be either:

    • Community banned from Wikipedia, per WP:BAN.
    • Or given a full topic ban from all British Isles, Britain and Ireland topics widely construed and banned from interacting with volunteers who are editing in that topic area, per WP:GS/BI and WP:BAN.

    --Cailil talk 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    discussion part one

    Though I'm no longer involved with BISE, I'd recommend waiting until the LM account's 72hr block expires, before continuing further on disciplinary action. It was annoying enough having the LB account's continous protests over it's civility sanctions being passed during its own block. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your point GD but if the community wants to look at a full site ban I'll unblock LM on the condition that he only posts here. If the community wants to take the other road it's unnecessary. This isn't a court proceeding it's moderation of an internet project - our contrib history speaks for us--Cailil talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just looking at your first diff there in your list Calil - if you look at the 12 diffs from 3rd October to 8th October - there is a budding little edit war (8 edits) there about tags involving several recognisable names from BISE. On your second diff, HighKing reverts a different editor, TharkunColl, twice, on an article he has never edited before, in order to exclude the word british isles. LemonMonday then reverts him once. I haven't yet looked through all the diffs but I remember noting in the previous ANI thread on this subject that certain editors were being pilloried for reverting edits on articles they'd never edited before when in fact the editors making the original change or original revert had never edited them before either. I shall look through the other diffs too. Fainites barleyscribs 22:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 3 - another little two reverts each edit war between User:HighKing and user:TharkunColl on British Isles versus British Islands (!?!) then one revert from Lemon Monday. Nobody having edited it before.
    Number 4 same again. Looks like a series of little articles on fauna, translated from nl.
    Number 5 same again.
    Number 6 is a little different. It dates to October 2008. However, again it is an edit war between TharkunColl and HighKing started by this peculiar edit by HighKing. Lemon Monday comes in for the last edit.
    Number 7 is his contribs.Fainites barleyscribs 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point Fainites. HK's edits then, 2008, were extremely problematic but HK's edit pattern changed. That does not excuse LM's wikihounding then, nor does it now of Fmph. LM should not be involving himself in revert warring at all anywhere - he fact that he has chosen to follow users he is in disagreement with elsewhere just makes that worse. He has been doing this since '08 to present.
    If there is a problem LM should report it - as he has been invited to do for months. Rather than do so he has breached 3RR and the British Isles topic probation. And he has done so after blocks, warnings and community input (ANi threads etc). Therefore he knows he should be doing this and is choosing to anyway.
    On the matter of the usage of WP:BISE (which is/was part of the problem) that is being reformed to come in line with site standards and if I find anyone from either side editing in a manner incompatible with WP:5 they'll be brought here. W.hat makes this especially serious from my perspective is that LM's edits have the appearence of hounding a user he's in disagreement with in an Ireland topic area to another topic area - in other words the BI dispute is being spilt over onto unrelated pages.
    I included teh contribs deliberately so people can have quick access to LM's main space edits to see how many are and are not reverts--Cailil talk 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not waving a flag for LemonMonday! It just seems to me that if HighKing changes British Isles where he can and then revert wars to keep it that way, I don't see why the last reverter in line is the only one criticised when none of them have edited any of these articles other than to edit war over British Isles. I don't see how HK's editing pattern has changed that much except that he very carefully keeps under 3 reverts. It also seems to me that if an editor spends his time hunting down and removing a legitimate term he has taken a particular dislike to then it seems odd to complain if other editors hunt down his changes and revert them. Technically the latter could be called hounding or stalking - but then what is HKs activity called? (By the way "British Islands" is not a term I have ever heard in all my puff). Fainites barleyscribs 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the later set of diffs - these aren't BISE punch ups. The argument is over adding northern european climate as the norm. Fmph and LemonMonday each reported each other for 3RR/edit-warring.lemonMonday reported and Fmph for 3RR/edit-warring and another editor reported lemonMonday. LemonMonday was 3RR and got 72 hours. Fmph wasn't. I agree they are BISE spin-offs though. Fainites barleyscribs 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fmph wasn't what? And please strike your comment that I reported LM. I didn't. Fmph (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't 3RR. And sorry - it wasn't you that reported LemonMonday.Fainites barleyscribs 09:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to remind anybody who's eyes haven't glazed over at the mention of the word BISE, the terms of the probation are Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. By that definition, HighKing and TharkunColl's behaviour should be looked at as well. British Islands appears in some translated stubs. TharkunColl changes British Islands to British Isles. HK reverts. TharkunColl reverts it back and HighKing reverts again. Then LemonMonday reverts HighKing. Just looking at number 3, none of them could have looked at the reference which clearly gives a map of Europe. Fainites barleyscribs 10:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see this is turning into the usual. Let's put up a HK smokescreen and TOTALLY forget the issue at hand. Bjmullan (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a somewhat bad faith way of looking at it Bjmullan. I have not been "involved" in BISE until I looked into it quite recently simply because of it's frequent appearance here and I find a lot of it frankly absurd. I call it like I see it. If you have any detailed challenge to what I say the diffs show - by all means expound it here. I am not - as I said - waving a flag for LemonMonday. I am indicating that examination of the diffs so far appears to indicate that all 3 may well not be abiding by either the spirit or letter of the probation. Obviously diffs will need to be examined further.Fainites barleyscribs 10:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's not. Why exactly am I being dragged into this for edits since 2008 that are nearly 3 years old? Before BISE was started? Before BISE sanctions were even talked about and created? Now *that's* bad faith. --HighKing (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the first diff is 2010 and most of the others are late 2009. The probation may be more recent but the same arguments and problems have been going for years. I raised this point because the diffs regarding LemonMonday were provided although I take your point that TharkinColl was not involved in 2010. Fainites barleyscribs 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's the nub of the problem, and the nub of *your* biased view. Since 2008, my behaviour has changed. I learned, I discussed, I am civil. I work with the community. I follow policy. What is being highlighted here is LemonMonday's behaviour and failure to meaningfully contribute, and *your* failure to objectively look at his behaviour and instead try to turn this into (yet another) "Close Down BISE" or "HighKing is evil" rant. Your own opinion on the merits or otherwise of BISE (which are pretty well known) should not be confused with objectively examining Cailil's opening statement and LM's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And is anyone going to tell the editors in question that their motives and behaviour is being questioned at ANI? Fmph (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fainites while as I said above I see your point about the edits in 2008 by HK but the reason I bring up LMs edits from 2008 is because his pattern of main space edits is the same as it was then and becuase LM has a very limited number of article contribs - most of them reverts of HighKing and now a new more serious pattern of hounding is starting.
    This thread is about a pattern of abuse by LemonMonday from 2008 to present. The reformed BISE should deal with any further 'first mover issues'. LM has a pattern of about 60 hounding reverts from his last 100 cntribs regardless of the topic probation that stretch from September 2008 to present, that is the issue here not whether HK and TharkinColl were sanctioned (btw TharkinColl was sanctioned by BlackKite in the period you discuss). As I have stated many times if HK was continuing in the vein he had been in 2008 his edits would be an issue for me. But he's not. This thread is going back on topic - to deal with the issue of LemonMonday's behaviour at present and his choice to ignore 1 and half years worth of advice and warnings to change--Cailil talk 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly. My concern was that the list of edits you raised showed BISE behaviour from a number of editors rather than a pattern of LemonMonday hounding one editor, mostly in late 2009 and one in 2010. It seems to me that if there is a campaign to remove the use of a particular phrase from wikipedia, there will inevitably be a counter campaign in the other direction with most if not all of those involved following each other's edits. The recent diff in 2010 involved several BISE editors. I take my hat off to you for trying to police this situation and keep it within bounds. I have not really commented substantially on the situation with Fmph except to say LM 3RRd and Fmph didn't. I agree this thread should get back on topic. Fainites barleyscribs 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs Fainites. I just want to deal with what's in front of me first. I do sincerly think that the problem you mention (the firt mover in these revert wars) should be resolved by BISE's review. I see a problem with any campaign to remove any term anywhere on WP and I hope and trust that the preponderance of good editors (those who put WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR firt) at BISE will keep things in order if editing atmosheres can be normalized--Cailil talk 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Here is the bottomline. I am not accusing anyone but am stating clearly for non-involved editors the context and what has been going on in this area.

    This is the third time Cailil has initiated a banning discussion against someone who was blocked from defending themselves in the British Isles area; myself, Triton Rocker and now LemonMonday. More than "annoying" doing so seem plainly unethical to me. In all three cases, despite the same group of editors being involved in similar behaviour, the proposed sanctions have always been one-sided. "The Community" applying such sanctions rarely goes outside of the same involved characters.

    It takes two or three to tango. At the very least, to appear fair, the ban/sanction should be two way. This issue has been raised before by others [25] and myself recently on his talk page. Fmph is a British Isles renaming dispute regular, not estranged from and edit wars in this area. SarekOfVulcan has also involved himself in editing warring in this area. LemonMonday just fell for a simple "gotcha". I have not looked closely at the timestamps but if he is editing from the UK, he may well have done so overnight and thought himself to be clear of any possible 3RR. He did the responsible thing but reporting an edit-war first. [{WP:AGF]]

    Looking at the edit it would seem an exceptionally petty issue of no great importance or damage to the Wikipedia. Never before has Belgium been so exciting. Reading the source Fmph gave, there is no mention of Belgium in it nor specific geographic definition of it and so surely it was correct to remove it?

    Reading what Fainites writes about the validity of all the references, once we remove their apparently impressive barrage and all the policy talk, do we really have anything of substance here? Are there really any terrible abuses going on? No, not at all. HighKing is again dragged back into the discussion as progenitor of the problems. Bjmullan comes in again to support on one side. [26] Snowded will soon appear to propose a case by case approach. It is the same old British Isles renaming dispute, business as usual.

    If there is something to be done regarding the British Isles renaming dispute, it should be done fairly and en masse rather than the same admins taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game. It goes without saying that doing so changes the balance of the discussion on British Isles related issues. Coincidentally it is always to advantage one side's while other abuses are ignored.

    I have recently suggested that what is really needed is to take the British Isles renaming dispute issue to Arbcom and was accused sorely for doing so by Cailil but, for everyone's sake, we need somewhere where the events will be looked at fairly by uninvolved third parties and moderated. This attempted sanction is just part of a bigger play and should not be allowed on its own. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would advise reading this and this also to get a flavour of these absurd disputes - absurd on all sides. Fainites barleyscribs 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps just call the place Lizland (l'island) and be done with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wot, Belgium? Fainites barleyscribs 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'd call Belgium other names.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, LB fails to mention anything about LM following me first to Climate of Ireland, and later to Belgium, articles he had never previously edited. Neither does he explain why any edit to the Belgium article has anything to do with the British Isles (Hint: the correct answer is that it doesn't so it's pretty safe to assume that LMs actions were against me, and not against what I was editing). And the bad faith allegations and emotive language against Cailil (talk · contribs) "taking sniper shots at individual editors in order to take them out of the game" is pretty typical of his/her ad hominem attack style. Unreal! Fmph (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fmph ignore this please I have asked LB to strike his ad hominem remarks--Cailil talk 13:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanction discussion

    What is being proposed is that LemonMonday is either site banned or topic banned from all Britain and Ireland topics and banned from interacting with all editors involved at the British Isles naming dispute anywhere on wikipedia. The reasons are given in full in the first post along with diffs, but in short LemonMonday has a pattern of hounding reverts of editors from the British Isles topic. That is now extending beyond the topic into other areas thus creating a battleground and revert warring thus disrupting the project to make a point--Cailil talk 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months, and see if the editor can do better after a break from the topic. This is a measure I think we should use more frequently, before things come to an indefinite topic ban or site ban. (Part of me is tempted to topic ban/interaction ban the entire BISE crowd for 3 months - Wikipedia won't collapse in their absence, and they might return to the topic later on a bit wiser.) Rd232 talk 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for block/ban applied to entire BISE crowd. If it takes two to tango, HighKing's British Isle renaming dispute WP:BISE is a Buenos Aires ballroom (and Buenos Aires is neither in the British Isles nor Britain and Ireland, although they have just opened up a Grill in Dublin [27] which I suppose makes Ireland the largest geographic area ... zzzz).
    If there is need for any sanctioning or banning, and this case look very petty and one sided, it should involve both parties equally. --LevenBoy (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which 'both' parties? The reason that it's 'one-sided' (in your narrow POV), is that only one side is behaving badly. The preferred response would be for 'both' sides to behave properly and then the balance would be restored. So you chivy up 'your' lot to behave properly and I'll talk to 'my' lot. This response smacks of desperation as it looks like you may lose your tag team partner, so your repsonse is to ban everyone on the other side of the argument, who have been behaving themselves. Fmph (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You and LemonMonday. The dispute in itself if not worth a fig but using it as an excuse to take out a player in the British Isle renaming dispute is. --LevenBoy (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what have I done wrong to warrant being banned? Don't you get it? LM broke the rules. I didn't. That's why the proposal is to topic-ban LM. Good grief. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is right! Fmph (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LevenBOy you have had FULL and fair warning to abide by your editing restriction and stop using wikipedia as a battleground either strike your commentry calling my actions unethical/involved, and your opiniosn about other users or you will be blocked for breaching that restriction (full warning given here)--Cailil talk 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • topic ban and interaction ban for 3 months and to be applied just as stringently (and perhaps more swiftly) to other editors who cannot abide by community policies. Enough is enough, it's time to get tough. --HighKing (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

    User:Kotniski

    Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus.[28][29][30][31] Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition.

    User:Ludwigs2

    Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[32][33][34] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[35][36][37] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 did not explain the mass changes and did not gain consensus despite claims to the contrary. See User talk:Ludwigs2/Archive 12#Continuing to make substantial changes to NPOV without consensus.

    Other editors do share my concern on the talk page. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV without consensus that again altered the core meaning or original intent of ASF. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute where there is none. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF. I see that Kotniski and Ludwigs wanted to rewrite NPOV to be simple. The rewrite is less explicit and vague. They think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow an improvement. The mass rewrite is incoherent and makes little sense. Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV without support from the community. See User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5#NPOV and the most recent discussion at User talk:Kotniski/Archive 6#Mass changes to NPOV without consensus. Kotniski cannot explain how weakening NPOV was an improvement to the page. The section name "Different points of view" was deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 43#Section name for the discussion of the section name. There was some discussion about the massive change to policy. See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 44#Removal of .22Assert facts.22 again. Too many changes were made without substantially improving NPOV policy. The last massive change by Ludwigs2 essentially deleted long established ASF policy originally written by Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The place for this is the talk page of the policy. If people don't share your concerns there, then either abide by that consensus or try a "requests for comment". Nothing here needs admin attention.--Scott Mac 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, you said this is "without consensus" on the talk page and then that others "do share my concern on the talk page". Which is it?--Scott Mac 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding a note that I am aware of and following this thread. This is a bit of a head-scratcher, so I'll refrain from commenting for the moment unless someone particularly wants to hear something from me. --Ludwigs2 00:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
      • This is core policy, and one of the places where we must certainly avoid making significant changes without very good consensus. This is no place to experiment. Alternative wordings that have any significant implications are fine to propose, but not to adopt without full agreement. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Further to DGG, policy, even or especially a major one as NPOV, is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and all such policy rewrites can do is reflect what incremental changes have happened in the application of that policy in practice. Any changes that do not reflect that consensus are worthless. Since disputes over the wording are largely irrelevant to the contributors to Wikipedia, there is nothing that admins here can do it - at least on these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs for Kotniski and Ludwigs2 are incredibly old for something to be brought here. The ones I checked (more than half) are from April, May, and October. This is ridiculous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, well, I suppose I should chime in on this point, just for clarification. these changes were made to the policy page in accordance with a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page between something like 8 or 10 editors. I can recap the rationales for the changes if you like, but suffice it to say that this was not simply unilateral changes made by me and Kotniski. In the subsequent months after the changes, QuackGuru has made frequent complaints about them on the talk page (and on my talk page, and elsewhere). Numerous editors have tried to discuss the matter with QG, but he does not really respond to discussion, he simple repeats the complaint (almost verbatim with the wording he used here). As far as I can see, QuackGuru is the only editor watching the page who objects to the changes, he has had no luck arguing against the editors who respond to him on the NPOV talk page, and so he has come forum shopping over here at ANI.
    Anyone who wants to join in the discussion about the changes is obviously welcome to, and I can't see any problem with QG seeking out a wider audience to review them, but this is not really an ANI matter. --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you revert RexxS after RexxS objected to the mass changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings are the same as Ludwig's. The modifications were made gradually by several editors and with general consensus, in line with ongoing talk-page discussion; QuackGuru seems to object to certain things, but doesn't seem capable of expressing his objections with sufficient precision to become properly involved in the discussion. While the policy page is now better than it was, I don't think it's entirely satisfactory yet, for many reasons, so I would certainly encourage further discussion (perhaps after a period of reflection) to work on making it better still.--Kotniski (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only change to ASF I see is cosmetic. The essential bits are preserved. Of the two example removals provided above, only the "according to" thing isn't really addressed (the in-line dilution is certainly a V thing more than an NPOV thing*), and honestly there are a million ways to present things as (un)controversial when they are(n't), and all of that can be and probably has been forked to any one of dozens of explanatory pages. Until more examples are provided, I don't see any fundamental change to policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC) * Although I can sort-of see how it's related to the cite-stacking[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] problem. Truth™ by numbers![reply]

    Yes, the changes were largely cosmetic. But you're also right about the inline attribution issue, and I think, for QuackGuru that was the key loss. If a non-opinion could be reliably sourced then I believe in QG's reading, it had to be presented as a plain fact in the most direct and assertive way. This made situations where there was, for example an uncontested systematic review in controversial field, an easy situation to navigate, because that finding just had to be stated as a plain fact (i.e. Mars is a planet; Chiropractic is not worth the risk of dying). My reading of the current guidance on assertions is that editors have leeway to determine just how 'plain' a fact is given context and can decide how much inline attribution to use depending on the effect and impression different phrasings have balanced against the usefulness of adding attribution in certain cases. This is a complicated area for sure, but I didn't see any other editors besides QG offering the critique of the changes. Ocaasi (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You did see other editors diagreeing with the edits on the talk page but you chose to dismiss others who disagree with you including the comments made by RexxS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology if I forgot about Rexxs. I meant that after the edits were made, there was little to no objection for the past two months except from you. That doesn't make the current version right, but I think it kind of squashes this already pointless thread. Ocaasi (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Basically, the presence of a citation can create the impression of a controversy where there is none (or vice-versa)? I'd agree with that. The solution is trivial, too, by defining "fact" and "opinion" (no disagreement in reliable sources & value judgment or contested). Currently, NPOV does a poor job of explaining what is meant by the terms. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone mind if we move this (part of the) discussion over to WT:NPOV, which is where it belongs?--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other editors who disagreed with the changes. RexxS reverted the changes and explained on the talk page the disagreement were not an improvement. It is disingenuous to claim the changes were largely cosmetic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not disingenuous, but maybe premature. If you could explain how it was weakened? There are diffs and a few examples, but nothing appears fundamental changed (to me). There really isn't much discussion on WT:NPOV, so anyone who reads up on this is going to be confused (or I'm an idiot - but there are many idiots). Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is always a really bad idea for any editor engaged in content disputes where a policy applies, to edit the policy. This always gives the appearance of changing policy to support your own position. Changes to policy - especially core policy - must be discussed if challenged, which this clearly is; WP:RBI covers this, but WP:SELFCONTROL should as well. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the edit summary on one of the major changes to policy Kotniski wrote I dare say someone will revert this, but this is my attempt at a true "simple formulation" - if we need more info, couldn't it go in later sections of the policy?). It seems Kotniski knew the edit was controversial because it was unilateral. Kotniski also seem to have known other editors would object to the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I read here, I think the best way forward is to ignore what's written on the policy page (as policy describes what is done, rather than prescribing what must be done), and continue to assert undisputed conclusions from reliable sources with citation, but without attribution. It's a pity that the ASF section has been weakened so that we'll have to have that debate on every talk page with every POV-pusher who wants to discredit a source they don't like, but eventually I expect the policy page will catch up with best practice. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see why you think anything's been weakened - this point is still clearly - perhaps even more clearly now - made on the page (basically it's the third bullet point in the first section, which gives the matter at least the prominence that's due to it). But perhaps comments about the wording of the policy and how further to improve it can be made on the policy's own talk page, as I suggested above - that way it's much more likely to lead to genuine improvement (which is undoubtedly possible and desirable).--Kotniski (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you don't see why I think the policy has been weakened. You prefer your formulation of:
    • Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
    to the previous:
    • Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources.
    It's a pity that you don't see, in the way that I do, that introducing the unqualified "uncontroversial" allows any POV-pusher to claim a controversy exists - even when there is no RS that says so. Similarly, the phrasings "should normally" and "no need for" are weasel, and give licence for further argument for anyone to claim that the policy does not prohibit attribution. The former wording was concise and clear; your saying that the version you created is clearer does not make it so. --RexxS (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the policy is not supposed to prohibit attribution. (Notice that even QG's personal favoured version, quoted below for some reason, only says that facts can be asserted.) These are just not things that can be laid down as laws like you might wish. Judgment and good faith are required from editors. Anyway, discussion can continue on the policy talk page; I suggest that this thread here be closed. --Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A simple formulation

    Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. A "fact", for this policy, is a statement about which there is no serious dispute between reliable sources. For instance, the published finding of a reliable literature review is a fact, when it is not disputed by another secondary source. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No reliable source seriously disputes any of these statements, so Wikipedia articles can simply assert them. Facts can be asserted in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Mars is a planet.") and without an inline qualifier (e.g. "According to...", "John Doe believes...", "The book Manual of Cardiovascular Medicine stated...", "A systematic review...").

    An "opinion", on the other hand, is a statement which expresses a value judgement,[1] or a statement construed as factual that is a matter subject to dispute. There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing or killing animals is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact, but that the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb is a value or opinion.

    Values or opinions must not be written as if they were in Wikipedia's voice. Factually attribute the opinion in the text to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and state as fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source. For instance, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and write: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", including a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool consider the Beatles the greatest band ever", can be made if it can be supported per Wikipedia's verifiability to a particular survey or reliable source. Attribution in the text must accurately reflect the source presented. Do not use terms like "most people" unless a source can be found to substantiate such a claim (See WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL).

    There are bound to be borderline cases where careful editorial judgment needs to be exercised – either because a statement is part way between a fact and an opinion, or because it is not clear whether there is a serious dispute – editorial consideration of undue weight will determine whether a particular disagreement between sources is significant enough to be acknowledged.

    A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When a matter is subject to dispute there are competing, contradictory views between reliable sources. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

    This is the broad consensus version of ASF that can be worked back into policy in about a couple of seconds from now if you want to keep the original intent of NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Janu baba's continuing image upload copyright violations.

    Janu baba (talk · contribs)'s Talk page is full of copyvio notices, yet they continue to upload suspect images. Corvus cornixtalk 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    All images nuked, user warned. Is a warning sufficient for the moment? Fut.Perf. 06:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug. That works for me. Corvus cornixtalk 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that in these cases, we need to go further. I propose an indefinite restriction on Janu baba from uploading any further images to Wikipedia until such time that this editor can demonstrate that they understand about copyright. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look up higher on Janu's Talk page from where you placed a notice. I had already done so. Corvus cornixtalk 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up

    Resolved
     – Our heads are up (and our crips are lacking a smile...) Rd232 talk 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    James Naughtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made a slip of the tongue on Today (BBC Radio 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this morning, a spoonerism of "Jeremy Hunt the culture secretary". It's already led to this: [38]. I semiprotected Jeremy Hunt (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the Naughtie article for 24h, obviously we should not be adding this trivial factoid to biographies until we at least have an indication that it is considered by reliable independent sources to be significant in the context of their entire career. Actually it rises almost to the level of looking up rude words in the dictionary and sniggering. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm suprised the IPs didn't find anything funny about James Naughtie's surname XD --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Naughtie but nice" on twitter just now. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretably, it has made it to the reliable media, eg guardian.co.uk. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure any addition on the grounds that it's in the reliable media could easily be rebutted with WP:UNDUE. StrPby (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Easily, moreover in a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I typically consider a "slip of the tongue" in direct relation to this specific spoonerism to be a good thing, clearly, the IP's addition of it throughout the article was both intentional and inappropriate... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for info, it also made the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Herald Sun of Australia, Reuters Africa, and others. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, because it's a rude word. Tomorrow they will be back to Strictly and Justin Bieber. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't happen to mention Ed Balls at any time during this mess, did he? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being true doesn't make it relevent. Give it a few months. When someone writes an article-length analysis on the use of the naughty word, we may have something. Otherwise, it doesn't rise above the level of triviality for inclusion in any article. --Jayron32 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone says a "Naughtie" word publicly and didn't mean to, it's at best a minor source of humor, not noteworthy for the bio unless it gets broad and continuous coverage. Like the time Shepard Smith on Fox News got his wording mixed up and nearly said "blow job" on the air live and apparently with no built-in delay. The red-faced Smith immediately apologized and said he wouldn't let a slip like that happen again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    News readers known for single events

    Reading up about this has led me to a biography (possibly one of many — I didn't look at the rest of Template:BBC Radio 4) of a living person where a good two thirds of the article is devoted to the person's professional mistakes. Part of the remaining third is busy telling us that there isn't much else to know. I hope that the editors so keen about James Naughtie will work on fixing this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note; we have an intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G's wish is my command. However, her 'professional mistakes' make up a substantial part of the coverage about her, and aren't really that negative. Fences&Windows 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated block evasion by NYScholar sockpuppet

    Despite a one week block by Tiptoety for block evasion on 18 September, User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), assumed to be a sock of banned editor NYScholar has resumed their activities[39], re-inserting trivial minutiae which had been carefully pruned from the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 3 months, since it was 2.1/2 months from their last sanction which indicates the address is stable and is more likely to effect any further attempts to evade their ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Further edits in the same pattern by User:66.66.47.134 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) comm,enced immediately after the block on User:66.66.47.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See this diff. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked for 1 week - we can see if the address is stable by whether the edits continue after the sanction expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat

    Martaattnyatlanta (talk · contribs) made a legal threat at User talk:Jadrien. Ks0stm (TCG) 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked. Someone should check this for sockiness. This is not a new user. --Jayron32 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Blocked - about as obvious as legal threats get. ~ mazca talk 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for sockiness, I'm not sure about this not being a new user. User:Jadrien only had two edits, so I don't think it's exactly related to any long running dispute between him and another editor...any ideas? Ks0stm (TCG) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be someone yanking our chain. Anyone who knows inside Wikipedia culture knows our attitude towards legal threats. I find it interesting that one new account shows up and makes a legal threat against ANOTHER new account, with no credible basis for making the threat. Something smells funny. --Jayron32 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a "basis" for the threat (see the contribs, which were to a BLP). I don't see much sockiness here, as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Gwen; this seems to me like what a normal human, unfamiliar with WP policy, would do if they found out that someone on Wikipedia was defaming a person they knew, but who didn't know about WP's aversion to legal threats. I can't argue with the block, but I think there's a more gentle legal block notice somewhere (can't find it right now, tho). A legal threat made on-wiki for defaming someone isn't evil; it simply isn't compatible with editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, on reflection the default legal-threats block template from Twinkle {{uw-lblock}} is rather aggressive and not particularly helpful. Thanks to Floquenbeam for elaborating on the user's talk page, as I probably should have done. If there is a more informative, less bitey template that I've missed, do let me know - although probably custom-written notices are often better here. ~ mazca talk 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is a block is a block. That being said, perhaps we could make it more informative by providing an email to OTRS if need be. Otherwise, just as in real life, legal threats are a serious matter.
    Also I ran a check, and there is nothing else that I see. –MuZemike 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like this are far more dangerous.[[40]].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man.... I must not have realized what I had restored. And the IP is apologized to. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, we are all human here, do humans not make mistakes? - Dwayne was here! 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), working on Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, has been canvassing other editors in the hope that one or more of them will perform reversions on his or her's behalf. Since it is a behavioral matter, and because 3RR has not been broken, I thought it best to mention it here (rather than WP:AN3). I came across this activity because I had the talk page of one of the solicited editors watchlisted (a completely unrelated WP:MEDCAB matter). Here are the troubling diffs: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks like canvassing for help in an edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but this sort of activity doesn't seem to be covered at WP:AN3, so I brought it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, this was is the page for it. I've left them a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to canvassing guidelines, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". However, this was not my intention at all! My purpose was to cancel a version which has violated the three revert rule. If I could cancel it myself, I would, but I can't, because I can't break the 3 revert rule, so I asked other editors to help me cancel the version which violates the 3 revert rule, and again my purpose was just this, and was not to "influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Eliko (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the way to handle an edit war. First off, please undo or strike out the posts. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Eliko - It should be obvious that asking someone else to make an edit that is banned by policy is no different to you yourself making it, or you creating a sockpuppet to make it. In any case, forcing through your preferred version of a page by canvassing does influence the outcome of a discussion: the discussion that should be happening on the talk page to decide how to resolve the content dispute.--KorruskiTalk 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so it's WP:MEAT then? WP:TAGTEAM? A massive WP:EW? One huge violation of WP:BRD? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's so beyond the pale, I don't quite grok why Eliko doesn't understand this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like Eliko is reverting those posts, thanks Eliko. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I could only undo posts which haven't been responded to. 4 posts have already been responded to, so I couldn't undo them (unless Wikipedia is going to allow me to undo posts that have already been responded to). Note also that we are talking about posts edited 4 hours ago, and that when I posted them, my intention was not to "handle an edit war", but rather to cancel prohibited edits: prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mistaken, wholly, as to how this should be handled. As I already said, you can strike the posts out (<s>strike the text like this</s>). Please do this, then we can look at the edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Eliko, the point here is not anyone else's behavior, it's yours. You WP:CANVASSed to get a specific result in an edit war. That Is Not Cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "to get a specific result in an edit war"? had this been my intention, I wouldn't have tried to refer to other editors. However, my intention was not to get a specific result in an edit war. The only "result" I was interested in, was to cancel a prohibited edit. prohibited - according to the three revert rule. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't undo the other edits, so I stroke them out. Eliko (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I only see one left, which I've noted on your talk page. Given your willingness to clean this up, it's not a big deal at all. When that last one is gone, one will be able to talk about your worries over edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eliko has helpfully retracted all the canvassing not rebuffed by a few of the editors. I've left a note as to how edit warring can be handled and tagged the article talk page with a reminder that the topic is under arbcom sanctions. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely this article is covered by the one revert restriction for articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of inappropriate language by User:Ibn kathir

    The User:Ibn.Kathir has been using quite aggressive language; baiting and insulting users. Such language can be categorized as attacks based on race, religion, /creed, etc. The user is continuously refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Talk:Aisha despite being urged to do so by various users. Other users have tried to point out during discussion that they are uncomfortable with her/his words but s/he relies on same language. S/He during discussions at various times have used sectarian words discrediting all attempts for abusive in nature. He is too busy in pushing her/his agenda (of discrediting all Western and Shia Muslim sources & is even selective regarding Sunni sources & selection of matter from them, I quote her/him ,"...most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic...") to respect anyone's opinion &/or Wikipedia policies. It seems s/he has set her/his own guidelines and policy regarding acceptable references. Few of his comments are as follows:

    • idiocy of the...
    • i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources...
    • turning this into a shia propaganda piece...
    • More idiotic shia misquotes...

    S/He has consistently shown his hate/dislike towards Shia, Ahmadiya, and western community in general & scholarship in specific. S/He has shown similar behavior on pages Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, Talk:Abu Bakr, etc.
    Also, it seems User:Ibn.Kathir is employing sockpupputs to advance her/his cause, e.g. User:Ewpfpod, User:Howard.Thomas, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, etc
    --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a content dispute, from your explanation. If you think there's sockpuppetry involved, you should file an WP:SPI report. Also, User:Ibn.Kathir doesn't appear to be registered; did you misspell the username? GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it is Ibn_kathir.--KorruskiTalk 17:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed the user and corrected the username in the thread heading. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Looks like a content dispute" ? This matter was filed because of bad user conduct, how is;

    More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has.

    simply a content dispute? Tarc (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite you to quote the entire sentence; I made it clear I hadn't been able to locate the discussion and that from the quotes the user provided it appeared to be a content dispute. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Certainly not a content dispute - civility with perhaps a racism undertone starting. Nothing blockable yet from what I see - of course, this is an issue that should have been at WP:WQA first ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correct name is User:Ibn kathir. And yes it is regarding content dispute but it seems s/he agrees to nothing and keep using allegations and accusations towards users, communities, creeds, etc. I didn't requested for blocking anyone I just reported the happening and my concerns. The attitude of user is blocking activity on Aisha & it seems on other articles also. We have tried to engage the user but s/he refuse to be constructive contributor. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that it's not just a content dispute. I've warned them about crossing the line into abuse, hopefully they will take heed. Fences&Windows 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI report was filed on 30 November at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi by Faizhaider. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those comments where not aimed at him and meant in the general sense which is different from saying someone is specifically an idiot, further more anyone who can check ip addresses will see i have only one account so i think the person reporting this is doing their utmost to silence any opposition to his views.Ibn kathir (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling a group of people idiots rather than a specific individual only magnifies the problem. If you are calling more than one person an idiot, its a personal attack against more than one person. It certainly doesn't excuse the behavior. --Jayron32 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The way to handle this, Ibn, is don't comment on other editors, comment only on content and how to echo sources in the text. Keep in mind, some sources might not agree with other sources and more than one outlook on a topic can be cited, following WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    if you read the entire section you may come to think the other persons actions [quotations] where deliberate considering what i said earlier, hence my outburst, but yes you are right and i will tone it down. Just to clarify something Shia are not a race so their is no racist undertones. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some do, sometimes and in some places, see Shia as ethnically linked. Either way, putting down a whole swath of believers in a given strain of faith can be every bit as harmful as a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never intend to silence any opposition, in contrary I (& others) tried to include user IK into the discussion and tried to address IK's views and comments even if they were opposite to mine (this can be checked by referring to the conversation on Talk:Aisha) but IK insisted on some points which are even contrary to WP standards (infact we were ready to accept that also and we asked for list of references IK will agree but to no avail). I only reported incident to ANI when it became unbearable for me (& to other users) so that corrective measures may be taken.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    no less hurtful or harmfull than calling Aisha a wretched women, read the comments and you will clearly see that being said prior to anything from myself. She is considered a saint among my people. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither making a religious slur, nor answering with another slur, is on here. It only makes things worse (as seems to have happened). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add User:Ibn kathir insulted me as well in Abu Bakr and Islam and Aisha talk pages, and he called my contributions idiotic and garbages [49].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User IK was the first person on Talk:Aisha to use words like idiotic and garbages and down play opinions of others by labeling them fringe/minority belief/opinion and addressing users based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. e.g. Shia, Ahmadiya, Western, etc. User IK opinioned that no reference on the article Aisha is acceptable except Sunni sources that to interpreted by Sunni scholars and used by Sunni users i.e. practically user IK wants to block away all users from article who contradict opinion of User IK based on their faith (religion/creed), geography, etc. User IK is sort of running Non-cooperation movement added with insults and accusations which target whole communities save individuals.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Block Evasion

    Diffs? - Burpelson AFB 19:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed:

    All accounts plus a small IP range blocked. –MuZemike 20:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Imitator" on Facebook

    Resolved
     – No action needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See this. That is not me. This seems like a fake. Perseus (tc) 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hardly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Searched on Google, barely saw the result, and kinda panicked. Better look before you panic. Sorry. Perseus (tc) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection of U2

    Resolved
     – unprotected, take further comment to its talk DC TC 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    U2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was protected this weekend after a somewhat nasty round of edit warring over inclusion of the term Irish in the lead. There's a consensus on the discussion on its talk to unprotect and include the word, but no one has responded to my request at WP:RFPP DC TC 19:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just make an {{editprotected}} request? You're more likely to gain a prompt response through that, than requesting unprotection and waiting, just to make a single edit. --Dorsal Axe 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the rule, if any, for determining whether an organization is "Irish" or not? Does U2 itself take any position on the matter? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    U2 is canny Irish, Dubliner, way, but if the article narrative is to carry that and some editors don't agree, it's gotta be sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been sourced on the talk page by reliable sources and the and itself. DC TC 19:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont think that sources on the talkpage count for something thats a potential WP:BLP violation here. unless there are credible, consensed sources on the actual article space specifically, I dont think that we can call U2 an Irish or anything of that nature, as per WP:Biography of Living Persons and WP:Music User:Smith Jones 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If they call themselves an Irish band and no notable authorities disagree vehemently, then there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article narrative can indeed read that x more or less widely published source has called them X. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The current wording is "U2 are a rock band from Dublin, Ireland", which is a somewhat weaselly way around the issue; and if they were Americans, it would probably be "U2 is..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See this. If you scroll through, there is a direct quote from Bono in which he says "We are Irish. Completely and utterly 90s Irish." Further, on the RFC, there was not one claim that either Clayton or the Edge (the two allegedly non-Irish members) have challenged the common perception (or Bono's belief) that the band is Irish. DC TC 20:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that can at the very least be cited as a quote from him, though I must say, he may be pushing it, those blokes are 80s through and through. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if they had called themselves "The Irish Band" instead of "U2", and played the Clancy Brothers' songbook instead of rock, there wouldn't be a debate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another quote for the discussion: "Bono said it was 'amazing' to think of people in Dublin picking up Time magazine and seeing an Irish band on the cover. 'For so long we were thought of as a British band and that was insulting. To be covered by the international media finally means we've been accepted as Irish.'" <ref>{{title=U2|last=Shirley|first=Jackie|page=46|year=1993|publisher=[[Longmeadow Press]]|location=[[Stamford, Connecticut]]|isbn=0681418753|}}</ref> Maybe this can lay it to rest. Heiro 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, but they're just a band, so what do they know? Wikipedia editors know THE TRUTH. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Awww, Bugs, you forgot the " " and all caps for that Truth, you know it only applies then, lol. Heiro 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Danke.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, truth is holy, but it's not en.WP's gig. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well, as per WP:MOS, cant we just say that they are from Dublin and alow the reader to determie on their own if this means that they can be labelled as Irish or not. I just dont feel as if its Wikipedias place to decide that U2 is an Irish band for the entrie world or not, especially since people just mention vague, nonspecific sources and refusing to offer actual citations ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF (instead just plastering on them on random places where no one can find them). Its a WP:BLP issue and we should tread carefuly. User:Smith Jones 23:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you read? Two sources quote the band itself saying they're Irish. Reliable sources use the term Irish to describe the band. Further, there's been no assertion made anywhere in any reliable sources that the band isn't Irish. Nor have the two members of the band born outside of Ireland challenged it anywhere. Plus, there's a consensus on the talkpage that the term is to be included, so this dicussion is moot. DC TC 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the group themselves verifiably say they are An Irish Band, then there is no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LAME much? – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User contributions, User is acting in bad faith and personally attacking other editors over his edits at Softpedia. He is not quite understanding policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and others. He's been warned but it seems he has a disregard for what he has done. Input greatly appreciated. Momo san Talk 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While the user definitely got off to an unpleasant start, there are a few signs for hope that xhe'll improve. After initially editing in the same way as User:193.226.140.133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), xhe's registered an account. After being asked, xhe's started signing posts. The sniping seems to have slowed down, if not stopped. I would urge that we show a little patience with a novice editor. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that you've identified folk correctly? Isn't KeepInternetSafe&Clean the user who was 69.114.240.113? Surely 193.226.140.133 is the Softpedia CoI editor on the other side of the dispute? - David Biddulph (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh, my head hurts! Yes, David's got it right. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC) I am not sure if I am allowed to post here (if not my appologies)...I am posting here my last two posts from the talk page[reply]

    KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you.

    KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC) It is clear to me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Wikipedia can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Wikipedia should stand for.

    Just for the sake of discussion (you guys cost me too much time anyway), can I escalate this issue to a higher-up level, supervisor(s), maybe mr Jimbo?

    Thanks.

    Oddity on User:Silenzio76

    A question for the geeks: I landed more or less by accident on this user page, which displays the Recent changes. When I clicked on "User contributions" my PC almost crashed, for reasons I can't fathom, and I don't want to repeat the experiment (you know, PCs running Windows and all). In the end, my PC froze for a few minutes and now seems to be back to normal, but I thought I'd ask around to see if some devastating script was running. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried it and did not have any problem. One problem I do have is that user has altered the title of his userpage to suggest it is some other page (a "special:" one at that!). That's hella-misleading--cool, but bad to mess with the interface that way. DMacks (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here either. The userpage retitling apparently comes from his inclusion of {{Special:Recentchanges/100}}. Not sure what the call is on that. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Tarc, my screen froze showing that "Recentchanges/100" thing, and I couldn't figure out what that meant. Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc, DMacks, et al: please check out this edit and revert if I overstepped my boundaries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems appropriate to me. The editor was only active for a few months and not in the past few months, so can always help/advise him further if he returns. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

    Can we indef block this guy? Per this, he's been indef blocked twice already with other accounts, one being the super-troll User:Bad edits r dumb. All of Fat Man's edits are trolling, and he has been calling other users "dumb" constantly as of late. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For saying what? "I hate admins?". Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any recent diffs to support problems recently? Wikipedia review notwithstanding, do you have any on-wiki evidence of recent disruption? Perusing his recent contributions, I do find some positive content work, including some extensive work on expanding and cleaning up at least one or two articles. While content work cannot override bad behavior, his edits don't appear to have consisted of, "All... trolling" as you claim. I am well aware of this users past, blocked identities, but given that he seems to have turned over a new leaf, and is not currently causing a problem, on what specific, diff-supported grounds do you wish to see him blocked? --Jayron32 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [50], [51], [52], [53] to name a few. I just think that his trolling has far outweighed any positive contributions he has made. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI section is more disruptive than anything linked above. Please contribute to the encyclopedia rather than attempting to ban a good editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does everyone keep trying to defend this troll? "Good" editors don't have their main accounts indef blocked four times now. His unblock requests even show that he is just a troll (see his talk page). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please side with love rather than hate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "The love you take is equal to the love you make." Such as the love shown for both the editors and for the English language, in comments like "u r dumb." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's time to block. Per my comments here - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's four sketchy edits in the past month. I agree that the 4 edits you provided are bad, and should ideally never happen, but I do not think that they rise to the level of instantly blockable. --Jayron32 21:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with an indef block. --John (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You people are being unnecessarily ruthless and thin-skinned. Users should not be blocked for something they wrote on another website with the exceptions of canvassing and child pornography.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [54], [55], [56]... all within the past month. I don't read the crap he writes on WR, I am basing this purely on his disruptive editing here and with his other trolling account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He said "u r dumb" as recently as today.[57] Having escaped 4 indef's, he probably figures he's teflon. Maybe time to apply the brillo pad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Teflon is cheap and artificial; I'm more like carefully seasoned cast iron, rich with years' build-up of carbonized grease and free of metallic flavor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Slippery, either way. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why start off with a link to WR? That appears to be the motivation for this thread. These wiki-links (mostly from early November) appear to be attempts at humor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hey, Saturn, U R dumb!" That was pretty funny, yes? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I LOLed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will now file a grievance at WP:EQ.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm shaking in my jackboots. :) Or is it Fat Man who'll be your target? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The things that really made me start this thread were (1) his post on WR right after BErD was indef blocked, and (2) the diff provided by Bugs to TCNSV's talk page, which is on my watchlist. I searched through WR for the original post (I assumed no one else made the connection between the two accounts yet, for which I was mistaken), but found this one instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After Fat Man's sock was blocked for giving wikipedians the BErD, it's odd that his original account was allowed to continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind what I said earlier, based on his last comments here today, he shows no remorse or signs of intending to take the project seriously. I would support an indefinitate block here. Significant is his prior history. I would never think of blocking a user if this was the sum total of problems. But given his extensive history of general trolling, I see no evidence he intends to stop. --Jayron32 21:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I, er, refactored my comments, like when i said that guy was dumb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeh,[58] after the threat of indef started to look realistic, and meanwhile invoking the ID of your indef'd sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Every comment here, including this one, is troll feeding. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM P-:--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, again, are we not blocking him until he starts acting like an adult human being again? --Conti| 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, clearly hasn't changed and is evading block. Someone just do it. Netalarmtalk 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! i will submit to mentorship and adoption and arbcom sanctions and all manner of indignities. but pls don't block me because i have a lot of constructive edit todo before i die. :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only hope this means you're going to die soon... HalfShadow 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly at the end of something resembling cable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HE MADE DEATH THREATS TO ME!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. Looks like a hope for divine intervention of some kind. That's not a death threat. Unless he has God's private phone number on speed-dial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Times like this I wish the computer had a punch button. Isn't there a cartoon you could be watching, Fat? HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) HalfShadow 22:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging by that block log, the blocked sock and the several nonsensical comments above, the user is either on a long-term trolling campaign or simply does not have the temperament required for useful contribution in a collegial, collaborative, adult environment. I agree with Jayron32 and Eagles247 and support an indefinite block.  Sandstein  22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i hope you do not become an arbcom sandstein becos you are wrong in this case. also a lot of my block log are outright MISTAKES (do your research) but a couple of them were legitamate and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note I have blocked User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back indefinitely for trolling and disruption. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Re-open discussion, The Fat Man indef

    I see a whole lot wrong with this block, and it needs to be undone. First, several of the diffs above are old and have nothing to do with current activity. Second, Eagles jumped into a matter that was already settled. Third, the allegation that TFM has made no productive edits is simply wrong. Is no one paying attention here? You don't get to re-block someone based on an old, already visited block without new problems. This is a bad block, looking like someone just wanted to block The Fat Man based on a months old post to WR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that another boomerang coming this way? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's troubling that Eagles247 puts up old diffs, of an already discussed unblock, then alleges no productive edits (which TFM's contribs clearly shows is untrue), jumps into an already settled matter to allege disruption, and then everyone else piles on like sheep and no one bothers to check. Bad all 'round. If you want to block TFM, you can't do it because you don't like something he wrong on WR months ago. Is anyone paying attention here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, I made a judgment solely on his contributions on Wikipedia, not WR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i actually agree with this block, but why did the administrator Eagles start the thread in the 1st place if he was just going to block the guy regaldess of anything anyone here said? why not just do it yourslef if you werent seeking consensapproval without going through this weird ritual? User:Smith Jones 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to know what Eagles was doing in there at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would have agreed with the block being a person who supported indef before, there was no consensus in here for a block, the best solution is to create an RFC. So unblock and develop a better consensus on this Secret account 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to do anything as big as this without first getting the opinions of the community. I am still a newer admin, and TFM has been indef blocked many times and subsequently unblocked. I waited a little bit for another admin here to do it, but I decided to step up and do it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is really poor reasoning, as are your old diffs, your diff to an old post on WR, and the 22 minutes you allowed for discussion. Please undo this bad block now, and gain consensus for an indef. Deciding to "step up and do it" doesn't show the valiant judicious decision you might think it does; it shows impulsivity and a lack of diligence or even review of the matter. What brought you to this matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy - did you even read the crappy luz-filled edits from this editor just above?. I give him top marks for being a manupilative and clever little prick, and artfully manouvering various editors as they jump though wiki-hoops to AGF etc. etc. Ultimately however a pointless troll whose fun needs to end (if only because we're all bored of it now - Fat Man - seven year olds find repetitive comedy humorous - the rest of us like fresh material - there's a good chap) - keep blocked and block the future socks. It's not complex. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedro, why are you not blocked for calling another editor a "clever little prick"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know Sandy - perhaps you have an idea - why not fill the rest of us in on your thoughts? Whilst we're at it I've a mental list of admins and bureaucrats whose behaviour has gone well beyond blocking yet nothing ether happens - your mate Raul being a shining example. I'm sure there must be a reason why these people (me included) don't seem to get blocked.... Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to be a freshly minted admin making a mark. But others weighing in here didn't exactly look at evidence before issuing an indef. Wrong on many levels; 22 minutes between notification and indef block? That's lots of discussion. Unblock needed. Pedro, I think LULZ is a rather normal response when one is targetted by a freshly minted admin. Yes, I went through all the diffs before weighing in here; how many of you did ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, with respect I'm not exactly the most block happy admin around - but the "oh look a death threat" and "nom nom" all caps bullshit is hardly overlookable. I don't need to remind you that indef doe not mean infinite..... I personally think we'd all be happier without Fat Man, but that's my opinion only and consensus may well be different. Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For gosh sakes, why not respond with lulz to something as stupid as this? Beats indignation. Of course, we don't yet know the background or what brought Eagles247 to this matter anyway. Maybe you'd be happier without TFM, but speak fer yerself. I'd be happier with less child admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure which bit of but that's my opinion only you missed in my comment immediately above yours but funnily enough I was speaking for myself. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro :  Chat  23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I am missing something really obvious here. But if he has been indeffed under other accounts, and those indef blocks still stand, is he/she not evading a block with this new account? Sorry this question seems so obvious I think I must be missing something.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ...or is The Fat Man account the master account and the former accounts were blocked as socks? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fat Man is the main account, then he devised the plan to troll with BErD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesnt really matter whether or not that Eagles is a new admin or not. he has the right to block accorind to Wikipedia policies. my real confusion here is why he bothered to even make this WP:ANI report in the first place. he was already convinced that The Fat Man should be blocked when he made it; he left it open for about .22 hours worth of comments then indef blocked him. my question is -- why not just skip the WP:ANI rigmarolodex and just block the guy, if consensus is so unimportant?? User:Smith Jones 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If everyone here said "NOOOO DON'T BLOCK HIM!" then I wouldn't have blocked. I wasn't sure what the rest of the community would think about my decision if I just blocked him, esp. because other admins have unblocked TFM in the past. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    the notice here was made for teh Lulz. now eagles is a big time AN/I endorsed admin blocker of problem editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    no offense, and i dont want to tell how to do your job, but you shouldnt really care about that. or, if you are going to care aobut that, you should give us more than a couple of minutes to talk about it. opening this thread and then abruptly resolving it without ereaching any consensus just creates more bad feelings than if you had just blocked the sucker (evne though i agree with your block, i still think that you picked a weird way to do it). Your decision was right, but you kind of took the long way around and now you're rubbing lots of people the wrong way who now think you just asked for their opinions specifically so that you could cut them off and ignore them halfway thorugh a convservation. User:Smith Jones 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As a wise admin once said, no one is perfect when they obtain the tools. Adminship is a learning process, and I have learned from this thread how to address a disruptive user. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through the diffs I have to say I support this block. It's annoying because the user has made good edits, no doubt about it. The user himself asked on User talk:Gimmetrow (can't be bothered fishing out the diff) "Can I have, like, a trolling "allowance" where I can perform mostly (let's say 93%) innocuous edits?". No, that can't be allowed to happen. And it will happen if he is not indefinitely blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eagles, those diffs look stale to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please elaborate further? I know he was blocked less than a month ago, but he clearly has not changed based on his comments in the thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Posts on WR are mostly meaningless here. As for the en.WP diffs, blocks are preventative, not punitive. What's he done lately? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A proposal should be made to Fat Man that he should stop trolling, or it's indef the next time it happens. Undo this block and I'll propose a solution, his comments and article writing are sometimes spot on. It's hard to tell the difference between trolling or a good faith comment. Secret account 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with this proposal, but I doubt he'd take it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously? We block troll accounts all the time. Why is this one an exception? AD 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not do your homework instead of asking dum questions here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin did the right thing by asking some opinions first, which is what good admins should do in cases that might be debatable. Fat Man / BErD is only blocked, not banned, so he's free to make a reasonable argument as to why he should get unblocked, if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only opinions one is likely to get in 22 minutes are those who have this page watchlisted. This may be a cross-section of you, but not of the community. And how would the community have been damaged by a full discussion before the block, given the age of the incidents complained of? Kablammo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe every user in wikipedia should be notified of every possible decision under discussion, so that we can actually get full input from "the community". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    22 minutes from notice to the editor until indefblock is hardly adequate.
    Do you really contend that it is?Kablammo (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if some real admins had weighed in, instead of the usual denizens of this dungeon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My guess is that he's "mates" with certain 'respected' and 'influencial' editors. This would not otherwise normally be tolerated. Wikipedia is (meant to be) a serious project. Jokers are for the schoolyard. AD 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm lost. Who are we talking about? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, The Fat Man... AD 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How you might quietly unblock with a note in the log, "no consensus yet"? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Focus, boys, focus. We're talking about 1) what brought you (Eagles247) to this matter and why didn't you read TFM's talk page, and 2) why isn't Pedro blocked for calling The Fat Man a "clever prick"? And in general, we're talking about why a small subset of people who hang out at ANI make decisions to indef a user in 22 minutes with little discussion, no homework, and no knowledge of the situation or the editor in question. Or, as Gwen Gale says, how long it's going to take Eagles247 to figure out how to undo the bad block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I was part of the BErD blocking discussion, and I saw TFM's post on WR about how fun it was to mess with Wikipedia. I was a little frustrated, but an admin assured everyone prior that there was a legitimate reason for the alt. account. I have Tele... 's talk page on my watchlist, and I noticed TFM's "u r dumb" comment to his page. I investigated into TFM's return, but failed to notice his recent block. 2) Dunno, probably not that severe of a personal attack 3) I did my homework on TFM, thank you 4) Gwen never said whether she was for or against the block, but rather she didn't agree with the process (like many others, including you, here). I'm not going to unblock unless consensus can be reached here. There's no need for TFM to troll here when he is perfectly able to request unblock on his talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a good block, and if Fat/BErD really cares about it, he can post a reasonable unblock request. What Pedro said is more a comment on behavior. Calling people "dumb" is a personal attack, a hundred times worse than metaphorical comments about body parts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Kablammo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad we're clear that it's ok to call people pricks on Wiki; Baseball, if I call you a prick, will I be blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I'd recognize that you're just needling me. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sandy, can't say I'm surprised to see you defending this editor here. If you're so concerned about the lack of discussion here and the supposedly early block without properly understanding the situation. I fail to understand how you could have supported Gimmetrow's unblock (after countless unblock requests being declined by a number of admins, and without any discussion at all. I suggest anyone who does want to do homework on this read User_talk:Gimmetrow#What_do_you_think_you.27re_doing.3F. As to Pedro's behaviour, while highly improper, it's not relevant to this, you're making that mistake again, of thinking that the actions of certain users (specifically admins) justify trolling by others. As to what brought Eagles to this matter, I again fail to see the relevance. Also, saying the edits are stale is a poor excuse, and that the fat man had been unblock after some of them even more so, considering the circumstances of the unblock. It seems like most users here support a block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not surprised that you again fail to see any relevance, or that you still haven't understood that Gimme's unblock was proper. Hang in there, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we just take this down a couple of notches please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that be from "prick" to just "dick", or just how would we go down a notch from the typical discourse acceptable at ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The fact that Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today is the answer to the question, "What has he done lately?", never mind the socking he got away with (for awhile). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised to see SG here, as she is usually a voice of reason. However, this editor has clearly stated their intention to troll Wikipedia and disrupt our project. Instead of being given clear reasoning for unblock, we've been rudely ordered to "do our homework" and "stop asking dumb questions". I did my homework, and I see an editor who has been trolling our project, quite plainly and deliberately. Insulting the admins/editors that comment here isn't going to help anything, rather the opposite. AD 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eagles, the next time you bring thoughts of a block to ANI, wait a little longer for the consensus you seek. As for Pedro, I think he's a bright shining, helium-spewing star of wiki-love :D Gwen Gale (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brilliant, well thats fine so. Wiki love for the admin. Eagle getts 'a little frustrated' reading off site, comes back to wiki, goes through the contribs, plucks out a few from a while back, calls for a lynching, blocks, closes discussion. Job done. Hmm. Could I log in tomorrow or next week and find myself blocked for a combination of things scattered, days, weeks, whatever ago? Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for misunderstanding the timeline, Ceoil. Appreciate it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Ceoil got the timeline exactly right. Just what are you trying to prove here, Eagles? You read some very stale diffs, an offsite old post, and indeffed an editor based on that and one current and already resolved misunderstanding, after 22 minutes of discussion. If you'd like to make a name for yourself as a new admin, this isn't the best way to go about doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep saying this until maybe you read it: Fat/BErD called someone "dumb" just today, and only retracted it after the lightbulb went on and he realized he might not escape his own self-constructed noose this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're so right, Sandy. You're always right. New admins are different than older ones. His four previous indef blocks were mistakes. In fact, TFM isn't a troll, but a constructive user who has never joked on Wikipedia. </sarcasm> What you are missing in all this is the fact that the BErD incident happened months ago, not yesterday. I've told you all of my "motives" for the block, and yet you choose to ignore them and judge me based on your ignorance to any opposing side. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eagles, that is a response fit for a child. Wasn't one of Fat Man's blocks for using the word "douchebaggery"? How is that worse than "prick"? Thank you for confessing that you merely blocked him because he had been previously blocked; great adminning there. In fact, you reblocked him for stale diffs already discussed. You're impressing me more by the minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is sarcasm anymore helpful than what is no more an irritated response to self-righteous insults? AD 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The timeline is a simplified and biased hyperbole. "Calls for lynching", really. This is a website, not 17th century New England. AD 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gwen: Got it, thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block. Enough is enough, this user has wasted too much community time. --Elonka 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a perfectly strange thing to say; I don't see TFM wasting anyone's time here-- looks like this is the Eagles247/Baseball Bugs show. Did you perchance review any of the history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guy had a chance to come here and explain himself, and instead he hanged himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Accusing everyone who disagrees with you (most of the users in this discussion) of not properly reviewing the situation (when they have) isn't very helpful. Those looking at the history may also want to look at your history with this user. I understand you get a laugh out of following The Fat Man's trolling on various sites? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent some time looking through the user's entire history: His block log, his contribs over the last month, and other edits going back years. Is he 100% a drag on the project? No. Has he done anything particularly helpful lately? Not that I can see. Is he disruptive? Definitely. Mostly his edits over the last month have involved leaving insults on talkpages, and posting numerous bizarre questions at various Reference Desk pages, like, "What would happen if scientists blew up the moon?", "Do Filipinos worship chicken bones," "Why do American football coaches dress so sloppily," and "What are the worst American accents in movies?" These kinds of things are not helpful to the project. TFM may have done some good work on Wikipedia in the past, but more recently his actions seem designed to disrupt, and "for the lulz". That is why I am supporting the idea of a permanent ban. Enough is enough. Let's get rid of him and get back to work. --Elonka 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block If we're voting... I've yet to see a single argument that shows TFM is a net positive to our project - only insulting, sarcastic and unpleasant remarks to those who are supporting a block. And yet, I've seen, through diffs here and my own research, that he is unfortunately a net negative currently. So with regret, this is my position. AD 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock: You shouldn't block someone for something said on WR, nor should you block someone for comments made nearly one month ago. This whole episode was a spontaneous reaction (perhaps to what was read on WR) by Eagles247. There was no need for this discussion or block.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're way off the mark. He called someone "dumb" just today, which demonstrates he's learned nothing from having escaped from previous blocks. And he wasn't blocked for WR, just that WR alerted the admin to the user bragging about having escaped 4 blocks, which merited further review of Fat/BErD's situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll wait and see what Fat Man's reaction on this block in his talk page before voting whether to support blocking or unblock Secret account 00:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block of Pedro for calling The Fat Man a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. Also, check out today's featured article. How appropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there should be a vote on how many editors agree with Pedro's assessment of Fat/BErD's behavior? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, now you're trolling, and boring at that. Do you read arb cases? Consensus doesn't overrule wiki pillars, and civility is supposed to be a pillar, and is supposed to be upheld by admins. If a gazillion editors agree with Pedro (they don't), that doesn't make it OK for him to call TFM a prick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're funny. OK, how about if we recommend to block Pedro for an appropriate length, like maybe 5 minutes? Or maybe 10, in order to appease the poor, innocent, aggrieved indefee. Never mind, I see they already took action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking Pedro will just cause unneeded drama, yes his behavior should have been better, but the last thing we need is OMG Drama and lose valuable contributers. We already lost several in the past month, including our FA leader. I left a message on Fat Man's talk page in language he understand. Secret account 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, let's have kiddie kool-ade, while an editor is unjustly blocked and called a prick by an admin. And goodness, let's not cause any drama, for heavens sake, this is ANI !!! Aren't we here because of Eagle247's drama and isn't that the purpose of his thread to begin with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, per TFM's trolling in this very discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I can't see anything in his recent history to justify a block, not even a short one, unless I'm overlooking something. I think the dumb comment was meant as a joke. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      What makes it okay if it's a joke? And what exactly is funny about his edits? You're aware that The Fat Man's humour has included the mocking of mentally disabled people in the past? As to the recent behaviour comment, it is clear from the older behaviour that this is an ongoing problem, it is clear from the (albeit minimal) recent behaviour that this is still ongoing. It's logical to conclude this isn't going to stop (TFM has made at least two promises in the past to stop his trolling. Also making a comment saying he would stop his disruption at ANI, and then making comments like this) see here, a comment from the last admin who unblocked (this comment was prior to comments like this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Kingpin, your dislike of The Fat Man is well known, but you really shouldn't make up stories about him mocking mentally disabled people in the past. That's not nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no dislike of TFM as a person, it's his edits I have issue with. Such as this mocking of mentally disabled people. I fail to see how that is not mocking mentally disabled people, maybe you could explain? - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      These are jokes, Kingpin. I honestly don't see that comment as harmful, and the "U R dumb" thing was nothing. He has a particular sense of humour that maybe you either love or hate, but he doesn't mean any harm. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody has explained to me how this is funny, or this for that matter, and I fail to see how anybody could find them funny, or how attempts at humour justify attacking other editors. As to him not meaning any harm, he's clearly aware that he is trolling, and clearly wants to continue doing so (as evidenced by asking for a "trolling allowance", and making sarcastic promises to stop) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock, Slim has it right, we don't block users based on stale diffs and reading something old offsite we don't like. This was admin drama, nothing more. SandyGeorgia 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block I'll agree that nothing recent is in and of itself worthy of a block, but there has been various amounts of trolling from this account for too long. AniMate 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock I think the comments made (in bad taste) were over and done, things said in the past are sometimes best left in the past...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      And what makes you think these comments will not be re-made by TFM in the future (e.g. not leaving them in the past)? Considering one of these comments were from yesterday (just over 24 hours). - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because our fundamental principle is WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a user who has been trolling for years. And seems to be incapable of stopping. One year ago he promised to stop, and continued, one month ago he promised to stop and continued. Of course, he later claims that both of those promises were sarcastic. So what exactly makes you think it will stop this time? what is different? AGF only stretches so far. A user who has been trolling this site for years? No, I think it's fair to say they will keep trolling it for years if we let them. - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - issues about his behavior clearly needs some more discussion, perhaps on a more personal level on his talkpage, allowing input and understanding from the blockee. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: I ask this in good faith because I don't see the answer above in this wall of text, but how is an editor who has admitted to being another indef blocked trolling editor still allowed to edit here in the first place? Blocks are for editors, not accounts. Am I missing something? Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - for unrepentant attacks on everyone's integrity, and especially for having socked and been allowed to get away with it. He should have been indef'd and banned at that time. The community's generosity towards Fat/BErD was met by a metaphorical "F.U." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should never have been unblocked in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock of the Portly One. Honestly the drama that surrounds his Wideness is a product of over-reactions to his rather innocuous funning. People who are offended by him would do well to simply ignore his harmless carry-on rather than initiating major dramafests here at ANI. Crafty (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, he's had plenty of chances to contribute usefully and he apparently still doesn't get it. Nakon 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock the Fat Man, per the FAC Lady and the Slim one. Ferrylodge concurs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it takes a special kind of talent (or perhaps a special kind of talent) to make such a complete and utter mess of indeffing a user who so blatantly deserves it. The mess is clear enough (ANI / 22 minutes / no clear consensus / indef block by person bringing the matter to ANI / ?????), but so is the fact that the user is clearly not a net benefit to the project. Between the abusive sock account and the general manner he continues to communicate, quite apart from whatever lies further in the past, enough is enough. Site ban, and refer to WP:STANDARDOFFER. Rd232 talk 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't agree more. This block was handled horribly, but the outcome is probably right. AniMate 01:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block The Fat Man is a troll. We block trolls. I don't know why some users are leaping to the defense of such an obvious troll. I'm all for a little genuine levity and humor once in a while, that is not what I see here, I see blatant, deliberate trolling. I'm sure he is loving all the noise generated here by those who insist on defending his trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reality check: As long as I've been aware of TFM here, it has been clear to me that he is a capable editor, for example, making the Ima Hogg article not only a Featured Article, but also working hard to make it so on the WP:Main Page as an April Fool article. That is creative talent that should not be thrown away unnecessarily. Having said that, however, that isn't a reason for unnecessary disposal of an worthy, although I would welcome comments from him, on the basis that "you may be good, but unless others agree with you, you are on your own". I live in hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodhullandemu (talkcontribs) 02:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Support unblock What has gotten up with ANI lately? Geez, it's like a swarm of hornets landed and made everyone into ban-hammers. Let's go through this in order. First off, the original reason given for the creation of this discussion was a comment made by the user on Wikipedia Review, which is clearly not relevant to actions on Wikipedia and makes me doubt Eagles' understanding of how policy works here. Then, the edits that were mentioned. This is a rather silly comment, but when did dumb become a curse word? Besides, the fact that the user's actions seem to often be rather sarcastic to me. This question was made in reference to the user reading Religion in the Philippines and not seeing anything about chicken bones written in there. Maybe a silly question, true, but nothing bad. Calling someone silly is bannable now? And this is the most ridiculous one of all. This edit was made in response to this section being created. Either the two of them have a joking relationship, which is what it looks like, or Mike R's comment was completely out of line. It's one or the other. The other ones are about the previous block, which doesn't apply to this one. So, what are we left with? Oh, right, nothing. This is ridiculous. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef; shoulda-coulda stuck last time... but *no* we had to endure moar shite. Jack Merridew 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block His edit history speaks for itself. Each separate action could doubtless be justified by a skilled wikilawyer, although so far noone has managed to do this very convincingly. The combined effect and intent, however, seems clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block per Baseball Bugs. --John (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What I don't understand is why any admins would spend so much time trying to find a reason to ban an editor with a contrary sense of humor but who is otherwise harmless as opposed to helping out here, where there is evidence presented of editors who serially violate WP's more serious policies like NPOV and NPA. Before editors like the Fat Man get blocked, the more serious violators of WP's policies need to be dealt with. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure request. Could users commenting here to support an unblock please state if they are Wikipedia Review contributors. (We'll assume block supporters aren't, but if any are, please state as well.) Rd232 talk 08:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock He hasn't done anything recently even remotely warranting an indefinite block. Sure, he's done crap in the past, but he should have been blocked then if it was such a big deal. If he's really the horrible troll you all think he is, he'll do something in the future warranting an indef block and you can block him then. He should be kept on a relatively tight leash due to past incidents, but this is really ridiculous. Activities on WR are irrelevant to this discussion. I do not comment there, and I do not care about what the people there do. This thread is by far the most disruption he's managed to cause recently, and that's far more the responsibility of the admin than of him.--Dycedarg ж 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block There seems to be a school of thought around here, espoused by those I call the Incivility League, that it is OK to cleverly impugn people's integrity, writing, etc. so long as you don't use a slightly-expanded Carlineque list of specific words. I can't agree with that. If it was meant to be insulting, and it had the effect of being insulting, than what difference does it make if it used a vulgarity or not? Form over substance is a bad idea. TFM should stay blocked until he promises to cut it out, and if he breaches that promise, should quickly and non controversially be blocked again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block until he starts acting like an adult human being again. --Conti| 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per Silverseren and per "you need to get a sense of humor and stop taking yourself so serious". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block This user cannot even communicate in this very discussion properly, let alone the frequent disruption he causes elsewhere. Yes, he's made some good contributions in the past. But he is simply not worth the time and effort taken to deal with his utterly unnecessary nonsense. He doesn't want to take Wikipedia seriously, so I see no reason why he should continue editing here until and unless he does. As an aside, I wholly disagree with the absurd notion that he has to start swearing and cursing before it should be constitued as "real disruption", so to speak. --Dorsal Axe 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Making some good contributions much of the time doesn't entitle you to troll the rest of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is new at some point, but this editor is neither new nor making mistakes. His responses in the thread up above indicate to me that he thinks the project is a joke and that we don't deserve his respect. The impression I get is that he doesn't care if he's blocked or not. And on top of that, it appears he has created at least TWO sockpuppets for purposes of disruptive trolling in the recent past. One of them is Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) and the other is WatchingWales (talk · contribs), as he himself states [59]. He shows no indication he will stop this behavior, even taunting the community with more "jokes" in the thread above. This is behavior detrimental to building an encyclopedia and is well into WP:DISRUPT territory. - Burpelson AFB 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock Per Stephan Schulz and Silverseren and per the fact that humour should not automatically be equated with trolling. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block: Having a particular sense of humor is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to disrupt the project in various ways over a long period of time. Kansan (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedro blocked and unblocked

    Pedro unblocked

    Now Geni blocked Pedro for three hours for his language, while this block won't affect him, as he's in England I believe it's still puntative. Unblock Secret account 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in the UK. And having seen the damage late night admining can do you would have a hard time arguing it is not preventative.©Geni 00:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No more punitive than the block of TFM. Sometimes I think the "preventive not punitive" mantra is overrated here. Disruption over a long period, as in the case of TFM, is difficult to deal with because people will always say it has to happened right here, right now, otherwise nothing can be done. So the trick is, to troll in small enough doses that aren't really that bad on their own, but altogether present a big problem. Now that Pedro's once clean log has now been marked, maybe he'll be more careful to keep the atmosphere a little less crass. AD 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Pedro's contribs he's surely in bed now. The block was to "set an example". Not sure of the utility of that as cause for a block, but it would be good to just let this one lie and not go drahma-crazy over a three hour block during sleepy time. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, let this block stay. Should hopefully encourage Pedro to stay a bit more calm in future, and not attack other editors like that (regardless of how disruptive they are). Blocking wouldn't have been my choice of action here, but equally, unblocking wouldn't be, if another admin decides a block is necessary. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blocks "to set examples" are not directed to a general audience unlikely to take cognisance of them, so must surely be irrelevant. "Pour encourager les autres" does not necessarily work as a lesson here, and never has in historical terms. Meanwhile, the block of Pedro was poorly-argued, especially on the blockee's Talk page. Call me cynical, but if I am being sanctioned, surely I have a right to know the chapter and verse that authorises that, and the particulars supporting the block under those provisions. We do not operate as a legal system here, but some things are both above and beyond that. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rodhullandemu has now unblocked. Oh well. AD 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea lets not wheel war over this Secret account 00:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had said 5 to 10 minutes would fit the crime, and it turned out to be 14. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef for you are dumb, 14 minutes for 'prick'. Lovely. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Fat/BErD had only said it once, maybe he wouldn't have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Fat Man Who Never Came Back was blocked for rather more than that.©Geni 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you know Ceoil, block lengths decrease exponentially with the seriousness of the comment made :) Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is zero point in blocking any editor for three hours, unless it's a rapidly-redistributed IP address. To do so for an established editor, in the absence of a course of conduct that requires immediate action tends to become beyond preventative, and tends towards punitive. Pedro is a long-time editor here, and is due some respect for that. The best of us occasionally err. However, calling someone a "prick" isn't necessarily that different from referring them to WP:DICK, although it might have been better worded. But that's no reason for blocking, and certainly not without appropriate warnings such as are the entitlement of any editor here. That's why I unblocked, and if you think I'm wrong so to do, your remedy is thisaway. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment above continues to apply: lets not go drahma-crazy of an unblock of a three hour block while the editor concerned is fast asleep. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. None of this is worth your bits, or an RfC, or an ArbCom asking questions about wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Motion to close

    This discussion is done, people have said what they wanted to say, fights broke out and were resolved; It's time to close this. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, if this doesn't stop soon people are going to start hugging and that just gets creepy. HalfShadow 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a motion to close the Pedro thread, but there isn't any consensus on Fat Man block or unblock for that matter so I oppose a full closing of the thread for now. Secret account 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. There was no consensus to block to begin with, and therefore there does not need to be consensus to unblock. And despite what one editor says above, The Fat Man has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the past month, including work on BLPs. He should be unblocked immediately. Kablammo (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. This section was opened less 8 hours ago, and the block has been in place even shorter. Keep it open until it is actually decided. AniMate 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed the section about Pedro. Ban discussions run at least 24 hours. So will this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a block review, not a ban discussion. But yes, there's no reason to close the discussion...other than to restart it in a way where all of the noise, personal attacks, etc. are stamped out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the banning policy, if the community decides not to overturn the indefinite block he will be considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Ergo, this is a ban discussion.--Dycedarg ж 08:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The discussion should continue. - Burpelson AFB 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - I disagree with user Dycedarg's comment - this discussion is not to confirm the indef and ergo a ban discussion - this is a discussion to see if there is support or not for the user to be presently indefinitely blocked (this does not mean forever} whilst he considers his recent contributions and the community opines the best way to progress so that he can edit more constructively or at least so as issues like this do not continue to arise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    General observation

    As a general matter (not at all limited to this block and in fact I've raised it before, but very relevant here), there is a lack of clarity to some basic issues concerning blocking and unblocking policy that is surprising, given that the issues have arisen many times in the now 10 years of the project. One of these may be very relevant here: Suppose Administrator A blocks User:X, and there is about an even split of opinion on ANI about whether X should be unblocked (so, no consensus either way). Does this mean that X should remain blocked (because there is no consensus to overturn A's block) or that X should be unblocked (because unblocked is the default and there is no consensus to keep the block in place)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My own take is that, given this was brought here for review, if there is no consensus for that block, then there should be no block (getting there by unblocking if need be). Doesn't seem to matter if the block has already been made or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the opposite way. The administrative action has already been taken, and admins are entitled to some deference in how they use their tools. The discussion is regarding a proposed unblock, and needs consensus to succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what the person immediately above me (As at 12:27 on the 7th of December 2010 UTC) said. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be unreasonable for a sock and a disruptive troll to stay blocked unless and until he makes an unblock request, and then that request can be considered on its merits? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disruptive trolling" is in the eye of the beholder in many cases. Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What an absurd position Wehwalt. Admins are not entitled to any special "deference", and it's distasteful even to suggest that they are. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be consensus for a block, or to uphold a block. The result should not depend on who took action first, who got here first, or how the issue was framed. And deference to "discretion" gives the personal judgments or whims of administrators the force of law. Admins serve a ministerial role, to apply standards, not create them. And those standards should be consistently applied. Kablammo (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of the point: The first post in this multi-part section is by an admin looking for consensus to block. The admin did not wait until consensus developed, but imposed a block soon after the thread started. The issue here is whether there is consensus to block. There is not. Kablammo (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not like some contributors to one of the previous headings; I will not insult people's understanding, or their intelligence, however cleverly fashioned. The people who have just posted their views are all intelligent, thoughtful, experienced editors. And yet they profoundly disagree. Regardless of who is right, shouldn't this be resolved? I will add that NYB is in a much better position (hint, hint) to aid in the resolution than I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Wehwalt: If I review a situation, and decide a block is not appropriate, can I post that opinion somewhere (the editor's talk page maybe), and then other admins must show deference to my opinion, and gain consensus on ANI before they can override my opinion and block? If so, then I disagree (as it then becomes a race to dispense with fact finding and lock in one's opinion first), but at least it would be consistent. If not, why not?

      An admin should only be blocking people if they think they will have consensus to do so, and the default in the case of a lack of consensus should be an unblock (or, better yet, compromise and negotiation that can lead to a consensus). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Floquenbeam's last sentence seems to sum the answer to the query quite well. I would add that if this seems to lack clarity in the eyes of some, then I'd suggest that this is a good time to get up to speed...this is a piece of cake compared to the disputes and queries that are going to arise in the future, both near and distant. In those cases, I don't think even the most experienced users are going to have any easy answers to assist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Newyorkbrad's question: a sufficiently substantive "no consensus" discussion should override any individual admin decision. This is a community-edited encyclopedia, and if an admin can't persuade the community about what they did/wish to do, then it shouldn't be done. Private information which cannot/should not be discussed onwiki may complicate things, but that's what Arbcom's for. Rd232 talk 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A complicating factor here, is if a disruptive editor has the support of other disruptive editors, does that count towards community "consensus". Sheer number of voices either way isn't necessarily an accurate indicator of community consensus, especially when some are stating obvious untruths or have long block logs themselves. I think most of the people participating in this discussion are acting in good faith, but there do seem to be a few who are jumping in for no other reason than that they enjoy giving the pot a good stir. --Elonka 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    God knows there's cliquism on the wiki, but who decides if votes should be discounted because of it? --Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just discount input because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even in the above discussion, an admin seems to be causing a rift by wanting another website to shape what happens on this website; unless you have good evidence to show for a breach of our site policies, there's nothing to justify the need for this. Users should disclose their involvement (if any) in a dispute - that certainly plays some role - and that might extend to another website. But that's as far as it goes. Categorically stating that anyone who edits on Wikipedia should disclose if they've edited Wikipedia Review is a bit silly. It wouldn't be much of a project if every single thing was simple, easy and exactly how you wanted it. Ncmvocalist (talk) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cliquism, where there is good reason to suspect it may cause discussion not to represent the wider community's view, needs to be identified as far as possible. Only with the benefit of that disclosure can the weight of argument (WP:NOTAVOTE) be determined by a neutral observer. As to the argument about external websites: we shouldn't police activity on external websites, but nor we should ignore information relevant to policing our own merely because it originates externally. Rd232 talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well either you have some reason to have a suspicion, or you don't; you are not here to be police, prosecution, judge and jury. Allowing strong unsubstantiated personal opinions/assumptions to prejudice the way administration occurs on Wikipedia is precisely what impedes genuine resolution on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some genuine reason why being a Wikipedia Review participant is relevant to this discussion, it really is not appropriate to require any editor to disclose that information, nor is it relevant to what is happening here. And in saying this, I note that I am not a participant on WR and I don't believe I have ever interacted with the editor in question - I might have possibly in 2008, when I was asking many ArbCom candidates some questions, but I honestly don't recall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Fat Man is a participant in WikipediaReview, as are some of the editors commenting here (as you would expect in the circumstances). That is sufficient grounds for asking for disclosure, in order to properly evaluate how representative this discussion is of the community's view. Rd232 talk 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not sufficient grounds; your understanding is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia Community is diverse, and each member will have memberships to or participation in many other websites, organisations, and so on, or might not have any at all; listing which of these may "potentially" have any effect on the project is limitless and outside of our scope, capacity, and resources, and it poses a far more significant rift within our own Wikipedia community as we start defining Wikipedia based on individuals who are exclusively signed up here and here only. What each editor would need to disclose is their level of involvement, if any, and it's up to them to state if it's not total involvement and why. Merely being a participant is insufficient; it's being a participant and the extent of interaction or activity with the user in question, and in some circumstances, how they became aware of this discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can disclose I'm a (somewhat inactive) member of Amnesty International. So what? Am I likely to meet people there who are likely to have a very particular view of FatMan's indeffing, and are they likely to turn up here and comment? The point is fundamentally that discussions must reflect the community's view; but since the entire community cannot participate in any given discussion, we have to make sure that the sample of users participating isn't biased. This shouldn't really be a tricky concept. it's the same concept as that behind WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS (neither of which policies seems to apply here, but the reasoning for the policies' existence does). Rd232 talk 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you have difficulty understanding simple messages, so I'll try to be clearer one more time. The policies exist to say that MEAT and CANVASS behavior is prohibited; they do not say that anyone who is registered on another website can be excluded from the Community on your unsubstantiated say-so. So, unless you can provide an actual basis for bias from members of that website, this information is not relevant or required at this time and there is no reason for those users to be excluded from the Community. As you have not produced any actual basis for requiring this info, no one needs to comply with your disclosure requests; in line with policy, all they might need to do is state their level of involvement (if any) and that will address relevant issues of bias. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ROFL. "difficulty understanding simple messages" - yes indeed, considering that you're agreeing with me - state their level of involvement includes involvement offsite. You would (I presume) hardly object to a disclosure request if WR was a private mail server like EEML, so why should it be different because it's a website? Rd232 talk 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Floquenbeam: The second move advantage is something which we haven't been able to solve. I'll grant your "no block" proposal, if by the same token, my refusal to unblock then becomes an admin decision that it's wheel warring to reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't consider the "second move advantage" something that needs to be solved. Second move advantage means it's in the blocking admin's interest to make sure they're doing the right thing, and make sure they're going to have consensus. First move advantage means it's in their best interest to act quickly.
    Wheel warring refers to repeating an action you know another admin disagrees with. Like BRD for admins. I can only assume it was defined the way it is in recognition of the advantages of having a second mover advantage over a first mover advantage. Unblocking someone that has been refused a previous unblock request isn't a repetition of an action. (That said, I can think of very few instances where I would unilaterally unblock after a previous unblock request was declined.)
    But a deal I will make is for us to discourage making controversial second move unblocks without consensus, if we also strongly discourage making controversial first move blocks without prior consensus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. But this is getting increasingly out of scope for ANI. Rd232 talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the damage is done because of a block which is not having consensus, Wikipedia hasn't designed its processes so as to maximise that damage. Sometimes an abrupt unblock becomes the means to address the harm caused by an abrupt block. An abrupt unblock doesn't become necessary where a block has gained the actual required consensus...so it's a bit of a non-issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read that 5 times and I still don't get it. Rd232 talk 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had some bad news today. I came home and stared at the wall for a couple of hours feeling like shit. Then I picked up the laptop and stumbled into this, and have spent the last couple of hours chuckling and laughing out loud at his insight and wit. Some people have trouble with irony, so don't get what's going on here. There is no consensus. Unblock him. Anthony (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Imminent edit war in Viktor Bout

    While techically perhaps not at that stage, the article is close to an edit war over quite legitimate and well-sourced statement about the official charges against the person. User:Fleetham's recent repeated deletions of these legal facts (such as this, as well as the previous ones by him), in my view, may amount to vandalism. He does not put any reasons (except utterly specious ones on my page) for his actions and demands, inexplicably, that i stop editing the article ([60]). Please intervene.Axxxion (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, and this board is not the place for content disputes, but I have to observe that Fleetham is exactly right and you are not. You cannot describe someone as a terrorist based on a source that only describes him as an arms trafficker. Moreover, a statement of charges pending against an individual cannot be used as a source for the truth of the charges. Note also that good-faith edits to an article are never vandalism, and it is not helpful to describe them as vandalism, even if those edits had substantially less merit than these appear to. Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but you apparently, have not read what the statement says, nor the sources: it does not call him a terrorist; it names the charges as they are stated in the sources, ie official document of the Justice Dpt.Axxxion (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source (an official US Justice Dpt doc) is titled: "Viktor Bout Extradited to the United States to Stand Trial on Terrorism Charges".Axxxion (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "terrorism charges" are arms trafficking charges; you cannot use that to support a version of the article that claims he was indicted for "terrorism" [61]. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid and especially WP:BLP for the policy on this. Again, however, this is not the place for content disputes. Gavia immer (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll get better advice at WP:BLPN. People do have leeway for removing negative information in BLPs, especially when not sourced to secondary sources. "Official documents" are still primary sources. Btw, "imminent edit war" ain't a good way to think - that suggests that you're willing to keep reverting past 3RR... Fences&Windows 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a fairly disruptive editor. He has a strong POV on various issues, often seems not to understand policy, and is a serial reverter. He was blocked 11 times between 2007 and 2009 for edit warring, including one indefinite block. Nowadays he reverts up to 3RR, then stops to avoid a block.

    The problem is that he immediately deletes all posts from his talk page, which means it's difficult for others to see the pattern of complaints about him. I know editors have broad leeway on their talk pages, but this has reached the point of being disruptive. Looking through the history, [62] there seems to be one warning after another, all removed instantly. Should we require him to leave messages in place for a minimum period—say, two weeks? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds reasonable, I have left a 3RR note on his talkpage today as he reverted at Jimmy Wales three times without any discussion at all. He just deleted it immediately and left me a template when I had only a single revert to the Jimmy Wales article, clearly misusing the template completely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you know that 3RR is a bright line rather than an allowance, so have you reported this editor to the 3RR page? There are folks there who are presumably adept at seeing gaming of the restriction. LHvU (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He made three reverts without a single word of discussion, and then when I warned him about it he left me a warning, I imagine some administrators would have blocked but I didn't make a report there. I would have immediately if he had reverted after my warning. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SV appears to indicate that this is a pattern, and I am suggesting (I was using my LHvU account just above) that such behaviour may get more traction if reported to the 3RR board. As for your example, a single or infrequent incident may not be sufficient to draw a sanction and the removal of a warning is taken as evidence it had been read. The subsequent action of templating you is not appropriate, but again it is more serious if it can be shown as part of a pattern of disruptive/dismissive behaviours (recent, or ongoing per SV's commentary about the block history from 2007 - 09). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did prepare a report for 3RR, showing three reverts on the 4th and three on the 6th at Jimmy Wales, but I ended up not posting it. The point about the talk page is that, when you encounter problems with him, you look at his talk page and there's no indication that others are having similar problems, because he blanks after each post. If he were required to leave the posts in place, it might give him pause for thought before causing another editor to feel the same way. And it would make it easier for admins to track just how troublesome he's being. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a recent AN/I complaint from another editor about the talk-page issue (among other things) here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an issue to be dealt with via a well-prepared RfC/U. QuackGuru does deal with a large number of COI-laden fringe editors, so it's no wonder they get into disputes. Fences&Windows 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RfC/U would be fine, but I would strongly support a requirement that he/she not delete anything from his talk page in the interim. The latitude given to users in this regard is clearly being abused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This would seem to be a departure from normal Wikipedia practice. It has long been held that deleting any message from one's own talk page is permitted at any time; a user talk page is intended as a tool for communicating with a user, not as a record of warnings, punishments, or scarlet letters. If a user has a history of disruptive conduct then there are appropriate processes for dealing with that (RfC/U, per F&W, falls into this category, as would reports of recurring edit warring to AN/EW), but demanding that he retain a list of transgressions on his talk page for all to see isn't one of them. +TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of any rule that requires either retaining anything in particular on one's talk page (beyond certain notices), nor that the user have an archival process set up. The page's history is effectively the archive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that if we particularly wanted a convenient record, someone could create one out of the history (and perhaps someone might choose to, as an illustration, if another RFC is put in place). But while I'm aware of the extra hassle QG's practice imposes on the editors that are communicating with him, I'm not sure that he's really doing anything "wrong" or that this board should be handling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that, as you say, talk pages are for communicating, and constantly blanking is hindering that. They're not intended solely for communicating with the editor; it that were the case, we could just use email. There's an assumption of community communication, even if the editor is allowed to control it to a large extent. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Way back when, I was told that just zapping stuff from my talk page was extremely impolite, even though not technically against the rules. It seems that that sentiment has slid quite a bit since then, but it still turns up. Maybe there should be some more formal rules? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The practice used to be (don't know whether it was written down) that you could do what you wanted with your talk page, so long as you weren't removing warnings too quickly that admins might need to see. A point would arrive where that was deemed disruptive, and an admin would arrive to restore them. Over time we've allowed more leeway, but I still think QuackGuru is on the wrong side of wherever the line is, because he effectively has no talk page. You post there, and it disappears, and reconstructing the thing from the history would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been around for about as long as you have, SV, and I don't recall that ever being our usual practice. For as long as I can remember, we've been telling new admins who come to AN/I complaining that their warnings are being erased to quit edit warring on user's talk pages, and accept that the deletion of a message can be considered an acknowledgement that it was read. If an editor doesn't wish to engage in informal dispute resolution on his own talk page, there's no way to compel him to. It's up to the complainant to escalate to a higher level if there are unresolved issues requiring administrator intervention. User talk pages are for communication with that user, not with any hypothetical admins who might happen by in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If user talk pages were only for communication with that user, we wouldn't need them. We could just e-mail instead. The reason people often insist that issues be posted to talk pages, and not privately, is precisely because the community reads and to some extent has a stake in what goes on, which is why we don't delete user talk as a rule. He's not removing his own posts, but other people's. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What, this issue comes again so soon? Not two days ago I said on this page: ...WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. ... PS TenOfAllTrades, if a user talk page is like email, it's not like 1-to-1 email, it's like a discussion list with many viewers, even if the conversation is only between 2 people. Either of those people deleting emails from everyone's inbox because they've been read is about as helpful as deleting talk messages. Rd232 talk 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TAIT, you are describing a fairly recent (past few years or so) development. Further back, users were not allowed to remove warnings from their talkpages. That caused enough useless drama that the practice gradually shifted to the idea that if a user removes a warning, that means they saw the warning, so it can be used against them. So practice in that area has been fluid. Obviously in some cases, keeping the conversations visible for a while helps manage ongoing disruption. So now we're seeing a situation (see the thing with Editor182 last night e.g.) where users can remove notices unless they get a formal restriction to leave the conversations up. An alternative way to manage the disruption would be to ban the user completely, so if they prefer that to getting a talkpage restriction, it can probably be worked out. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that while QuackGuru may technically be allowed to empty his talkpage and respond in edit summaries, it is part of a greater pattern of edit warring, deliberate misunderstanding of others, and POV pushing. We've now been in discussion for >1 week at vertebral artery dissection about how much weight to lend to isolated reports about deaths from chiropractic. I have provided two arguments (both based on WP:WEIGHT) that there reports are too infrequent. QuackGuru has managed not to address these despite repeated requests, and continues to insert "his content", including unrelated article text that was removed for legitimate reasons[63].
    I see a general pattern of WP:POINT, and I'm getting a bit weary (on the VAD article) of having to edit under fire. JFW | T@lk 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    QG has done this for a long time, and it has the effect of "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". Recreating the content of his talk page would be a real pain, IOW he's creating an obstruction to the process of figuring out what he's up to, and that's just plain an abuse of the right to delete content on one's talk page. He may have the "right" to do it, but that doesn't make it "right". The talk page is intended for real communication, but that is made impossible when he only responds in short edit summaries that often don't really address the matter, and are definitely not a real conversation, as is necessary for true collaboration. He's not a collaborative editor but a solo loose canon and often makes edits of controversial material that is under discussion, well knowing the discussion isn't finished (because he is making comments). He makes edits and claims "consensus" in the edit summary when no other editor has even hinted that there is a consensus or that the discussion is finished. It's a pattern that's been going on for years. I often stay away from such discussions because I know he can tie us up for literally months on small details. He'll make comments that show he's playing IDHT and he doesn't really respond to other's concerns in a constructive way. I AGF by assuming he's not taking his medicine. That's the BEST interpretation I can give this matter. His block log speaks for itself. He's given an unusually long leash for some reason and it needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree on this - every interaction I've had with QuackGuru has been a pure contest of wills. He has a predefined idea of how things should be, and he doesn't respond to comments made by others: he simply repeats his points with an adamant insistence that they are obvious universal truths, and gets progressively more angry if he can't get his way. If wikipedia is serious about being a consensus system, then something has to be done about editors like QG - consensus discussions are almost impossible where he is active on a page.
    I don't know what causes these problems. Sometimes I suspect there's an ESL issue - his language structure (on those relatively rare occasions where he types a full sentence) reminds me of some of the speech patterns I've seen in immigrants from eastern Europe - but other times I think it's an intentional tactic (or at least a very deep resistance to accepting any sort of compromise). If it were up to me, I'd suggest mandatory mentorship, because the only way QG is going to get past this is to have someone sit down and teach him the basics of civil, communicative discourse. Is there anyone who would be willing to do that, and any way to convince QG that he needs to accept it? --Ludwigs2 08:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the behavioral issues at the mentioned articles are sufficient to justify some sort of administrative action, there's really no need to try to get him on the talk page thing. If it is long-standing policy/practice to let users rule their talk pages as they will, this isn't the forum to try to change that. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only so you know, User_talk:Editor182 has lately been put on a very tight talk page archiving (no blanking) restriction as a condition for unblocking. Admin sanctions like this are ok so long as they can be appealed at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I absolutely agree that there are behavioral issues but I don't agree that there is a need to change talk page requirements here; I think it's downright wrong. If you can't communicate with the editor after more than one attempt, then that's what dispute resolution exists for; it's pure laziness if what is happening is that we're looking for ways to avoid it. If what is being alleged is that an editor is removing the original post and just retaining his reply (which could easily mislead users regarding what was originally said - especially if an editor is pretending to summarise what was said), then that's a separate problem altogether, and it's not permissible under policy to begin with. And hypothetically, for dodgy restrictions, you'd better hope that editors under such restrictions don't appeal. Hypothetically, if those restrictions are still in place, it's purely to encourage a new editor to be more responsive; hypothetically, should they dispute it after behaving, they will get assistance to have it overturned through whatever means necessary - and the outcome won't be a mere 'inconvenience' anymore, especially if particular administrators are trying to find ways to unilaterally impose sanctions in a manner that they have previously been warned about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes, this is why it's so very important to let such an editor know they can always appeal at ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that the appeal would not be limited to ANI if this has been an issue before - even more so if it was with the same administrator. It's just a hypothetical caution to administrators who are in that position. That it is allowed on the odd occasion does not mean it is acceptable or going to necessarily be OK in the future. I say necessarily OK because I recognise that there are very rare times where circumstances are100% exactly the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to address another point that I missed in my above comment, the reason email is not used for general Wikipedia communication is because we have no access whatsoever to those emails - not because of inconvenience. In the case of Wikipedia, we have access to what an user has said by way of the user talk history (especially for discussions which are not visible via archives). I'm surprised that some experienced administrators still don't get that. If that's too difficult, then it simply means you're either too lazy or need to brush up on your skills. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. Admins are volunteers, and their time is a limited resource, routinely searching laboriously through a user's talk history in case there's something there they should know is impractical. It is not reasonable to allow a handful of editors to both attain lesser scrutiny and inhibit dispute resolution through excessively rapid removal of talk discussions. Rd232 talk 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to broadly agree with this. If an editor isn't stirring up many warnings and such, I don't think anyone much cares if they blank their talk page, but when there are many warnings and other worries, I think blanking wastes a lot of time and isn't fair to other volunteer editors. In some ways I guess this can also be taken as a civility thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and for some periods he couldn't even use the excuse of meaningful edit summaries as responses to the comments he was deleting. See this period, for example. I can see no reason for this, other than being deliberately disruptive. David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The priority is in favour of editors having broad leeway about what happens in their userspace; it's not in favour of the handful of administrators who are refusing to take the time to investigate incidents properly. Issues are justified by diffs, not archives, so the history is exactly where you ought to be going to in any event, while editors also have limited time and may not be interested in trusting a bot or spending the time archiving themselves; it is in no way a requirement when registering on Wikipedia. In other words, I don't see any handful of editors attaining less scrutiny; they're exercising a privillege which was afforded to them by the much wider Community. What I see is a handful of administrators who are not doing what they are supposed to do. That a talk page exists for discussion does not mean that you can force them to discuss what you want in the way that you want at the time you want. Your failure, Rd232, to understand this was what led you to harass Bidgee on her talk page (and edit-war over it); you don't have the right to insist that someone talk to you, and that's why your WQA against Bidgee ended up as a boomerang. That there are situations where editors should respond to avoid dispute resolution and involuntary outcomes does not justify what is being pushed for in this venue (or what you were essentially asking for in that WQA). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many editors routinely delete rather than archive, as history is always available, which is not the case with emails, so SV's argument that we might as well email if we don't archive fails. We do not routinely assume bad faith and say it must be because they wish to avoid scrutiny. It is not "'part of a pattern of disruptive behavior" to do something specifically permitted by policy; I am disturbed that there are people voicing such a view; I suggest the entire question of removing posts be taken out of this discussion; while some may find it a bit more tedious to go through history than to go through archives, it is not in any sense a negative thing to do. I refer you to, for example, User talk:Tony Sidaway "A note about archiving" - are we to broaden this discussion to also castigate Tony and others who routinely remove rather than archive? If so, I suggest the debate belongs on the relevant policy page. If not, then cease mentioning it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User talk blanking is an issue? Really? The history tab for QG's user talk is pretty easy to click and every warning QG has ever received is in plain sight in that history. If QG prefers a blank his user talk page, what's that to us? If there are perceived issues with the user's edits or personal interactions, that's something to discuss. But trying to control how a Wikipedian choses to organize their communications in user space is not, in my opinion, anything more than a needlessly punitive game. jps (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that many editors routinely delete rather than archive.Users are recommended to archive their user talkpages. A minimal number do not archive and when you combine this users non archiving with his immediate removal of any comment placed there you do have an issue especially when there are warnings being added, it is impossible to discuss anything on his userpage, and discussion and being open to discussion is part of the normal, needed ,everyday workings or the wiki, one place it is not available is this users talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A recommendation is not a command. WP:BLANKING makes it clear in the guideline that users are well-within acceptable practices to remove notices and warnings from their user talk pages. People who have QG in their sights, including you, seem to want to continually approach him on his user talk page with template notices. This is a form of WP:Wikihounding, which is a behavior I have seen you do to me as well (which is why I asked you not to post on my talkpage any more, and I thank you for stopping the problematic behavior). In short, I'd be more willing to accept that this was a problem if someone actually showed some evidence that discussion was necessary on his talkpage. Instead, all I seem to be seeing is people whining about the fact that he doesn't want you guys templating him. If you've got a problem with QG, there are dispute resolution ideas available that include ways to discuss these matters outside of his talkpage. jps (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's been wikihounding of QG, that should also be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been circa 40 messages on QG's talk page since the beginning of November (roughly one a day), on a variety of issues, most by Ocaasi, but all told from 6 or 7 different editors. each message was either a request for discussion, a notification of some proceeding, or a plea to refrain from aggressive editing behavior (e.g. blanket reverts). Each was deleted without comment, or with some dismissive edit summary (he even took to writing his edit summaries upside-down and backwards at one point - neat css trick, I suppose). That does not strike me as wiki-hounding, but rather as fairly desperate attempts to get an editor to communicate and cooperate. please note for comparison that I got over 30 posts to my talk page over a 2-day period around the 25th of October (almost 60 posts over that week), and that was not considered wiki-hounding when I took the matter to ANI.
    At any rate, this discussion has gotten sidetracked. I'm tired of QG's behavior, so the proper approach now is to open an RFC/U and settle this issue there. I don't know the procedure for doing that, so if someone wants to point me in the right direction 'll get on it, or if someone starts the proceedings themselves I will second it gladly. leave a note in my talk (I promise not to delete it. ) --Ludwigs2 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll point out, so it doesn't get forgotten, that there was also this recent WQA thread about QuackGuru, that also recommended an RfC/U. As for RfC/U itself, the information on it is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty now is that, because he blanks his talk page after each edit, it'll take some work to reconstruct who's been complaining about what, so that a comprehensive RfC can be posted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat?

    Looks like a legal threat in edit summary by IP editor here. Haven't informed them of this report, as I believe legal threats are met with blocking without any prior communication. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He appears to be a zealous fan, and he has conveniently now created a user ID, so that should make the blocking process a little easier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Well, there is a template ({{uw-legal}}). I'm not sure if you were stating your opinion about whether or not they should be warned before blocked though so I won't put the template. The summary definitely seems like a legal threat to me though. [CharlieEchoTango] 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the edit summaries were zapped and user was warned. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IPA for Robin Thicke

    Although I can understand your frustration, and I am sure you are acting in good faith, you seem to have breached WP:3RR yourself. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and therefore the correct action is to revert once only with an explanation and then to take the issue to the talk page to get views from other interested editors. This approach is explained in detail at WP:BRD. For now, your best bet is to stop making edits to the page, but to clearly explain your case on the talk page, and see what response you get, both from Kwamikagami and from other users. Once a consensus if formed, the chosen version can be implemented and enforced.--KorruskiTalk 23:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will do this. Sorry for using the term vandalism incorrectly. Aikclaes (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    unsigned comment added by Aikclaes (talkcontribs) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    N.B. the user has now been informed of the discussion.--KorruskiTalk 23:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I came here as we are having an argument for a while me and Kwami, but though Kwami called me or my arguments all sorts of names he did not bully me, which other administrators have done in similar circumstances. This comment is here for what ever it is worth, Aikclaes did he issue threats of blocks, other administrators are prone to do that, Kwami has not done that once to me, you are lucky to have him in the ring, you could have worse opponents, I have not looked at the issue, will you please come up with diffs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aparently others have had a different experience[64].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone trying to stir the pot at Colonel Warden's RFCU

    Resolved
     – Obvious troll is obvious, indeed

    Can someone bag and tag the obvious troll/sock? Whoever this is made an amusingly clumsy attempt to get me into trouble, see User talk:Tarc#mail received and the history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden to see a comment that I took the liberty of blanking. You could probly get some mileage by running a CU on this guy and one of both of Overturn deletion to censure Tarc! (talk · contribs) & Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs), if so inclined. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done. Yes, might be worth opening an SPI. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The latter two are stale, and CU wouldn't help, so it would have to rely upon behavioural editing; that said, the usernames do not fill me with confidence as to good faith. Nuke them. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Only a bit over 3 months old; I thought CU went a bit further back than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if the others are stale (and I agree that they might not be), a CU might well flush out something fishy ;) Can anyone think of a friend of CW's who's socked or skated close to canvasing issues? Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Now now, Jack, I'm sure it's Nobody we know. Reyk YO! 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It would have to be someone who didn't realize that their disruption would drive traffic to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Of course it could be a detractor of CW's, but I'm the only known sock who's commented critically in his direction... and *I* supported the notion of a CU. And it's not me; I've not socked in longer than most editors have been on this project. Cheers, Moby Dick 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course, it could be someone who has found from experience that RFCs are completely ineffectual and has a major bug up their ass about Tarc. So yeah... We'll see when and if the CU results come in. Reyk YO! 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps it was something I said. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think User:Tonyeason is possibly the same person as Boomtube. Definitely someone's sock anyway. Reyk YO! 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Great... I guess it's only a matter of time before Steve Grogan pops up as well. - Burpelson AFB 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At least Grogan would pop up after a hit, and not go turtle at the sight of a D. Yes, I'm still bitter about Super bowl XX. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh yes.... it was 0 for 6 before they pulled him wasn't it? Poor Tony. I guess the 46 would have scared me back then too, though. - Burpelson AFB 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Bosonian

    Resolved
     – indefinitely blocked after more attacking in his unblock request - talkpage access revoked - Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:Bosonian

    This user is personally attacking other users and basically just trolling for an indefinite editing restriction. A quick look at his contributions will be enough. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    HJ has blocked him for 24 hours, he will still be a disruptive troll tomorrow, but at least he is gone for now, scratch that - now raised to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of opinions over WikiProject banner tagging

    {{discussion top|Closing this now as [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]]. This is a duplicate discussion of an existing one at [[WP:VPP]]. If you have something to add, please comment there and not here. There's no need to bifurcate the discussion into two areas, one discussion on the same topic is fine, thanks. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)}}

    • Issue: - There is a conflict of opinions brewing hereon my talk page about how many and which wikiprojects have the right to tag an article as being within their scope.
    • Background: - I was planning on doing a content drive with US related articles and was tagging the FA articles (I was going to follow that with A class and GA) in an effort to identify which articles fall under the US scope and then I was going to try and advertise to the 200+ projects and 2000+ users that we should all try and build up that number. User:Imzadi1979 accused me of Cherry picking articles before I was done. In the ensuing conversation I was told by User:Rschen7754 that I could not put the WPUS banner on any WP:USRD articles and then warned me about my use of AWB for these types of conentious edits as well as the rate at which I was doing them. I have in the past tried to work with this project but they want zero interferance or input from other projects and any suggestions are met with disdain and contempt. Any effort to edit one of "their" articles is met with almost instant comment. In the past they clearly voiced their opinion that the projects were seperate and there was no connection and as such the USRD banner and the WPUS banner are mutually exclusive. It is my understanding that a project cannot claim this type of ownership over articles and tell another project that they cannot tag "their" articles. And, since the projects are mutually exclusive except that they both pertain to US topics they shouldn't be allowed to run off other projects or edits (they have a history of both). They feel as though any project or editor that treads on their turf is just trying to push them out and take over.
    • Determination needed: - Can someone clarify which of our viewpoints is correct (or if maybe where both wrong) before this escalates? --Kumioko (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried early-stage dispute resolution? This doesn't seem like it needs to be on AN/I. access_denied (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Given the history I doubt that would do much good. It was going to end up here eventually so I figured we may as well get it overwith. --Kumioko (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? You should always remember to assume good faith with other editors and assume that communcation will be successful. I still think you should try WQA first. access_denied (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether Kumioko's proceeding to tag articles with WP:AWB is controversial. --Rschen7754 05:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:AWB: "Don't do anything controversial with it. " People have clearly expressed opposition to this, making his actions controversial. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the articles should be tagged, Kumiko cannot use AWB to tag the articles until the dispute is resolved. AWB is not to be used to further your side of the dispute. --Rschen7754 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors had a problem, you and Imzadi and both regarding USRD projects. There was some conversation a while ago about multiple US related projects tagging the same projects but since then it has been repeatedly clarified that aside from being related to US they are all mutually exclusive and operate independently of one another. The Barack Obama article is a prime example. There are piles of projects and all have a right to help in maintaining and improving the article. Who am I to say that one project shouldn't tag it because a similar but unrelated project has a tag on it. And just because one or 2 editors say its contreversial doesn't make it so. Add a WikiProject banner to an article is not controversial. --Kumioko (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because people have expressed objections to what you are doing. --Rschen7754 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And that still doesn't make it contentious. I could say I don't want people adding infoboxes to the Biographys in my watchlist but that wouldn't make it right. Just because 1 or 2 editors don't want another project to touch their articles doesn't mean they should or can. --Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But you're not doing it with WP:AWB. AWB should not be used to edit war. --Rschen7754 05:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the orange box above this page when you edit: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." you have only informed Rschen that hes being discussed, why not Imzadi? --Admrboltz (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the reminder but its there. --Kumioko (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Four minutes after I posted this message. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hit save and was typing replys here so I think my computer got stuck and took a minute to save. Do you have any opinion about the discussion? --Kumioko (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI isnt the correct location for this discussion for one, but I do believe you are cherry picking. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough on the Cherry picking thing. That problem is easily solved, I will just tag them all since they do fall in the scope of US. It unfortunately does pretty much eliminate being able to do any kind of content drive for a very long time since the articles are scattered across over 200 projects but Ill work on that. Just for future info where should an incident of a project enforcing unallowed "ownership" of articles to a point were they revert other editors and projects actions on the grounds that it is already tagged by their project? As well as statements that any editor can instantly stop AWB from being used by saying any edit is controversial? Both of the latter questions seem like this would be the place but I admit I don't completely know. --Kumioko (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this matter belongs here. Since it is here, I'll just offer a few comments. I have the USRD FAs on my watchlist in addition to the articles I actively edit. I saw Kumioko tag the article California State Route 78 saying he was adding the WPUS banner and tagging it as a county, using AWB. A little while later, I saw Capitol Loop similarly tagged. I looked at his contributions because I was curious about the situation given the incorrect edit summary. He hadn't edited in about 20 minutes at that point, and all of the articles were just Featured Articles . I asked him on his talk page about this. The reason being he had previously invited USRD to collaborate with WPUS. As a result of that discussion, he said that WPUS wouldn't be tagging the USRD articles. His reply earlier today was that he was only tagging FA, A and GA articles, which is cherry-picking in my opinion. Honestly, I don't care what Kumioko does with WPUS. I don't agree with projects tagging upper-tier articles that they don't actually work with. That's claiming credit and padding the project's stats in my mind. Others might see it differently, and that's fine. I don't see a reason for this project to tag the aricles that it's tagging, but that's not my concern. I do see a reason for Kumioko to to disengage in dealing with USRD since his actions have caused controversy with members of the project and have not been welcomed. Imzadi 1979  05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I completely think this issue should be here because it pertains to a project enforcing ownership over articles to a degree that no outside editors are allowed. Ok the reason I stopped was because I was driving home. I do admit though that I forgot to take off the bit about US counties from the summery and that was an acccidental mistake. Other than that the edit summery is correct. I stated above the reason I was tagging those was so I could do a content collaboration to build up more GA and better articles relating to US topics. I'm not trying to claim credit or padding anything. WPUS was basically dead for a couple years and I just catching up for lost time. Plus right now in order to determine what articles fall in US scope (FA class for example) one needs to mine through over 200 projects. I am trying to give visibility of those at a single level. As far as the Cherry picking thing perhaps that's what it could be called but I did this partially so I wouldn't agrivate the USRD project because of their rather unfriendly dealings with outsiders. I wish I could completely disengage from the project but the problem is that we have large overlaps in scope so we need to work to get along. If USRD doesn't want to collaborate with WPUS and the other projects thats fine but they don't have the power to tell the other projects they can't touch their articles. --Kumioko (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict, take 4) By definition though USRD is the nexus of WPUS (the US part) and WP:HWY (highways, the roads in the name is a historical accident). One edit to the USRD banner and the articles can be sent into your project's assessment categories. There would be no need to add addition project banners, but WPUS would inherit the USRD classifications (which are stricter for assessing quality than most wikiprojects) and/or importance levels. If that would appease you, I can have one of the appropriate admin members of the project edit the banner template and have at it. USRD doesn't WP:OWN the articles, anyone is free to edit them, but it is the project that is the most active in doing so. If you will, USRD's reputation is built on the quality of the articles it edits, so we take some pride in that. What I don't like is the implication that your actions in all of this new tagging is to create statistics on the quality of the articles when the project has not been active in dealing with them. Tagging only the FA/A/GAs as you said you were going to do inflates your numbers in those categories.
          On another note, your edit count numbers seem abnormally high for an account without a bot flag. I suggest that before it gets you into trouble, consider creating a bot account and having it approved for the banner tagging. I'm not accusing you of breaking policy, I'm saying that as a gut instinct as I don't know what the policy on that is exactly. Imzadi 1979  06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that a WikiProject may tag whatever articles they wish to include under their purview. That's all it means and it doesn't mean that they are "claiming credit" for the article in any way. Yworo (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be appropriate or acceptable if I were to put a message stating something to the effect that that articles are tagged to allow a complete picture of the articles in US scope and that the project didn't get most of them to that status? --Kumioko (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflit, take four) It does mean something when the Project then brags about how many FAs it has, and it tagged the article after it went through FAC and was shepherded through that rigorous process by editors from another project. Imzadi 1979  06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's the nub of the matter, clearly. WikiProjects can tag what they like; it isn't WP:OWN or credit-taking. Even FAs need maintenance, and any projects tagging them after successful FAC may potentially help with that. What's bad is appearing to take credit for work a project hasn't done. Rd232 talk 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion was inappropriately closed. The conversation in the village pump is completely different. --Kumioko (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}}[reply]

    What administrative action is needed here? This is better discussed at the village pump, whether that's in the existing thread or a new one. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Foolish editor?

    Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a couple of past blocks for edit-warring on contentious areas. He arguably could do with a block for continuing to revert in a controversial ethnic category at our article on the UK Leader of the Opposition. Certainly more uninvolved eyes are needed here, as a group of editors is in danger of making their own interpretation of WP:BLP on a high-profile article without seeking the wider input of the community. For now I am mainly concerned with the personal attack in the edit summary here. Could someone please have a word with him? --John (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Word had. This is fairly mild as they go. I'm looking into the other things now.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologize for the intemperate reference to John as a "foolish editor". However, John has just reverted 3 different editors in under 12 hours without a single Talk: page comment. This is, at a minimum, not appropriate behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called WP:BLP and is more important even than WP:3RR. Obviously as I have said above we need more editors' eyes on this to decide what to do. Reverting in controversial ethnic information about living people is much worse than reverting it out though. --John are reverting and telling you that it does not, pushing the issue is not helpful. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP argument has been ongoing for a good while without reaching a strong consensus for inclusion, Chaser. Meantime I do not think the article should carry this tag. Jclemens, there are factual inaccuracies in your statement above which I invite you to correct. --John (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally with BLP we err on the side of removing contentious content until all policy has been met and consensus is made. It *would* be nice to have a couple of admins check the policy and kill the categories in the interim (although there doesn't seem a major BLP issue it is of concern) --Errant (chat!) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If wikipedians are being so unduly cautious about British politicians, why are they not paying similar attention to MPs or ex-MPs like Michael Howard, Gerald Kaufman, Nigel Lawson, Edwina Curry, Clement Freud (deceased), Leon Brittan, Greville Janner, Malcolm Rifkind, ... or the new MP in my constituency, Julian Huppert, for that matter? Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, some of those are bad example; Gerald Kaufman obviously passes BLPCAT with a trivial (30s) check, for example. As to the rest; thanks, I will look into them. --Errant (chat!) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mentioned these politicians because I assumed that, except for the last, they were household names in the UK. As for Julian - the addition of the category there looks like WP:SYNTH from the BLP of his father Herbert Huppert. Herbert appears on List of British Jewish scientists along with another Cambridge colleague Thomas Körner. He was added in 2007 by an IP [65]. The wikipedia articles of his parents were used as sources. Is that historically the way these wikipedia lists have been written? If that is the case, I would suggest getting rid of this kind of list. Note that the same IP attempted to make this edit to Körner's BLP [66] which was reverted almost immediately. Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • These ethnic categories are a nightmare. Entries need to be aggressively policed and unverifiable ones removed, especially on BLP articles. --John (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request due to change of circumstances

    Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely back in July. Regardless of whether that block was correct, circumstances have changed, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will take a look. The blocking admin is still a bit active, though retired, and is not eager to revisit the matter.

    In a nutshell, the issue involved what "tag" to slap on an uploaded image. Zsero wanted to use Tag A rather than Tag B, but consensus was that Tag B seemed more appropriate. Zsero objected to Tag B, because it said that the image was copyrighted whereas Tag A did not make that claim. Anyway, the changed circumstances are that (1) after Zsero was blocked Tag A was deleted and is therefore no longer available, and (2) today Tag B was changed at my request so that it no longer says that the image is copyrighted but rather clarifies that we may be merely assuming that copyright exists.[67]

    So, in view of these two changed circumstances, the reason for a continuation of the block is removed in my opinion, and I think a lifetime ban would be punitive for this reason. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any indication that this user wants to return and would know they were unblocked? Have you been in contact with them? Grandmasterka 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed him and asked him to post to his talk page if he is still interested in contributing to Wikipedia.--Chaser (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not at all involved in this case previously, but have reviewed the block in question. I should note that Zsero was not blocked for having an opinion about the status of the image or the tags in question. He was blocked for being disruptive. All editors at Wikipedia have opinions, and no one is blocked for having them, nor is anyone blocked for expressing the opinions. What they are blocked for is acting disruptively, which is what Zsero did. Regardless of whether or not the specific tags in question have been changed, what concerns me is that, in the case of future differences of opinion, if Zsero would act similarly to how he acted during his LAST difference of opinion. I would oppose unblocking unless the user in question can clearly show that he understands why his behavior led to his block, and how he plans to change his behavior if unblocked. --Jayron32 07:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to the question above, I doubt that the user will want to immediately jump back into Wikipedia, but the opportunity should be open in my opinion, and after awhile I wouldn't be surprised to see the user jump back in. The controversy that led to his block is now totally moot and cannot recur. I might add that until today Wikipedia was falsely claiming that various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that; this is why Zsero removed the tag, not because of any pattern of disruption AFAIK (the user's blocks during the year 2010 were all in relation to these tags). I don't see that a confession or even a desire to edit Wikipedia is necessary here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to elaborate on where exactly Wikipedia has been "falsely claiming hat various images are copyrighted even though Wikipedia is unsure about that"? -FASTILY (TALK) 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That was Zsero's contention at his talk page, and my contention here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock until/unless the user is ready/available to talk on-wiki. (I am uninvolved and have also reviewed some of the circumstances here.) That said, I don't agree with Jayron32's last sentence; I think such a requirement is too high in these circumstances. Copyright is a sensitive matter and I don't think it's fair to just put it down to a mere disruptive way of having different opinion. The user made some valid points during his block; it's that I am a bit uneasy about just granting an unblock in this case. Rather than expecting the user to file the appeal by himself in a way that is going to satisfy these concerns, I think what's needed is for him to edit so that we can ask him questions on his user talk and assist him with understanding how Wikipedia works. No amount of help pages are going to help in this case; what is needed is discussion with the blocked user. Should the user not return by the end of this ANI discussion, or should this request not be successful, then a link to this discussion (from the archives) should be added to the user's talk so that others know that this has been looked into already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock User talk:Fastily#Unblock request. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Zsero was disruptive on a variety of other issues, too, ranging from Chabad to gaffa tape. Jack Merridew 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - wait until Zsero asks to be unblocked. The reason for the block was how Zsero behaved. If he wants to be unblocked, he should show penitence, and ask to be unblocked. The unblock request here is the complete opposite; it is not made by him, and it by implication suggests that the circumstances of the ban were at fault, not Zsero.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per what Toddy1 says. If the user himself asks for an unblock, then it could be considered. In general, I don't think it's a good practice to unblock someone who hasn't asked to be unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerusalem

    I think User:Hertz1888 has violated the one-revert rule in the article Jerusalem.[68][69] Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. I'd like to see whether there's consensus that this has been indeed a violation. --Eleassar my talk 10:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not. As it says in the template on the talk page: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." FYI - you need to make sure you notify any user who is under discussion on this noticeboard. I have notified User:Hertz1888 for you on this occasion.--KorruskiTalk 10:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was completely within the standards set by admins. I actually kind of disagree with it still since IPs should have a voice but the IP also disregarded WP:WORDS and it is a little hard to assume any good faith sometimes. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. That page is a failure for the most part but your opinion should be appreciated. Also, admins have previously requested that violations of 1/rr in the topic area go to WP:AN/EW to request enforcement.Cptnono (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the IP used a patently false edit summary "Wording is per consensus, extensive discussions on talk page & in its archives" it's a bit hard to take him seriously. He has a point npov-wise but this point has been gone over endlessly. I would have done the same as Hertz1888 so I'm interested in opinions here too (although 3RR or Arbitration Enforcement are the right places for these things apparently). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't vandalism and the IP's edits are indeed more NPoV. However, given the background on the article and the sanctions, edit warring over the wording isn't the way to handle it. I don't think it's fair that any IP edit can be reverted outside of 1rr but I understand how it could have gotten there. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 70.127 edit warring and using personal attacks at Mercy11 on Oscar López Rivera

    can someone monitor this article, the IP is edit warring with Mercy and calling him/her nasty names, they just called Mercy a retard which is offensive, I think this IP needs a block to get their attention--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided a source which proves that clemency was offered on August 11, 1999. Not September 11, 1999. The source also proves that Oscar refused clemency. Despite this, Mercy11 keeps reverting the source and claiming that Oscar was not offered clemency. This is false. What's the problem? I'm just trying to add correct information. Read the source if you don't believe me.

    http://www.tlahui.com/politic/politi99/politi8/pr8-30.htm

    --70.127.202.197 (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    you called him a retard thats the problem, it was uncivil you should have stopped and went to the talkpage -Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are incivility concerns, and I have spoken to the contributor about that. However, the incident occurred before your final warning. While the tone following that final warning still could use improvement, the "retard" comment has not been repeated. I don't think a block would be appropriate. In terms of edit warring, it's hard to see what's going on, since Mercy has been reverting without comment, but now that you've opened a discussion at the talk page perhaps conversation will follow, if the IP's source is for some reason in dispute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ok but if you read the edit summaries, 70.127 has insulted mercy in all his edit summaries, and then he taunted him on his talk page saying he couldn't block, but we will wait and see how things go Moonriddengirl --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Die4Dixie requesting to return

    Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested that his community ban be lifted and he be allowed to return under the terms of the standard offer. Would anybody care to express an opinion on the subject? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In their request, D4D says: "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision." Given the nature of the behavior, I don't think that's sufficient. I'd like to see some acknowledgement from this editor that they understand why the community found their behavior repugnant, and that they agree with that assessment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More information needed. The user should first explain in some detail what topics they are going to edit and what improvements they can make to our articles. Should they then regress to any prior problems, they would be swiftly reblocked. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed the ban, as you may recall. However, I agree with Ken. More info needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not - This editor's history shows a well-established tendency to engage in not just tendentious editing and edit warring, but also ventures well into the realm of antisemitism or some kind of anti-Jewish paranoia where he thinks Jewish wikipedians are conspiring against him. This is well-documented in his banning discussion and the last thing we need are more agenda pushers and tendentious editors, least of all those who believe in Jewish conspiracies. - Burpelson AFB 14:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Ken normally I treat all people who tread the fine line between general prattishness and abhorrent racial agenda with equal disdain, but I would like to see if Dixie knows what the problem is. "I shall not engage in the behavior that lead to that decision" sounds a bit like "I sincerely regret that your son/husband/father/other was killed/wounded/reported missing in action." Acknowledge it a bit. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any point in considering whether to replace the block with a ban on editing in the area that got them in trouble (race/ethnicity)? A good test of whether or not an editor is an incorrigible miscreant or wayward encyclopedian might be whether they can edit productively on bridges or barbie dolls for a time. Skomorokh 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. Let's do a live fire test on this one. If he screws up, we might as well know it early. It is his burden to show he can contribute productively to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (threadjack) As a means of judging character, I am all for personal responsibility, but from a project perspective I wonder if such live fire tests accomplish much other than editors in body bags. A lot of editors have push-button issues around which they find it very difficult to stay cool and within socially accepted norms of behaviour, and not all have the self-control to avoid them; this does not imply their contributions can be of no use for the project. Skomorokh 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with you. Perhaps I should have said that we have limited supervisory resources for repentant editors. We do sometimes go to great lengths to rehabilitate useful editors, but Die4Dixie, despite his notoriety, has yet to show he can so much for us that it is worth spending our limited time and resources on a topic ban (which must be enforced), a mentor perhaps. Our greatest resource is the time people expend here. D4D has to show he's worth it, or leave us again.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting around the clock surveillance and dedicated mentors, just a promise from D4D to avoid fringe politics/race which we could stick at WP:SANCTIONLOG and at the top of his user talk page. If the promise is broken to any significant extent someone is likely to notice. I only bring it up because he mentions on his talkpage "I hope to...work in translations from Spanish to English, little "c" Latin American issues, and linguistics. I would avoid the Holocaust, since I lack any finesse to deal with it." To which, in light of his reasonable attitude since being banned I'd respond "sure, have some WP:ROPE". Skomorokh 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, that's fine then.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not per Burpelson AFB. --John (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've been in frequent communication with D4D, and I'll take the responsibility of mentoring, including slapping him with fish, or, if necessary, two by fours, if he gets out of line. (He's agreed to this as well.) I'd like him to have one more chance; I think he's a good content contributor and (when he can keep his temper in check) a net positive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It is indeed better to let the editor return under watch than to have them socking and causing further troubles. What sorts of articles would the editor like to contribute to? What are they interested in editing? Hopefully things not related to race and religion, such as hobbies, geography, culture, sports. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Added at 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC) for clarity.[reply]
    • Support (with mentoring) - I've locked horns with D4D in the past, but one year is a long time and the standard offer seems appropriate. The offer of mentoring by Jpgordon removes any doubts I might have. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral - Oh dear. The email to Jehochman has immediately restored those niggling doubts I had. With careful mentoring from Jpgordon, it is possible that D4D can be productive; however, I no longer have enough faith to actively support this return to the community. Perhaps more time in the sin bin is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (with mentoring). Offer by a very capable admin dispels doubts for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very weak support - on the back of jpgordon's mentoring offer and comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per jpgordon's mentoring offer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Doubting - I just received an unimpressive email from Die4Dixie. This person is not ready to be involved in an online collaborative project. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read this entire discussion before posting a vote. Jehochman Talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I've posted a response to the email. Let's see how D4D responds. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support I would oppose this request vehemently in other circumstances (not only because of aforementioned mail to Jehochman) but jpgordon is both capable and experienced enough that I trust their judgment in this case. But even with such an offer, it's a really close call and I can really understand anyone opposing this request. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I was willing to give this editor a second chance, until he sent me a message that assumed bad faith. To be clear, it was not an inappropriate message, just an unimpressive one. A big part of the original problem with this editor was that he launched an unfounded attack on Slrubenstein. We don't need users who assume that editors with Jewish sounding names are out to get them. Of course if this editor returns, I am going to watch to make sure they don't repeat what got them blocked and banned in the first place. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe it's just me, but things are still not clear to me. If what D4D posted is accurate, it seems there's a bit of stress and paranoia, but it doesn't have much to do with how your name sounds or whether one is Jewish or not. Instead, it seems it has to do with so-called accusations of socking you made and the validity of those accusations; what about it is 'unimpressive'? I'm not seeing the actual assumption of bad faith.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of the concerns that led to this user's community ban, and I supported that ban 100%. If this were a simple appeal for a second chance, I'd be extremely hesitant, based on how things went last time around. However, I'm confident that jpgordon isn't going to stand for any nonsense, and he's agreed to take responsibility for his mentoring. If someone's been banned for quite some time, expresses a desire to start editing again, and an established, upstanding editor is willing to take responsibility for monitoring his return to Wikipedia, then I'm OK with that. MastCell Talk 16:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I'm all for believing that people can learn and change for the better, but I just can't see this ending well. Nevertheless, if jpgordon is willing to bear the cross of giving it a go, I'm not opposed. Rd232 talk 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be strongly against this were it not for jpgordon's willingness to mentor. However, I very much trust jpgordon's judgment, so I'll support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what's wrong with the email; I think it's pretty clear that it was a misunderstanding of what Jehochman was talking about, and D4D is a bit paranoid thinking that Jeh meant actual hobbies, geography, etc. (personal details) rather than what sort of articles. Given that I've seen some of the positive results from Jpgordon's mentoring in the past, I'm inclined to support. I'm going to hold off in case I've missed anything though in regards to the email etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it was a bit like seeing the future unveiling and shooting himself in the foot...I am extremely doubtful about Jpgordon's offer, but if he is prepared to make it then, good luck to him, I get the feeling he is going to need it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This editor has strong views on various issues, and his return would probably lead to more conflict. TFD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      At most once, for what it's worth. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Agree with TFD. Not worth it. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentative support Several good admins here have indicated they will keep an eagle eye on this guy (who has been blocked for a year now) and send him back to his cell if he returns to his previous approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion - Can we give D4D an article or a few to work on in their userspace and see if they can make suitable improvements? If so, the ban could be dropped and the drafts copied or moved to mainspace. Constructive editing would be impressive. If my presence causes this user stress, I am perfectly happy to ignore, as long as they don't show up at the honeypot articles on my watchlist causing trouble. This discussion is a bit prejudiced. Perhaps a few weeks of userspace editing, and then restart would be best. Jehochman Talk 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

    Group Vandalism Trying to Censor M113 Gavin Facts

    The Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Family was the program ran by U.S. Army LTG James M. Gavin as Chief of Research & Development that created the M113 armored personnel carrier. See Simon Dunstan's book The M113 Series, page 5, Osprey Publishing, London, 1983.

    This fact is being censored by a group of vandals as proven by their bulletin board discussion below:

    http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=19719

    Request that the fact of the M113's LTG Gavin origin be included into its Wiki page and these vandals be identified and blocked from making Wiki page edits. Also request the M113 Gavin Wiki page be protected.

    98.88.212.229 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The last posting on the forum you've linked was dated 20 May 2010. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin matter here; this is the continuation of a lengthy campaign to get a very unofficial nickname for the M113 recognized. IP: if you make further comments like you did here, which violate civility you're likely to have problems. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see fact-value distinction.